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.

There were multiple instances where the US military bombed innocent people based on intelligence they were combatants so there's the fact we know that intelligence isn't perfect. Having said that, we are talking about a completely different situation, those examples are in wartime theaters under wartime rules. Drug mules aren't enemy militaries trying to attack us, they aren't combatants, and though it is referred to as "war on drugs" it is not a wartime situation.

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.

"I have seen zero evidence that this is having any effect on supply"

What sources do you have that are tracking the immediate effects of drug interdiction events?

You think a couple of sunk boats full off drugs is going to have a long term effect on supply?  Prices?

Why do people with TDS expect every solution Trump implements to have an immediate positive impact -- else the solution has failed?

Drug trafficking, the border, the economy, crime, drain the swamp, national security, etc.?

His solutions are not magic pills that erase decades of failures in a day, week or month.  The results have to have time to be observed, and the solutions have to continue before that can happen.

i would think someone who champions logic, objectivity and rational thinking would already know this.

TDS is stronger than common sense.

There were multiple instances where the US military bombed innocent people based on intelligence they were combatants so there's the fact we know that intelligence isn't perfect. Having said that, we are talking about a completely different situation, those examples are in wartime theaters under wartime rules. Drug mules aren't enemy militaries trying to attack us, they aren't combatants, and though it is referred to as "war on drugs" it is not a wartime situation.

Didn't you hear, the war was announced over by GW on the aircraft carrier.  So was it "wartime"?  We never declared war either against Afghanistan (the country).  Yet innocents were killed there and they had no due process when disregarding a check point in a vehicle.

Thanks for playing.

"I have seen zero evidence that this is having any effect on supply"

What sources do you have that are tracking the immediate effects of drug interdiction events?

You think a couple of sunk boats full off drugs is going to have a long term effect on supply?  Prices?

Why do people with TDS expect every solution Trump implements to have an immediate positive impact -- else the solution has failed?

Drug trafficking, the border, the economy, crime, drain the swamp, national security, etc.?

His solutions are not magic pills that erase decades of failures in a day, week or month.  The results have to have time to be observed, and the solutions have to continue before that can happen.

i would think someone who champions logic, objectivity and rational thinking would already know this.

TDS is stronger than common sense.

Maybe EEF expects every single drug to be hit all at the same time, but not to have anyone killed in the process as no due process is given.

Maybe EEF expects every single drug to be hit all at the same time, but not to have anyone killed in the process as no due process is given.

It's like Vampire lore.  Destroy the "head' drug smuggler, and the rest explode instantaneously.

"I have seen zero evidence that this is having any effect on supply"

What sources do you have that are tracking the immediate effects of drug interdiction events?

You think a couple of sunk boats full off drugs is going to have a long term effect on supply?  Prices?

Why do people with TDS expect every solution Trump implements to have an immediate positive impact -- else the solution has failed?

Drug trafficking, the border, the economy, crime, drain the swamp, national security, etc.?

His solutions are not magic pills that erase decades of failures in a day, week or month.  The results have to have time to be observed, and the solutions have to continue before that can happen.

i would think someone who champions logic, objectivity and rational thinking would already know this.

TDS is stronger than common sense.

Ok, I will give you the point that it is too early to gauge the effectiveness, but looking at the past, all the things we have tried over the past 40+ years of the "war on drugs", nothing has stopped the flow of drugs because as long as Americans are buying, someone with by supplying. We see changes in methods of moving drugs and changes in where and how drugs are made so pardon my skepticism that blowing up drug boats is going to make a difference, especially given we already intercept them regularly so it isn't the case that drug boats had free reign until Trump decided to use missiles. If we are going to authorizing the taking of life to stop drugs then we should have evidence it will actually work, that is my position. I don't blame Trump for not solving the drug problem immediately at all, you are trying to shift it to being about Trump when that was never my point, it was about the extrajudicial taking of life when non-lethal methods are tried and true.

You keep avoiding multiple key issues I pose to you and only reply to the easy one.
#1. Trump doesn't have the legal authority for these strikes under law.
#2. Would you be OK with other countries doing this to Americans who are breaking their laws? (Gave you an actual example and a hypothetical)
#3. Lets assume missiles work and Trump has the authority, why not shoot out the motors and seize the boat like the coast guard does all the time? Why take the life of a drug mule when there are other options?

