Hegseth boat strike (Trump administration brewing)

[Syne]

Again, some people have memory issues, as it's already been pointed out that only people within US jurisdiction have the right to due process.

Hegseth never saw the survivors nor gave any second order to kill them. Those in the field acted on their own judgement. If you want to go after rank and file military, it just proves lefties don't like our servicemen.

[Magical Realist]

Again, some people have memory issues, as it's already been pointed out that only people within US jurisdiction have the right to due process.

Wrong. It's also a human right under international law.

"If you are accused of a crime, you have the right to a fair trial to determine whether you are innocent or guilty. This is an internationally recognised human right."--- https://www.fairtrials.org/the-right-to-a-fair-trial/

Hegseth never saw the survivors nor gave any second order to kill them.

He committed murder when he issued the order to kill everyone in the boat. As did all who followed that unlawful order. And there's no statute of limitations on murder. They're all fucked, but the brunt of the sentence should rest on Hogsweat since the order started with him.

[Syne]

If only some people understood what they cited. A "fair trial" only applies to people within the jurisdiction of the country bringing charges. No country has jurisdiction in international waters.

Hegseth ordered a lethal strike, which has been done by many administrations, both Republican and Democrat. Obama even ordered lethal drone strikes on US citizens.

Yes, the Obama administration authorized drone strikes that killed U.S. citizens, most notably Anwar al-Awlaki in 2011 and his son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in 2011. Other U.S. citizens were also killed in what the administration called "mistakes," including two American hostages in Pakistan in 2015, for which President Obama apologized. The administration established a policy requiring presidential approval for lethal strikes against U.S. citizens outside of active combat zones and publicly acknowledged these targeted killings while also addressing the issue of civilian casualties in general drone strikes.

Targeted Killings of U.S. Citizens:

Anwar al-Awlaki: A U.S. citizen and al-Qaeda leader, he was killed by a drone strike in Yemen in 2011. His death was a major point of controversy and sparked legal debate over the executive branch's power to target and kill American citizens.
Abdulrahman al-Awlaki: Anwar al-Awlaki's son, also a U.S. citizen, was killed in a separate drone strike in Yemen just days after his father.
Adam Gadahn: An American who became a spokesman for al-Qaeda, was killed in a 2015 drone strike.
- Google AI

Whether ignorance or long term memory just as bad as short term, history is clear. These lethal strike targets would have had the right to due process, as US citizens. So Hegseth is only as "fucked" as Obama is. 9_9

[Magical Realist]

A "fair trial" only applies to people within the jurisdiction of the country bringing charges. No country has jurisdiction in international waters.

Doesn't matter. It is a guaranteed right under international law for all even those in international waters:

"The right to a fair trial is a core human right protected by international treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Application at sea: This right applies to all individuals, including those on vessels in international waters."

Hegseth ordered a lethal strike, which has been done by many administrations, both Republican and Democrat.

Yep..an illegal order to kill civilians in boats. We all know the story. It's a matter of fact.

[Syne]

Trial rights in international waters hinge upon being detained/captured and their home jurisdiction, unless they are not flying a flag... in which case it is presumed they are trying to evade jurisdiction for piracy, drug/human trafficking, etc.. But enemy combatants are always valid targets.

When is Obama going to be prosecuted? @_@

[stryder]

Hypothetical points:

An encoded message is sent for drugs to be delivered through a cartel source, destination US.
Bitcoins are sent in advance for some of the cost to get the shipment moved.
The boat gets blown up.

If a government was to utilize it's seized bitcoins to trigger drug purchases so as to target the vessels when they are sent, it would technically be entrapment.

A Cartel enlists the help of a local fisherman by kidnapping their family at gunpoint to do the job of making a delivery in the fishermans boat.
The boat the fisherman is using get targetted by the US Navy and blow to smithers (possibly with a double tap) all lives lost.
The Cartel kills the family as they are no use now as hostages.

The question is when there is victims involved or victims of collateral damage.

Another Hypothetical:

Boat gets blasted, the alleged Fentanyl on board is blasted over the side.
Some finds it's way into the food chain.

This could cause Fentanyl poisoning to those that eat fish as well as wildlife. Fentanyl should be captured properly and disposed of properly to make sure there is no risk of poisoning.

Costs per day in manpower: circa $1,500,000 (4070 for the carrier compliment and possibly 100 for intelligence)
Each hellfire missile used is circa $165,000.
Costs missing: Fuel/spares and repairs

So over likely over $1,665,000 per boat *if per day*. (There could be further costs for any legal challenges, reparation, and other damages)
Seizing the boats would at least allow the resale of the boat, although it wouldn't pay for the manpower used it would reduce overall costs and save a missile being used.

[Magical Realist]

But enemy combatants are always valid targets.

They're not "enemy combatants". They're drug smugglers. Again with the word play to justify murder.

[Syne]

Yes, drug cartel members are heavily armed, often with military-grade weapons, and they regularly use extreme violence, including killing people, as a core part of their operations.
- Google AI

Sounds like valid combatant targets to me.

[Magical Realist]

Yes, drug cartel members are heavily armed, often with military-grade weapons, and they regularly use extreme violence, including killing people, as a core part of their operations.
- Google AI
Sounds like valid combatant targets to me.

Carrying guns wouldn't make one a combatant. All drug cartels do that. They would have to be actively engaged in combat with our military forces. They aren't doing that. They are transporting drugs in fishing boats.

[Syne]

Lefties will do anything to excuse violent criminals. 9_9