Was the killing of survivors of the drug boat attacks near Venezuela legal?

This could potentially be trouble for President Trump if such an order was indeed given and if the story is confirmed.

The case of extrajudicial killings could be stronger.

Caveat: I am not familiar with the details of this case.

"The White House said an admiral had acted legally when he ordered a second strike that’s reported to have killed two survivors of an alleged drug boat attack.

He was under the authority of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (🔐read for free). The Sept. 2 strike in the Caribbean was the first in a series of such deadly attacks against what the Trump administration says is a terrorist drug-trafficking organization emanating from Venezuela. The Washington Post on Friday reported that Hegseth gave a spoken order to “kill everybody” aboard. The first strike killed all but two of the 11 people onboard before the admiral ordered a second attack, according to the Post."

The Wall Street Journal What's news

How Trump’s Strikes on Venezuelan Boats Could Spark Armed Conflict

Recommendable! The US is deporting illegal immigrants to Venezuela and it is buying fossil fuels from Venezuela again since President Trump is in office.

President Trump may have revealed sources and methods when he talked about the second illegal drug boat struck near Venezuela

President Trump in public statements yesterday about this incident disclosed that the US has apparently detailed, valuable intelligence about:

1. Where and when these two boats were loaded and what they were loaded with
2. Possibly, who was on these boats
3. He also indicated that the available intelligence goes further than that.

Got to be careful, the enemy listens too!

The enemy is listening in! (A German WWII poster, source)

About the designation of members of illegal drug trafficking cartels as terrorists operating in and out of Latin America

The War on Drugs has intensified since President Trump took office for a second time.

Yes, it was reported many times that these cartels are:

1. Like very powerful paramilitaries operating a large infrastructure and with connections to high level politicians (corruption) etc. Supposedly, their profits are huge.
2. That Venezuela (under Maduro) is perhaps a state sponsor of illegal drug trafficking.
3. That the Communist Party of China accused of actively being involved in e.g. supplying precursor chemicals to these cartels, perhaps also providing logistical and financial support etc. Thus, it could be considered an act of war against the United States given the tens of thousands of illegal drugs related deaths of Americans per year.

Yes, this designation presumably gives the US President the power to use military (lethal) force against these drug cartels. President Trump has already made use of it.

When will this designation be reversed?

1. The War on Drugs may have started as early as 1909 with the Smoking Opium Exclusion Act of 1909. An end does not seem to be near anytime soon.
2. With the demise of the Communist Party of China?
3. With the next US President?
4. When the drug cartels stop exporting illegal drugs to the US?
5. ???

Pain Refugees: Collateral Damage of the War on Drugs

Food for thought! This is not an easy issue to deal with, i.e. individuals with chronic pain and the risk of becoming addicts.

When will we finally have better and lasting pain treatments available than frequently popping pain killer drugs!

As usual, healthy skepticism regarding single year comparisons is advised (in this case 1992).

"For much of the 21st century, public health officials and policymakers have blamed doctors for overprescribing opioids and causing the overdose crisis. In response, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued pain management guidelines aimed at reducing opioid prescriptions. Most states have codified them into law.

Federal and local drug task forces have arrested doctors whom they accuse of overprescribing opioids. This has led to a situation where many physicians either undertreat pain or choose to abandon their long-term pain patients. As a result, opioid prescribing has dropped below 1992 levels, while overdose deaths among nonmedical users have skyrocketed.

This crackdown has also created a population of “pain refugees”—chronic pain patients who have lost or were abandoned by their doctor and are left searching for a doctor willing to treat them. Many, out of desperation, turn to the black market for relief, while others resort to suicide. ..."

Pain Refugees: Collateral Damage of the War on Drugs | Cato Institute

Inside the Taliban's war on drugs

Recommendable! Excellent journalism!

Chinese banks help drug cartels in US

Not very long ago this would have been considered a reason for war!

Florida Attorney General and 19 other state attorneys generals in a bipartisan effort Calling on President Biden to Declare Fentanyl a Weapon of Mass Destruction

Caution, the language of war is double edged! We understand that these state attorneys use this legal determination to trigger a strong response! The desperation regarding this subject is fully understandable.