Didn't you hear, the war was announced over by GW on the aircraft carrier.  So was it "wartime"?  We never declared war either against Afghanistan (the country).  Yet innocents were killed there and they had no due process when disregarding a check point in a vehicle.

Thanks for playing.

I didn't say anything about disregarding a checkpoint, I am talking about targeted strikes based on "intelligence"
Thanks for playing.

Ok, I will give you the point that it is too early to gauge the effectiveness, but looking at the past, all the things we have tried over the past 40+ years of the "war on drugs", nothing has stopped the flow of drugs because as long as Americans are buying, someone with by supplying. We see changes in methods of moving drugs and changes in where and how drugs are made so pardon my skepticism that blowing up drug boats is going to make a difference, especially given we already intercept them regularly so it isn't the case that drug boats had free reign until Trump decided to use missiles. If we are going to authorizing the taking of life to stop drugs then we should have evidence it will actually work, that is my position. I don't blame Trump for not solving the drug problem immediately at all, you are trying to shift it to being about Trump when that was never my point, it was about the extrajudicial taking of life when non-lethal methods are tried and true.

You keep avoiding multiple key issues I pose to you and only reply to the easy one.
#1. Trump doesn't have the legal authority for these strikes under law.
Opinions vary. Until there is a specific challenge made by Congress (impeachment) or the Supreme Court (injunction), he can take any action he deems necessary and prudent.  Saying he doesn't have the authority at this stage is both biased (TDS) and not proven (no SCOTUS ruling)

#2. Would you be OK with other countries doing this to Americans who are breaking their laws? (Gave you an actual example and a hypothetical)
What's your evidence that other countries don't already do this?  Whether or not they are acting in a similar manner is a whataboutism.  "What about other countries?"  That's not a valid concern.  We can't control what other countries do/don't do.  How many US citizens are running drugs into foreign countries?  I'm guessing not enough for it to be a problem.

#3. Lets assume missiles work and Trump has the authority, why not shoot out the motors and seize the boat like the coast guard does all the time? Why take the life of a drug mule when there are other options?
What's the percentage of effective engine disabling efforts by the USCG?  I bet it's not anywhere near as high as you think.
have you ever tried to hit a target the size of an inboard or outboard motor?  While in a helicopter going close to 100MPH?  While in a Coast Guard vessel doing the same?  With the target going top speed and making evasive maneuvers?
If you've ever shot skeet, you'll know how much harder it can be to hit a moving target.  And that's with a shotgun!
The drug mule put his own life at risk the minute he boarded the boat loaded with drugs and crossed into US-protected waters.  He then made things worse by refusing to stop when ordered. Do you feel any amount of moral indignation for him being the primary reason the situation on the water exists, or is it only the US military who gets the blame when we take the steps necessary to stop them?

If a man goes into a bank and holds someone hostage, do you blame the Cops for showing up, not letting him leave, and putting a bullet through his head?  I mean, the only option you gave him was surrender and go to prison.  Shooting him in the head without due process and while he's not directly and immediately threatening to kill anyone -- actual gun to the head -- is not playing fair.

I answered your questions.  That's more than you are willing to do most of the time.

I didn't say anything about disregarding a checkpoint, I am talking about targeted strikes based on "intelligence"
Thanks for playing.

Please show me where I said you said anything about disregarding a checkpoint.

When you try to move goal post, facts become hard.  FYI: "intelligence" shows that the ununiformed person in a car who disregarded a check point has a high chance of being a suicide bomber.

Opinions vary. Until there is a specific challenge made by Congress (impeachment) or the Supreme Court (injunction), he can take any action he deems necessary and prudent.  Saying he doesn't have the authority at this stage is both biased (TDS) and not proven (no SCOTUS ruling)

So if the president does something questionable, any reading of the law which says he couldn't do that thing is already biased? Sounds like you already made up your mind (bias)
So lets say SCOTUS rules that Trump broke the law in authorizing the killings, are you going to call for his impeachment or is SCOTUS just a goalpost to be moved back later if you don't get your way there?
On top of that, do you really think it is a good idea for presidents to do whatever they want until a SCOTUS ruling stops them?

