No, you need to admit your quote was lacking information or wrong. Refer to my reply.

Gosh you are trying hard for the smallest win. "but what about someone invited for medical care...." Obviously it goes without saying that this doesn't apply to the issue of when the military boarding a drug boat.

hey 5-0, do you not arrest drug dealers because they are selling "a product Americans are wanting to buy"?

So why not let cops kill drug dealers on US soil as well then? The same logic in protecting American lives remains.

Since this was in International waters, and the occupants of the boat are fleeing, and the boat's owners are designated terrorists, the normal tenants of US laws are not applicable.

You have to look up international maritime laws to know if the act is considered justified or not.  Like, if someone is trying to forcibly board your boat and doesn't identify themselves as any government's military or law enforcement agency, you don't have to wait until they shoot at you to use deadly force to repel them.

Still waiting for evidence they were fleeing or had been given an order to stop.

Being designated a terrorist alone doesn't give authority for a lethal strike

This isn't just a legal question, this is a moral one too. Are we as a country/society really saying it is ok to kill someone for a drug crime?

Missionaries are heavily restricted in China, if China found a boat of unapproved Christian missionaries sneaking in bibles, would you be fine with them blowing up the boat, killing all on board?

I wonder if OP feels the same about the Bin laden raid?

We entered Pakistan w/o approval.  Some could see that as an invasion/act of war.

There was no knock on the door, so it was damaged as it was breached.  Holes in the wall from bullets, so even more property damage done.

Others in the compound were shot, unsure if they're AQ or not when the shooting took place.  How would you react if you had an AK and someone in the middle of the night attacked your home.  Esp in the dark where you cannot see.

We stole items from the home as no permission was given.

We left brass and 1 of our helicopters so that's littering.

No due process.

This is fun.

Maybe ask the OP.

Bin Laden was the leader of a group that openly targeted and tried to kill Americans. There are legal gray areas that the USA operated in order to get him but he is hardly comparable to a drug mule who may be just shipping drug bundles so the cartels don't kill his family. Try a little harder to justify killing all those people.

Still waiting for evidence they were fleeing or had been given an order to stop.

Being designated a terrorist alone doesn't give authority for a lethal strike

This isn't just a legal question, this is a moral one too. Are we as a country/society really saying it is ok to kill someone for a drug crime?

Missionaries are heavily restricted in China, if China found a boat of unapproved Christian missionaries sneaking in bibles, would you be fine with them blowing up the boat, killing all on board?

Do your own homework. 

Popping in once or twice a month to respond to posts isn't helping at all -- other than your ego.

Someone has no experience working at that echelon of law enforcement. No insights into the processes what so ever.

Someone has no experience working at that echelon of law enforcement. No insights into the processes what so ever.

And when has that ever mattered to someone?

i've actually worked in this facet of the Coast Guard and Homeland Security.  Someone has no idea whatsoever about the realities involved versus someone's beliefs.

He's demanding evidence of this or that.  i guarantee most of that is classified to protect sources and methods.  A lot of what we did involved covert methods that i can't get into, but it's everything from drone surveillance and human reporting to electronic eaves dropping. It's real 007 type  stuff.

If we sent a missile to blow up a drug runner's boat, I can guarantee we were 100% sure they were running drugs on that specific go-fast.

Many boats intercepted was sunk by the operators.  They have plugged holes in the hull so that if intercepted, they could quickly pull the plugs to sink the boat and drugs -- no evidence recovered.  The sinking boat had time to disappear because, when people are in the water, the mission to intercept ends, and the US boat is required to rescue all survivors instead.  The bad guys know all this.  They would rather lose a single boat's shipment which is probably going to be seized anyway than have their people put in prison for drug charges.

A go-fast boat is a small, fast powerboat designed with a long narrow platform
and a planing hull. Depending on definitions used, it is either a speedboat
(synonymously) or a certain type of speedboat.

During the United States alcohol prohibition era, these boats were used in
"rum-running", transferring illegal liquor from larger vessels waiting outside
US territorial waters to the mainland. Their high speed enabled them to avoid
interception by the law enforcement. The present conception of such boats is
based largely on designs by Donald Aronow for offshore powerboat racing in
the 1960s. During this period, these boats were also used by drug smugglers
to transfer drugs across the Caribbean to the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go-fast_boat

"Indeed, it is a very learnable knowledge base, I only hope it is actually taught to a certain minimum for any Guardsmen tasked with such a mission.

