Venezuela

[ll74]

Fuck off swill bait.

Do you get your fentanyl from the Venezuelans or from the dude on the corner?

 

[HisArpy]

If you read up on it a bit, you'll see that Jefferson was very careful not to stray from the mandate given by Congress. He asked for and was granted authoritity by Congress for his actions. You know, the way these things should be handled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

He didn't have to ask in the first place but asking is called "being polite."

 

[Rotadom]

Feel free to read the article I linked to if the graph is too difficult to understand. You might learn something

He's not good with words and facts.

 

[Rotadom]

Do you get your fentanyl from the Venezuelans or from the dude on the corner?

That is very conflicted. He hates fentanyl because it's taken out so many of his family members but his hero president just pardoned a narco terrorist.

 

[DeluxAuto]

And even the Congress has no power to legislate away the President's core Article II plenary authority. DA is ignorant of the fact that Thomas Jefferson, a founding father, sent the Navy into the Mediterranean, invaded Derna, killed Barbary pirates, and launched America’s first overseas regime-change operation, conveniently skipping the whole ‘declaration of war’ formality. The Founders weren’t quite allergic to executive freelancing and brought no actions as to the unconstitutionality of his actions.

Perhaps you can help him finally find in the PDF what I asked for - which claims is in there. Until then, you're both ignorant lying dipshits, Jack.

 

[HisArpy]

He's not good with words and facts.

So you claim but so far you've failed to produce any evidence except your own failure at being intelligent.

 

[Rightguide]

If you disagree with someone's politics and they tell you it's raining, all the screaming you might do that the sun is shining (when it isn't) won't make the rain stop. You've agreed that the boat was blown up by a drone from the USA military, with a follow-up strike that killed two people clinging to wreckage floating in the sea.

The Law of War Manual used by your own country explains on page 453, “After each engagement, parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked at sea, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled.”

For your information:

• ForMembers of non-state armed groups, terrorists, or other “unlawful/unprivileged combatants” generally do not qualify as lawful combatants under the law of war. OUP Law+2ICRC+2
• Because they are not lawful combatants, they lose the combatant privilege (which protects lawful combatants from criminal prosecution for mere participation in hostilities). Guide Humanitarian Law+2Casebook+2
• As a result, terrorists remain lawful targets throughout their participation in hostilities — unlike civilians or protected persons. Casebook+2Cambridge University Press & Assessment+2
• Upon capture, such persons may be detained — but not treated as prisoners of war (POWs) under the protections that the POW status confers. OUP Law+2Cambridge University Press & Assessment+2

In reference to the law of War link you just provided I had it scanned by AI with the following result:

• There is no clause saying that “designated terrorists” enjoy a permanent shield or immunity simply by virtue of their designation under domestic law (e.g., as “terrorists”).
• There is no recognition of “terrorist” as a protected combatant category under the Manual.
• There is no special “terrorist protection regime.” The Manual’s protections are built around status (combatant, civilian) or conduct (direct participation in hostilities) — not labels or designations made by civilian authorities.

Summary:

The law of war — as codified in the DoD Manual and under modern international humanitarian law — does not “protect terrorists” simply because they are labeled “terrorists.” On the contrary: once someone is part of a non-state armed group or directly participates in hostilities, they are generally treated as unlawful combatants — targetable in combat and not entitled to POW protections.

The only rules that apply uniformly — such as the presumption of civilian status and prohibition on attacking civilians — are about civilians and combatants, not about “terrorists” as a separate class.

 

[ll74]

Seriously.....AI makes lazy people think they're smart.

 

[icanhelp1]

No one said there was any fentanyl on that boat. We're talking about cocaine.

I never wrote fentanyl was on the boats, we don't know. So you're OK with with cocaine and meth. Take out all the drug runners.

If some USA citizens are too stupid to quit taking cocaine, then we've got a demand problem, not a supply problem. Are we also gonna bomb boats carrying untaxed booze or horse dewormer?

It's both demand and supply.

The Pig simply wants a pretext for regime change in Venezuela. This has nothing to do with stopping the stupid Americans from snorting blow.

Regime change would be a good thing. American snorting blow is an unfortunate problem but we could stiffen penalties for dealers and runners.

Your TDS is shining brightly today.

 

[HisArpy]

For your information:

• ForMembers of non-state armed groups, terrorists, or other “unlawful/unprivileged combatants” generally do not qualify as lawful combatants under the law of war. OUP Law+2ICRC+2
• Because they are not lawful combatants, they lose the combatant privilege (which protects lawful combatants from criminal prosecution for mere participation in hostilities). Guide Humanitarian Law+2Casebook+2
• As a result, terrorists remain lawful targets throughout their participation in hostilities — unlike civilians or protected persons. Casebook+2Cambridge University Press & Assessment+2
• Upon capture, such persons may be detained — but not treated as prisoners of war (POWs) under the protections that the POW status confers. OUP Law+2Cambridge University Press & Assessment+2

In reference to the law of War link you just provided I had it scanned by AI with the following result:

• There is no clause saying that “designated terrorists” enjoy a permanent shield or immunity simply by virtue of their designation under domestic law (e.g., as “terrorists”).
• There is no recognition of “terrorist” as a protected combatant category under the Manual.
• There is no special “terrorist protection regime.” The Manual’s protections are built around status (combatant, civilian) or conduct (direct participation in hostilities) — not labels or designations made by civilian authorities.