What's your evidence that other countries don't already do this?  Whether or not they are acting in a similar manner is a whataboutism.  "What about other countries?"  That's not a valid concern.  We can't control what other countries do/don't do.  How many US citizens are running drugs into foreign countries?  I'm guessing not enough for it to be a problem.

I never argued other countries don't do this, I gave you a specific example where the USSR did what you seemed to condone. The question is meant to challenge the logic of your argument, if you say we can do it then you can't complain if other countries do too. If China blows up a boat bringing in missionaries and Bibles into China, are you going to defend it or are you going to abandon the logic of the argument you made letting us blow up drug boats? Did you have no comment when North Korea basically killed the US Citizen who went to NK and allegedly stole a poster because they can do what they want?

What's the percentage of effective engine disabling efforts by the USCG?  I bet it's not anywhere near as high as you think.
have you ever tried to hit a target the size of an inboard or outboard motor?  While in a helicopter going close to 100MPH?  While in a Coast Guard vessel doing the same?  With the target going top speed and making evasive maneuvers?
If you've ever shot skeet, you'll know how much harder it can be to hit a moving target.  And that's with a shotgun!
The drug mule put his own life at risk the minute he boarded the boat loaded with drugs and crossed into US-protected waters.  He then made things worse by refusing to stop when ordered. Do you feel any amount of moral indignation for him being the primary reason the situation on the water exists, or is it only the US military who gets the blame when we take the steps necessary to stop them?

Trying out a little google-fu
For a 3 year period ending in 2022 there was a 90% success rate for pursuits. What number did you have in mind?
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/06/uscg-discloses-90-interdiction-success-rate-for-pursuits-over-the-last-three-years/

As for the difficulty in shooting at moving targets from a moving target, they have apparently overcome it. Maybe the US Navy doesn't have good marksmen?
BTW, this isn't a "shoot the gun out of their hand" type suggestion, the USCG specifically trains to shoot out the motors and they do so successfully on a regular basis. This "do you know how hard..." isn't a good rebuttal when they have shown they can do it repeatedly.
Here is a video example if you think I am making this up.

If a man goes into a bank and holds someone hostage, do you blame the Cops for showing up, not letting him leave, and putting a bullet through his head?  I mean, the only option you gave him was surrender and go to prison.  Shooting him in the head without due process and while he's not directly and immediately threatening to kill anyone -- actual gun to the head -- is not playing fair.

If a cop walks in finding a man robbing a bank but with no visible weapon, they are generally not going to be able to justify shooting him on the spot.

Please show me where I said you said anything about disregarding a checkpoint.

When you try to move goal post, facts become hard.  FYI: "intelligence" shows that the ununiformed person in a car who disregarded a check point has a high chance of being a suicide bomber.

Arguing to argue, not interest in your games.

So if the president does something questionable, any reading of the law which says he couldn't do that thing is already biased? Sounds like you already made up your mind (bias)
So lets say SCOTUS rules that Trump broke the law in authorizing the killings, are you going to call for his impeachment or is SCOTUS just a goalpost to be moved back later if you don't get your way there?
On top of that, do you really think it is a good idea for presidents to do whatever they want until a SCOTUS ruling stops them?


I never argued other countries don't do this, I gave you a specific example where the USSR did what you seemed to condone. The question is meant to challenge the logic of your argument, if you say we can do it then you can't complain if other countries do too. If China blows up a boat bringing in missionaries and Bibles into China, are you going to defend it or are you going to abandon the logic of the argument you made letting us blow up drug boats? Did you have no comment when North Korea basically killed the US Citizen who went to NK and allegedly stole a poster because they can do what they want?


Trying out a little google-fu
For a 3 year period ending in 2022 there was a 90% success rate for pursuits. What number did you have in mind?
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/06/uscg-discloses-90-interdiction-success-rate-for-pursuits-over-the-last-three-years/

As for the difficulty in shooting at moving targets from a moving target, they have apparently overcome it. Maybe the US Navy doesn't have good marksmen?
BTW, this isn't a "shoot the gun out of their hand" type suggestion, the USCG specifically trains to shoot out the motors and they do so successfully on a regular basis. This "do you know how hard..." isn't a good rebuttal when they have shown they can do it repeatedly.
Here is a video example if you think I am making this up.