The National Guard is commonly called up for natural disasters and large level protests, but not so often to enforce criminal law.

One would hope the Guard learned the lessons from the Kent State Massacre."

i see TWO declarative statements
and you were told IN THE VERY NEXT POST what the duties of the NG were
and i made 2 posts later illustrating what the EXACT duties of the NG were
and all you only admitted you were wrong about the 30 days
never ONCE did you mention about any "conditional statement' until now
cannot move goalposts if you never even take the field...

I didn't use the word "if" but it was a conditional statement. It is inherent to the statement. If no guardsmen are tasked with that duty then it is a moot point, I don't need the word "if" to be in there.

Maybe ask the OP.

Bin Laden was the leader of a group that openly targeted and tried to kill Americans. There are legal gray areas that the USA operated in order to get him but he is hardly comparable to a drug mule who may be just shipping drug bundles so the cartels don't kill his family. Try a little harder to justify killing all those people.

Hahahahha he fell for it.

Maybe ask the OP.

Bin Laden was the leader of a group that openly targeted and tried to kill Americans. There are legal gray areas that the USA operated in order to get him but he is hardly comparable to a drug mule who may be just shipping drug bundles so the cartels don't kill his family. Try a little harder to justify killing all those people.

Hahahahha he fell for it.

Drug cartels don't target Americans nor have they ever killed an American -- not with their products and not with violence.

My keyboard almost burst into flames typing that!   

It doesn't matter if the boat crew are peasants working for the cartels or cartel leaders themselves.  Bin Laden is not the only terrorist we killed in his organization.  We took out as many leaders as we could find, and those doing the work on the ground as well.

Guilt by association.  If you're complicit in facilitating the crimes, you're a target.

So, running drugs is the only solution to having family threatened?  isn't this the definition of what asylum is for?  Go to an embassy and apply.  Have your family relocated to a country that can protect them.  Breaking the law is not the only answer to coercion.

Do your own homework. 

Popping in once or twice a month to respond to posts isn't helping at all -- other than your ego.

You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. Don't use that bit as part of the justification for the strike then expect me to do the work to support your argument.

Are you the post frequency nazi police now? I can't come here and have discussions unless I do so at a level of regularity you approve of?

You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. Don't use that bit as part of the justification for the strike then expect me to do the work to support your argument.

Are you the post frequency nazi police now? I can't come here and have discussions unless I do so at a level of regularity you approve of?

There's no "burden of proof" on the Internet.

You should have learned that by now.  You demonstrate this many, many times when you can't offer up sources to support your conclusions.

If you can't take the time to learn before posting BS opinions, don't look to the rest of us to do it for you.  Not our "burden" to spoon feed you what is readily accessible to everyone.

Drug cartels don't target Americans nor have they ever killed an American -- not with their products and not with violence.

My keyboard almost burst into flames typing that!   

It doesn't matter if the boat crew are peasants working for the cartels or cartel leaders themselves.  Bin Laden is not the only terrorist we killed in his organization.  We took out as many leaders as we could find, and those doing the work on the ground as well.

Guilt by association.  If you're complicit in facilitating the crimes, you're a target.

So, running drugs is the only solution to having family threatened?  isn't this the definition of what asylum is for?  Go to an embassy and apply.  Have your family relocated to a country that can protect them.  Breaking the law is not the only answer to coercion.

Drug mules aren't terrorists no matter what Daddy Trump tells you.

Drug cartels "target" Americans with their products? Yeah, Americans are just victims here, drug dealers coming in and forcing us to take the drugs 

You keep trying to change the nature of the argument here. I am not excusing the actions of the cartels or the drug runners, nor am I saying we can never use lethal force against them. I am saying it is wrong to summarily execute them for the crime of bringing drugs into the country. Every whataboutism argument you have presented is avoiding that ethical question, you just seek to justify Trump's order. 

You say the product is killing Americans, so are you blaming an inanimate object (drug)?

There's no "burden of proof" on the Internet.

You should have learned that by now.  You demonstrate this many, many times when you can't offer up sources to support your conclusions.

If you can't take the time to learn before posting BS opinions, don't look to the rest of us to do it for you.  Not our "burden" to spoon feed you what is readily accessible to everyone.

Back pedaling hard there. Can't even support your own opinion.