Summary:

The law of war — as codified in the DoD Manual and under modern international humanitarian law — does not “protect terrorists” simply because they are labeled “terrorists.” On the contrary: once someone is part of a non-state armed group or directly participates in hostilities, they are generally treated as unlawful combatants — targetable in combat and not entitled to POW protections.

The only rules that apply uniformly — such as the presumption of civilian status and prohibition on attacking civilians — are about civilians and combatants, not about “terrorists” as a separate class.

She's trying to make it seem like those terrorists were just innocent fishing persons instead of drug running terrorist cartel members.

 

[ll74]

She's trying to make it seem like those terrorists were just innocent fishing persons instead of drug running terrorist cartel members.

Is she?

Maybe Reichy can run it through his AI algorithm and tell us

 

[icanhelp1]

Do you get your fentanyl from the Venezuelans or from the dude on the corner?

You're an idiot!

 

[ll74]

You're an idiot!

The Trump cock in your mouth .makes it difficult to understand.

Can you take it out and restate your position?

 

[Rightguide]

Seriously.....AI makes lazy people think they're smart.

I’m not lazy, I just don’t have the free time required to sift through a novella so I can prove something everyone with a functioning intellect already knows. Maybe the guy who posted the link should try reading it himself before firing off that asinine claim.

 

[ll74]

I’m not lazy, I just don’t have the free time required to sift through a novella so I can prove something everyone with a functioning intellect already knows. Maybe the guy who posted the link should try reading it himself before firing off that asinine claim.

Of course you aren't

 

[icanhelp1]

For your information:

• ForMembers of non-state armed groups, terrorists, or other “unlawful/unprivileged combatants” generally do not qualify as lawful combatants under the law of war. OUP Law+2ICRC+2
• Because they are not lawful combatants, they lose the combatant privilege (which protects lawful combatants from criminal prosecution for mere participation in hostilities). Guide Humanitarian Law+2Casebook+2
• As a result, terrorists remain lawful targets throughout their participation in hostilities — unlike civilians or protected persons. Casebook+2Cambridge University Press & Assessment+2
• Upon capture, such persons may be detained — but not treated as prisoners of war (POWs) under the protections that the POW status confers. OUP Law+2Cambridge University Press & Assessment+2

In reference to the law of War link you just provided I had it scanned by AI with the following result:

• There is no clause saying that “designated terrorists” enjoy a permanent shield or immunity simply by virtue of their designation under domestic law (e.g., as “terrorists”).
• There is no recognition of “terrorist” as a protected combatant category under the Manual.
• There is no special “terrorist protection regime.” The Manual’s protections are built around status (combatant, civilian) or conduct (direct participation in hostilities) — not labels or designations made by civilian authorities.

Summary:

The law of war — as codified in the DoD Manual and under modern international humanitarian law — does not “protect terrorists” simply because they are labeled “terrorists.” On the contrary: once someone is part of a non-state armed group or directly participates in hostilities, they are generally treated as unlawful combatants — targetable in combat and not entitled to POW protections.

The only rules that apply uniformly — such as the presumption of civilian status and prohibition on attacking civilians — are about civilians and combatants, not about “terrorists” as a separate class.

The looney tunes want to make the drug boat issue a law enforcement issue. I believe it only becomes a law enforcement issue if the targets are within US territorial waters.

 

[ll74]

The looney tunes want to make the drug boat issue a law enforcement issue. I believe it only becomes a law enforcement issue if the targets are within US territorial waters.

Yah, obviously there is no reason to question the legality of blowing up random people.

We should just be fine with shit like that.

Here's some popcorn, Jerry.

 

[Rightguide]

She's trying to make it seem like those terrorists were just innocent fishing persons instead of drug running terrorist cartel members.

She/he has no idea of the layers of intelligence and command authority that go into one of these operations.

 

[icanhelp1]

The Trump cock in your mouth .makes it difficult to understand.

Can you take it out and restate your position?

Swill bait, your head is too far up Biden's ass! It's amazing you haven't passed out from hypoxia.
IDIOT!

 

[ll74]

She/he has no idea of the layers of intelligence and command authority that go into one of these operations.

Oh, how witty.

 

[ll74]

Swill bait, your head is too far up Biden's ass! It's amazing you haven't passed out from hypoxia.
IDIOT!

Again, maybe also remove Putin's cock and Hegseth's cock.

You really just aren't making sense.

 

[coati]

I never wrote fentanyl was on the boats, we don't know. So you're OK with with cocaine and meth. Take out all the drug runners.

It's both demand and supply.

Regime change would be a good thing. American snorting blow is an unfortunate problem but we could stiffen penalties for dealers and runners.

^^^A MAGAt talks about his need for a nanny state.

Here's a thought-- if you don't want to deal with the consequences of consuming street drugs, either don't start taking them or get treatment if you are already addicted.

Oh, and avoid consuming ant poison or antifreeze.

 

[icanhelp1]

Yah, obviously there is no reason to question the legality of blowing up random people.

We should just be fine with shit like that.

Here's some popcorn, Jerry.

That fact you believe they're random people just supports my premise that you're an idiot.

 

[Rightguide]

The looney tunes want to make the drug boat issue a law enforcement issue. I believe it only becomes a law enforcement issue if the targets are within US territorial waters.

Apparently, understanding jurisdiction, especially the part where they don’t have it, is just too burdensome for them.

 

[ll74]

That fact you believe they're random people just supports my premise that you're an idiot.

I don't believe that.

So probably your first issue.