politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The US isn't supposed to execute people for smuggling cocaine.
You shouldn't just be able to call them enemy combatants if they're not even combatants. Words are supposed to have meanings.
By the logic that you can just call things whatever you want and then you're magically allowed to treat them as that thing, then why not just call them "fish" and say that the American military was just "fishing"? That makes just as much sense to me as what they did.
They're being very specific with the language, calling them "narco-terrorists".
I reread the article and it doesn't mention "narco-terrorists." It's about calling them combatants. Although I misremembered when I said "enemy combatants." It's "unlawful combatants."
So the article is about that, as well as about what you're even allowed to do or say about people who are clinging to flotsam and jetsam after a shipwreck.
I think calling them "narco-terrorists" wouldn't give the military enough legal reason to murder those people as they had been illegally ordered to do.
That is correct. You are supposed to pardon them.
The US has been using this kind of logic since Sept 12 2001 (arc)
A lot more good information and history in that article, but the important point is that because they're not soldiers (i.e. lawful combatants), they don't get Geneva Convention protection, but because they're not criminals either they don't get due process protection either. It's a completely blatant and stupid way to just ditch all the humanitarian guardrails around government violence we spent the 20th century building, it was fucked 20 years ago and it's fucked today but we never held the people doing it accountable so here we are.
I agree, but it's also consistent with how the US operates. Through Afghanistan's and Iraq, anyone appearing as a military-aged male in the vicinity of an operation (e.g. a village where insurgents were shooting from) was labeled an enemy combatant and treated as valid targets.
I don't think it's consistent with your example, because nobody in or near the boats was an insurgent. I'm not saying that it's not similar, just that it's a clear divergence. They don't have any pretense that anybody on or near the boat was planning to attack them.
I agree, I'm separating the justification of the engagement from how they label people. So the parallel I'm drawing only has to do with how they loosely label people as part of a group based on broad characteristics once they decide a group can be a valid military target, i.e. "insurgents" or "narco-terrorists".
Declaring drug smugglers as valid military targets is certainly new, but ordering strikes on military targets on the thin rationale of "hey, they look like the group we said we can hit" is not new for the US military.
If it's not obvious, I disagree with both of these issues.
Especially not true if the second strike. It’s such a farce to claim “they’re still trafficking” when it is just a few survivors out in the ocean clinging to the wreckage
I think it echoes that video of those two Apache crews blowing up civilians in Baghdad and then targetting people who came to help the injured. One of the most chilling parts of that video was probably how casually routine it all seemed. Can only imagine what footage existed that never got leaked.