If a cop walks in finding a man robbing a bank but with no visible weapon, they are generally not going to be able to justify shooting him on the spot.

I'm not getting into a lengthy hypothetical thought experiment with you.  I know it's all you enjoy doing, but I'm not going down the rabbit hole and waste my entire day.

p.s. "Do you know how had it is to hit a moving target on the water at 100Mph," is not an argument.  It's a question.  Aren't you the one calling Mac out when you used a question mark earlier?  (rhetorical)

Arguing to argue, not interest in your games.

So you can't show me like usual.  I and everyone understands. Thanks for playing.

So if the president does something questionable, any reading of the law which says he couldn't do that thing is already biased? Sounds like you already made up your mind (bias)
So lets say SCOTUS rules that Trump broke the law in authorizing the killings, are you going to call for his impeachment or is SCOTUS just a goalpost to be moved back later if you don't get your way there?
On top of that, do you really think it is a good idea for presidents to do whatever they want until a SCOTUS ruling stops them?


I never argued other countries don't do this, I gave you a specific example where the USSR did what you seemed to condone. The question is meant to challenge the logic of your argument, if you say we can do it then you can't complain if other countries do too. If China blows up a boat bringing in missionaries and Bibles into China, are you going to defend it or are you going to abandon the logic of the argument you made letting us blow up drug boats? Did you have no comment when North Korea basically killed the US Citizen who went to NK and allegedly stole a poster because they can do what they want?


Trying out a little google-fu
For a 3 year period ending in 2022 there was a 90% success rate for pursuits. What number did you have in mind?
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/06/uscg-discloses-90-interdiction-success-rate-for-pursuits-over-the-last-three-years/

As for the difficulty in shooting at moving targets from a moving target, they have apparently overcome it. Maybe the US Navy doesn't have good marksmen?
BTW, this isn't a "shoot the gun out of their hand" type suggestion, the USCG specifically trains to shoot out the motors and they do so successfully on a regular basis. This "do you know how hard..." isn't a good rebuttal when they have shown they can do it repeatedly.
Here is a video example if you think I am making this up.


If a cop walks in finding a man robbing a bank but with no visible weapon, they are generally not going to be able to justify shooting him on the spot.

USCG Discloses 90% Interdiction Success Rate
for Pursuits Over the Last Three Years

Is it your belief that all interdictions by the USCG all invlove shooting at the suspect vehicle's engines?

Read the damn article before posting as a source for a given opinion or assertion.

"Threat high-speed vessels can range from “Go-Fast” drug running boats,
smuggler speedboats, pirate ships, illegal cargo ships, fishing vessels, or
other criminal or even terrorist boats and ships."

"Each maritime pursuit chase is unique, and factors such as ambient lighting
and sea state, target speed and actions, and the target’s proximity to land
directly influence interdiction results. Despite these myriad factors, the Coast
Guard has an approximately 90% interdiction success rate, once starting
pursuit operations, over the last three years. Enhanced pursuit capabilities,
including unmanned aerial surveillance, in combination with changes in pursuit
tactics, like airborne use of force, and refinement of tactical geometry
assessments may have increased the recent level of interdiction success,”
Lieutenant Kneen said.

90%??  Try again.  Maybe Google how to comprehend English before slapping a link in your comments and saying, "For a 3 year period ending in 2022 there was a 90% success rate for pursuits. What number did you have in mind?" when the question was:

"What's the percentage of effective engine disabling efforts by the USCG?  I bet it's not anywhere near as high as you think."

Each pursuit is UNIQUE.  Each of them may or may not present an opportunity to disable the engines.  90%?  LOL!!

The Russians are calling the hot drug war a smokescreen in order to revive the Monroe Doctrine

https://www.rt.com/news/625996-monroe-doctrine-is-back/

It's probably a mixture of truth. The fact that Venezuela was actively participating in the Democrat/CCP gave Trump the perfect excuse to go after their oil.