Drug mules aren't terrorists no matter what Daddy Trump tells you.

Drug cartels "target" Americans with their products? Yeah, Americans are just victims here, drug dealers coming in and forcing us to take the drugs 

You keep trying to change the nature of the argument here. I am not excusing the actions of the cartels or the drug runners, nor am I saying we can never use lethal force against them. I am saying it is wrong to summarily execute them for the crime of bringing drugs into the country. Every whataboutism argument you have presented is avoiding that ethical question, you just seek to justify Trump's order. 

You say the product is killing Americans, so are you blaming an inanimate object (drug)?

Nobody is being summarily executed by our forces.  You're confusing them with the drug cartels (which you ARE defending here) who summarily execute their opponents, competition and anyone they feel is a threat to their operation.

You're making a very simple concept overly complex. 

The evidence you demand LIKE I ALREADY TOLD YOU would reveal sources and methods of collection.  You can hold your breath demanding i give you something I promise you exists for all I care.  Nobody is saying "hello" to our little friend, the missile, unless the evidence is available to those with a need to know and which is indisputable.  That much i know happens from direct experience.

Nobody is being summarily executed by our forces.  You're confusing them with the drug cartels (which you ARE defending here) who summarily execute their opponents, competition and anyone they feel is a threat to their operation.

You're making a very simple concept overly complex. 

The evidence you demand LIKE I ALREADY TOLD YOU would reveal sources and methods of collection.  You can hold your breath demanding i give you something I promise you exists for all I care.  Nobody is saying "hello" to our little friend, the missile, unless the evidence is available to those with a need to know and which is indisputable.  That much i know happens from direct experience.

Blowing up a boat moving drugs is summarily executing them. They sure as heck aren't alive, they sure as heck didn't receive any semblance of a hearing/trial, and it wasn't done in accordance with the powers Trump legally has. Sounds a lot like a summary execution.

I am not defending the cartels, I am upholding principles that make our country great, I am not sure why that eludes you.

I never demanded that the government produce every bit of classified detail, cut it with the strawman. You made the comment about refusing to stop but now refuse to say how YOU knew they refused to stop. Like I said, if the military says their intelligence thoroughly verified they were drug runners then I take them at their word. I am not questioning what the military knew here, if I was the structure of my argument would look much different. I am challenging you on your defense of the decision to blow up the boat instead of intercepting it like the coast guard routinely does. You countered with the argument about them running and refusing to stop with no pointing to any evidence to support that this was the case.

You have also never given any good reason why a non-lethal method wasn't tried first.

Blowing up a boat moving drugs is summarily executing them. They sure as heck aren't alive, they sure as heck didn't receive any semblance of a hearing/trial, and it wasn't done in accordance with the powers Trump legally has. Sounds a lot like a summary execution.

I am not defending the cartels, I am upholding principles that make our country great, I am not sure why that eludes you.

I never demanded that the government produce every bit of classified detail, cut it with the strawman. You made the comment about refusing to stop but now refuse to say how YOU knew they refused to stop. Like I said, if the military says their intelligence thoroughly verified they were drug runners then I take them at their word. I am not questioning what the military knew here, if I was the structure of my argument would look much different. I am challenging you on your defense of the decision to blow up the boat instead of intercepting it like the coast guard routinely does. You countered with the argument about them running and refusing to stop with no pointing to any evidence to support that this was the case.

You have also never given any good reason why a non-lethal method wasn't tried first.

Let's for the sake of argument stipulate there was no prior command given to stop their engines, no warning to stop or be fired upon, no instructions to prepare to be boarded for inspection, etc. 

So what?  As I said the boat was thoroughly investigated and vetted to be a drug smuggling vessel carrying large amounts of illegal drugs or precursors for distribution in the US and other nations.

if the US policy is to use any means necessary against this national security threat, it's no different than sinking a boat that's wandered into restricted waters or an aircraft that's in restricted airspace.  If you're unarmed and driving your car toward the gates of a military base, and nobody is yelling for you to stop, so you think the gate guard is going to jail for shooting you dead before you can reach them?  You could be sight-seeing or just followed some screwed-up directions on your crappy GPS device.  As long as you continue without communicating your intentions and complying with instructions, you're a threat -- and that makes you a target.

