Smuggling cocaine isn't a valid defence of the first strike, why would you think it's a valid reason for the second one?
We don't fucking issue death sentences for trafficking drugs.
this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025
31 points (100.0% liked)
politics
26574 readers
1081 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
We especially don't issue death sentences for actions taken outside the country, or without trial.
Wait, we're in the upside-down. We especially do issue death sentences in those conditions.
Aren't they in international waters, anyway? They're not even under the purview of US law. They can carry as many drugs as they want.
We don't. They do. It's fairly well telegraphed in project 2025. Death penalty for drug dealers is definitely on the roadmap in the US, too.
Christianity was a big enough problem without it being usurped by incels.
They still haven’t proven the boat had drugs, or have they?
Haven't proven ANY of these boats have had drugs on them. And if they did this is a good way to fight an endless war, by waiting patiently for the grunts to leave the trench and making no advance and gaining no intel.
Hard to do when you're executing people from 1000 miles away via drone.
The US isn't supposed to execute people for smuggling cocaine.
You shouldn't just be able to call them enemy combatants if they're not even combatants. Words are supposed to have meanings.
By the logic that you can just call things whatever you want and then you're magically allowed to treat them as that thing, then why not just call them "fish" and say that the American military was just "fishing"? That makes just as much sense to me as what they did.
They're being very specific with the language, calling them "narco-terrorists".
The US isn't supposed to execute people for smuggling cocaine.
That is correct. You are supposed to pardon them.
The US has been using this kind of logic since Sept 12 2001 (arc)
SACHA PFEIFFER, HOST:
After the attacks on September 11, 2001, the George W. Bush administration arrested hundreds of suspected terrorists. Most of them were never criminally charged and eventually let go. Some spent years in inhumane conditions, even though they had no connection to the Taliban or al-Qaida. In 2002, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where many of those prisoners were being held, and described them using this term.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
DONALD RUMSFELD: And one of the most important aspects of the Geneva Convention is the distinction between lawful combatants and unlawful combatants.
PFEIFFER: By labeling them unlawful combatants, the U.S. said it was justified in holding them indefinitely without trial and denying them international legal protections. The Trump administration is now applying the same term to people on board boats it's blowing up because it says they're transporting drugs from South America. The language here matters. It underpins the legal arguments presidents make to justify their actions. Here's current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth referring to the cartels that ship drugs from the southern hemisphere to the United States.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
PETE HEGSETH: So our message to these foreign terrorist organizations is we will treat you like we have treated al-Qaida.
A lot more good information and history in that article, but the important point is that because they're not soldiers (i.e. lawful combatants), they don't get Geneva Convention protection, but because they're not criminals either they don't get due process protection either. It's a completely blatant and stupid way to just ditch all the humanitarian guardrails around government violence we spent the 20th century building, it was fucked 20 years ago and it's fucked today but we never held the people doing it accountable so here we are.
I agree, but it's also consistent with how the US operates. Through Afghanistan's and Iraq, anyone appearing as a military-aged male in the vicinity of an operation (e.g. a village where insurgents were shooting from) was labeled an enemy combatant and treated as valid targets.
I don't think it's consistent with your example, because nobody in or near the boats was an insurgent. I'm not saying that it's not similar, just that it's a clear divergence. They don't have any pretense that anybody on or near the boat was planning to attack them.
By the logic that you can just call things whatever you want and then you’re magically allowed to treat them as that thing
Welcome to realizing how actual geopolitics work. There are no rules, just "gentleman agreements" that most of the time major powers have held because they worried about reprisals for breaking the unwritten rules.
There is no such thing as "law." Law is a word we use for the systems that keep citizens of a country from harming each other or the economy. When you're a nation, there are no international police who will ticket you for literally just doing whatever the fuck you want to whoever you want.
An angle i havent seen anyone latch onto yet is the fact that the US is trying to dictate to the world what is or isnt allowed to be transported between countries. If 2 countries decide they want cocain and heroin to be legal and want to trade it who is the US to step in and tell them no. How long until this spirals to other commodities that arent considered "drugs"
Because cartels have A LOT of money. Money can be used to influence everything. The US also has a lot of money. The US is deciding who's money gets to influence everything. It's a power struggle.
I have no idea why this admiral would be willing to fall on the stupidest sword imaginable for pete god damned hegseth. Like... are they offering him a lot of money or something? How flimsy is his sense of honor that he'd be willing to sell out his entire reputation for that?
Maybe he really is this shitty. Remember that the guy who used to have this job retired a few months ago. Maybe this guy was picked to replace him because he's just as much of an asshole as the rest of them.
IIRC, the previous guy left (don't remember if willingly) because he questioned the legality of what they were doing. You can all but guarantee that his replacement is a huge piece of shit.
You read too many Clancy novels, honor and reputation don't buy Porsches. He'll get some sweet bullshit diplomatic post or hired back as consultant.
More like he signed up to do this job and thats why they gave it to him in the first place. His predecessor retired recently.
In the name of transparency, the DoD released a video of one of the survivors attempting to complete his drug smuggling run from the Venezuela coast to the Florida. See below.
So he's admitting his crime.
Bullshit.
Also it doesn't excuse the action even if it were true.
"Instinct to survive? No, they must be struggling valiantly to get that cocaine shipment squared away." -People who should not be in charge of decisions for themselves
lol, lmao even.
"Sir, we have it under good authority that the orange donut the survivor is clutching to is in fact, more cocaine"
Is the smuggler in the room with us now Admiral?
He says while the entire ops team is high on "performance enhancing" amphetamines
and yet, no actual cocaine was presented.
They were trying not to drown!
I think this is his way of displaying that he knows he's totally fucked, he followed an illegal order, and is trying to get away with it.
Fuck him, fuck Hegseth and fuck Trump