USCG Discloses 90% Interdiction Success Rate
for Pursuits Over the Last Three Years

Is it your belief that all interdictions by the USCG all invlove shooting at the suspect vehicle's engines?

No.

90%??  Try again.  Maybe Google how to comprehend English before slapping a link in your comments and saying, "For a 3 year period ending in 2022 there was a 90% success rate for pursuits. What number did you have in mind?" when the question was:

"What's the percentage of effective engine disabling efforts by the USCG?  I bet it's not anywhere near as high as you think."

Each pursuit is UNIQUE.  Each of them may or may not present an opportunity to disable the engines.  90%?  LOL!!

I gave the closest thing I could find to an answer on the subject. So far you haven't put up anything other than your assumption that it is not as high as I think. If you have some data about the percentage of times the USCG loses these drug boats or that shooting the engine doesn't work then by all means post it. Otherwise you are just moving the goalpost back because I have shown you that it is possible, that they train for it and the method works. So far you haven't given any concrete reason why a non-lethal approach won't work, just excuses to justify killing the people on the boat.

No.

I gave the closest thing I could find to an answer on the subject. So far you haven't put up anything other than your assumption that it is not as high as I think. If you have some data about the percentage of times the USCG loses these drug boats or that shooting the engine doesn't work then by all means post it. Otherwise you are just moving the goalpost back because I have shown you that it is possible, that they train for it and the method works. So far you haven't given any concrete reason why a non-lethal approach won't work, just excuses to justify killing the people on the boat.

Deflecting your lack off google-fu back on me.   

Deflecting your lack off google-fu back on me.   

Maybe you should lead by example next time. I gave you something which is infinitely greater than the nothing you supported your argument with.

Instead of beating around the bush, moving goalposts, and trying to undermine my position with speculative whataboutism, why not just come out and say you don't care about the lives of those people? You grasp for any argument to justify killing them instead of a non-lethal option even when a non-lethal option could lead to catching the bigger fish, so why not just come out and say that their lives (people not on American soil) don't have much value to you?

Maybe you should lead by example next time. I gave you something which is infinitely greater than the nothing you supported your argument with.

Instead of beating around the bush, moving goalposts, and trying to undermine my position with speculative whataboutism, why not just come out and say you don't care about the lives of those people? You grasp for any argument to justify killing them instead of a non-lethal option even when a non-lethal option could lead to catching the bigger fish, so why not just come out and say that their lives (people not on American soil) don't have much value to you?

Giving me rice when i asked you for steak and potatoes is not fulfilling the request.  You get no points for your irrelevant posts.

This comment shows how you always resort to emotional tantrums when you can't google anything to successfully argue with.

I never said anyone's lives have more or less worth than another's.  However, it's not our place to protect the lives of people from other countries who break our laws, put our military members in harms way, and distribute poison for money.

Those drug runners can just as easily die trying to outrun the Coast Guard with no missiles involved.  They put their own lives in jeopardy.  Why would you put more worth on their lives than the drug runners themselves do?  Just to argue?   

Giving me rice when i asked you for steak and potatoes is not fulfilling the request.  You get no points for your irrelevant posts.

This comment shows how you always resort to emotional tantrums when you can't google anything to successfully argue with.

I never said anyone's lives have more or less worth than another's.  However, it's not our place to protect the lives of people from other countries who break our laws, put our military members in harms way, and distribute poison for money.

Those drug runners can just as easily die trying to outrun the Coast Guard with no missiles involved.  They put their own lives in jeopardy.  Why would you put more worth on their lives than the drug runners themselves do?  Just to argue?   

Can't complaint about my rice when you bought zero facts to the table, just some assertion that it wasn't as many as I thought.

You complain about the facts not being specific enough when in reality you are just distracting from the fact you don't have good answers to the issues I am pointing out.

Who said anything about protecting their lives? Deciding not to murder someone doesn't mean you are protecting them 

Why take extra steps to avoid killing them when we don't have to? Because that is what makes us the best country in the world, that is what separates animals from a civilized society. It is fundamental in the founding documents of the USA. Otherwise we are just a bully, lets just bomb anyone who breaks laws regulating imports so we can "protect America"