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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.
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
You're right that even if* they were criminals it would still be murder, but there are a lot of authoritarians out there who are perfectly willing to prescribe death penalties for any alleged crime. Going with your tact and forfeiting any need to prove that the victims actually did anything wrong is a weaker argument. Keep in mind, we don't actually have any evidence that they are what the regime says they are, them " looking like what a drug smuggling boat would look like" is incredibly tenuous.
It's a significantly stronger argument because you don't have to forfeit reason. If your only goal is to remove any ability to justify an attack then you can make up anything you want. For example: "It was aliens driving the boat with secret cloaking technology, and they didn't even come from Venezuela." Is that a stronger argument? Obviously not. The stronger argument is the one that's harder to refute, not the one that's trivial to.
It's not very tenuous really. There's a common design used for this, that isn't used for any other purpose as far as I'm aware. There's no comfort built in, so it's not like a consumer boat. They're built for speed, but also with a lot of cargo space, so they aren't like a fishing boat or anything else. We have many instances of them being boarded and drugs seized from the past, and they look almost identical. The boats also were loaded with some kind of cargo (we can't know what, because it was destroyed, but we know there was stuff in there). Here's a picture:
It's much easier to argue the regime is doing something illegal starting from a place of reason. If they wanted to stop them they easily could have boarded them (though also illegal where they are). Slaughtering the is illegal and immoral, no matter the justification. You can also point out that Venezuela has huge oil reserves, which is a trend for nations we invade. It isn't about drugs. Usually they talk about fentanyl, but that's not coming through Venezuela, so that's a big hole in their reasoning.
There's a lot of ways to approach it that don't require burying your head in the sand and arguing that there aren't drugs being smuggled. Theres far too much evidence for that.
It's reasonable to expect some form of evidence that the victims actually committed a crime.
In a court of law, sure. In the court of public opinion? No.
Anyway, what I'm saying has nothing to do with them committing a crime. It has to do with the US committing a crime. It doesn't matter if it was drug smuggling or not. The actions were illegal and immoral. They should not have been done. I'm just not going to weaken that argument by couching it on them being drug boats or not, because there's more than enough evidence to assume that's reasonable. If you make that your argument then no one is going to listen to you (outside of a few internet communities who refuse to be reasonable because they think that makes them better).
Just watched an SNL skit in which they referred to them as fishing boats. Pretty sure you're off base with what most people think, it's not an unreasonable fringe stance. On average people are going to care more about the idea that "we" just killed a several dozen random fishermen off the coast of a country we're not even at war with than the idea that um well actually narcotraficantes are people too and deserve a trial by jury. I don't really see them anymore, but I used to regularly see 'shoot your local heroin dealer' bumper stickers. Talking with ex military coworkers, though, there plenty of criticism of these murders, and plenty of distrust in the brass. That's all I've got to say, though, you're just kneecapping your effectiveness by not even bothering to recognize the glaring uncertainty about who these victims were.