However, what will be the implications? We have been fighting a war on drugs for several decades with very limited success!

There is no question that e.g. the very high numbers of opioid overdose death in the U.S. are unacceptable. So is the almost free flow of these drugs across the southern border.

The demented and senile 46th President should have been already impeached for this clearly unlawful and irresponsible open southern border policy! Why is this not happening!

How do the U.S. and Mexico cooperate to stop the flow of drugs into the U.S.?

"Attorney General Ashley Moody and Connecticut Attorney General William Tong are leading a multistate, bipartisan effort of 18 attorneys general urging President Biden to classify illicit fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction. The drug is claiming a record number of lives across the country and continues to flow freely through the southwest border. In July alone, U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized 2,100 pounds of the substance, enough to kill nearly half a billion Americans. ... 

Fentanyl is a highly-deadly synthetic opioid. Just two milligrams can be lethal. More than 75,000 Americans died from overdose of synthetic opioids, mainly fentanyl, in the 12-month period ending in February 2022. The substance is so toxic that it poses serious exposure risks. ..."

News Release - Attorney General Moody Leads Bipartisan Effort Calling on President Biden to Declare Fentanyl a Weapon of Mass Destruction

On The Prohibition Of Psychoactive Substances

Posted: 9/17/2017

Introduction

This is a work in progress. I am still trying myself to understand the issues involved. This article will most likely be amended, revised, updated as time goes by.

Some Reasonable Assumptions About This Subject

Here is preliminary, tentative list of statements probably most reasonable people can agree on:

1. There will always be people attempting to try psychoactive substances in one form or another. The genie is out of the bottle presumably since homo sapiens came on the scene
2. The more than one hundred years of international prohibition of psychoactive substances has failed not unlike the alcohol prohibition in the U.S.
3. Minors should be protected and not have access to such substances or only under very restricted circumstances
4. Some other areas may also have to be restricted as far as consumption is concerned: military service, driving a vehicle, employment come to mind
5. In the name of individual liberty nobody should be prevented from taking such substances or trade or produce such substances
6. Individual responsibility demands that under the influence of such substances your responsibility and culpability to prevent harm to others or damage is greatly increased. Harsh punishment should follow if this great responsibility is neglected
7. Individual responsibility demands that those who become dependent or addicted to these substances seek immediate help and do everything possible to overcome or cope with the addiction
8. Given today’s advances in science and technology, it is much easier to prove if a person has been under the influence of such a substance  
9. Education and informing the public about the pros and cons of such substances would be much better without prohibition. People could learn how to responsibly take such substances etc.
10. It is probably one of those long held myth that the widespread availability of such substances would destroy a civil society (like Sodom and Gomorrah). The long life of this myth could be attributed to Big Government interests of power and control over its subjects
11. Big Government in many Western countries has allowed for one psychoactive substance to be widely available, i.e. alcohol. This is clearly not enough. Further it is an inherent contradiction to allow one substance, but to prohibit essentially all the others irrespective of potency or addictive potential
12. We know that the arts have benefitted from artists taking psychoactive substances

The Curse Of Prohibition

Here is a list of the many terrible side effects of the aggressive prohibition:

1. The known and suspected medicinal properties of psychoactive substances were not scientifically researched and applied prevented and inhibited by prohibition. Only today are we perhaps at the cusp of successfully breaking addiction
2. Medical treatment options were not fully developed as they could have been. Without prohibition we could have offered much better treatment alternatives decades ago
3. A totally unnecessary promotion of  a very lucrative crime and its attendant negative effects and issues thanks to this prohibition. Not to mention the corruption and other subversive effects that come with this crime.

War On

Watch Your Tongue

It is a sad sign of our modern times that a violent phrase of war on x has been coined so often in our public political discourse. Is this part of a strategy to desensitize humanity? War on Drugs. Culture Wars. War on Poverty. War on Women. War on Religious Liberty and so on.

Language Of Barbarism

To use such a barbaric word like war so loosely in our language is not a sign of civilization. What is e.g. a war on poverty or a war on drugs? Is it not a war affecting some of our children and neighbors?