If fair warning is given beforehand (the base has signs saying use of deadly force is authorized), then you really can't blame anyone but yourself for making your life end abruptly.  Same with the boats.  If ample warning is given to the cartels and the drug-smuggling countries at large that the US will sink any vessels we know is smuggling drugs regardless of how many mules lose their lives, the ball is literally in their court. 

You can say the crews may be trying to save their families from Cartels by agreeing to smuggle drugs under coercion, but that's not our problem.  Those civilian shield tactics play on our good nature to save the innocent, but we shouldn't avoid doing what's responsible because of other's bad acts.  If someone has your wife tied up being held hostage, and the bad guys tell you to go rob a bank for them or they will kill her, do you honestly think the Cops who respond are going to just let you go having heard your excuse?  Will they not use lethal force if you try to flee?

It's been said many times that the war on drugs failed because we can't stop the drugs from coming in, so we need to eliminate the demand.  Then the supply will dry up in response.

Well, here's someone actually showing one method of stopping the supply in transit, and people are gnashing their teeth in response.

I guess we just do nothing -- as usual -- and tell our kids to always have some Naloxone handy.

Let's for the sake of argument stipulate there was no prior command given to stop their engines, no warning to stop or be fired upon, no instructions to prepare to be boarded for inspection, etc. 

So what?  As I said the boat was thoroughly investigated and vetted to be a drug smuggling vessel carrying large amounts of illegal drugs or precursors for distribution in the US and other nations.

if the US policy is to use any means necessary against this national security threat, it's no different than sinking a boat that's wandered into restricted waters or an aircraft that's in restricted airspace.  If you're unarmed and driving your car toward the gates of a military base, and nobody is yelling for you to stop, so you think the gate guard is going to jail for shooting you dead before you can reach them?  You could be sight-seeing or just followed some screwed-up directions on your crappy GPS device.  As long as you continue without communicating your intentions and complying with instructions, you're a threat -- and that makes you a target.

If fair warning is given beforehand (the base has signs saying use of deadly force is authorized), then you really can't blame anyone but yourself for making your life end abruptly.  Same with the boats.  If ample warning is given to the cartels and the drug-smuggling countries at large that the US will sink any vessels we know is smuggling drugs regardless of how many mules lose their lives, the ball is literally in their court. 

You can say the crews may be trying to save their families from Cartels by agreeing to smuggle drugs under coercion, but that's not our problem.  Those civilian shield tactics play on our good nature to save the innocent, but we shouldn't avoid doing what's responsible because of other's bad acts.  If someone has your wife tied up being held hostage, and the bad guys tell you to go rob a bank for them or they will kill her, do you honestly think the Cops who respond are going to just let you go having heard your excuse?  Will they not use lethal force if you try to flee?

It's been said many times that the war on drugs failed because we can't stop the drugs from coming in, so we need to eliminate the demand.  Then the supply will dry up in response.

Well, here's someone actually showing one method of stopping the supply in transit, and people are gnashing their teeth in response.

I guess we just do nothing -- as usual -- and tell our kids to always have some Naloxone handy.

You also left out all those vehicles with non uniformed military that were taken out in Iraq and A-stan over the past decades.  Looks like a civilian driver as no uniform was visible.  They too lacked due process and were executed for not stopping their vehicle.  There is no way to know if the driver was a terrorist or not either until after the fact.

You also left out all those vehicles with non uniformed military that were taken out in Iraq and A-stan over the past decades.  Looks like a civilian driver as no uniform was visible.  They too lacked due process and were executed for not stopping their vehicle.  There is no way to know if the driver was a terrorist or not either until after the fact.

This is why declaring the cartels terrorist organizations is important.  we now have more latitude with which to stop their activities including directed munitions.

If we could do this within the drug cartels' countries, we would.  But, the sad fact is many of those country's governments are controlled by those criminals wither directly or covertly.  We get promises from those countries they will crack down on the production and flow of narcotics, but it never happens to any significant degree.

We can't wait until they enter the US, because catching them becomes harder as they hide among the homes and businesses here.

Personally, if I were Trump, i would have taken a page from James Bond 007 and created a ship like in The Spy Who Loved Me..  Have a cargo ship situated in the path of the drug runners.  Use drones to neutralize the boat and crew, then capture them both, boat and all, inside the well-disguised cargo ship which is actually a floating harbor.  The boat gets seized for its monetary value.  The drugs are seized and destroyed.  And the crew are sent to Gitmo and interrogated.  With all the evidence obtained, they could also be tried, convicted, extradited to their homes and/or put in prison for 10 years.   

The go-fasts are often modified with trackers and remote receivers that can disable them and then resold to people needing them to run drugs.  Another way to grab them without destroying the whole thing. 

As boats start mysteriously disappearing from the water, the cartels will have to change methods or stop using the waterways at all for transporting druggs.

Maybe this can be the new Bermuda Triangle?   

Let's for the sake of argument stipulate there was no prior command given to stop their engines, no warning to stop or be fired upon, no instructions to prepare to be boarded for inspection, etc. 

So what?  As I said the boat was thoroughly investigated and vetted to be a drug smuggling vessel carrying large amounts of illegal drugs or precursors for distribution in the US and other nations.

if the US policy is to use any means necessary against this national security threat, it's no different than sinking a boat that's wandered into restricted waters or an aircraft that's in restricted airspace.  If you're unarmed and driving your car toward the gates of a military base, and nobody is yelling for you to stop, so you think the gate guard is going to jail for shooting you dead before you can reach them?  You could be sight-seeing or just followed some screwed-up directions on your crappy GPS device.  As long as you continue without communicating your intentions and complying with instructions, you're a threat -- and that makes you a target.

If fair warning is given beforehand (the base has signs saying use of deadly force is authorized), then you really can't blame anyone but yourself for making your life end abruptly.  Same with the boats.  If ample warning is given to the cartels and the drug-smuggling countries at large that the US will sink any vessels we know is smuggling drugs regardless of how many mules lose their lives, the ball is literally in their court. 

You can say the crews may be trying to save their families from Cartels by agreeing to smuggle drugs under coercion, but that's not our problem.  Those civilian shield tactics play on our good nature to save the innocent, but we shouldn't avoid doing what's responsible because of other's bad acts.  If someone has your wife tied up being held hostage, and the bad guys tell you to go rob a bank for them or they will kill her, do you honestly think the Cops who respond are going to just let you go having heard your excuse?  Will they not use lethal force if you try to flee?

It's been said many times that the war on drugs failed because we can't stop the drugs from coming in, so we need to eliminate the demand.  Then the supply will dry up in response.

Well, here's someone actually showing one method of stopping the supply in transit, and people are gnashing their teeth in response.

I guess we just do nothing -- as usual -- and tell our kids to always have some Naloxone handy.

Lets say, for the sake of argument that the boat was thoroughly investigated and vetted to be carrying large amounts of drugs to the USA. (I say this because we will never get an answer to how they knew this but we know that intelligence doesn't have a perfect record)

You say it is no different than downing a plane that wanders into restricted airspace. In 1983 the USSR shot down a Korean Airliner going from Alaska to Korea that had accidentally entered Soviet airspace killing 269 people including a US congressman. The USSR admitted shooting it down because they believed it to be a US spy plane. The logic of your statement suggests this was a legitimate use of force, is that your position?  I posed the question earlier to you of American missionaries sneaking bibles into China, if China blew up an American boat, killing a dozen Americans, with the argument that Christianity represented a national threat to China, would you shrug your shoulders and defend China's rights to defend itself?

As I said many pages ago, if the boat was given clear warnings to stop and it was evident that forces would be unable to intercept the boat (helicopter running out of fuel and would lose track of the boat for example) then I would consider a lethal force option, especially if actually in US waters. Even then though, what happens if we were wrong? What happens if it is a boat of innocent people fleeing Venezuela to go to another country? It is not our problem if these people are being forced to smuggle drugs you say. Let me ask you this, is America the greatest country on Earth because we have the biggest military or is it because of our values and legal principles?  The difference that makes us the best country in the world used to be that we would attempt to capture instead of merely kill.

If I rob a bank to save my wife's life and I flee when the cops show up they can't shoot me for fleeing. There is SCOTUS case law on the issue of deadly force against a fleeing felon.

You say this is one method of reducing the supply, I have seen zero evidence that this is having any effect on supply, at best it might have a small effect on drug prices. The USA used to have a problem with meth labs but the number has gone way down. Do you know why? Because it was cheaper to make in Mexico and bring into the USA. So lets say bombing drug mules actually does have an effect on supply, what do you think is going to happen? Demand doesn't go away, people will start making it in the USA again.