Those who heard it reacted along party lines.

Those who heard it

... now wonder which defense contractor he'll be working for as a consultant, for 7 figures per year ...

“Bradley was very clear that he was given no such order, to give no quarter or to kill them all,” said Sen. Tom Cotton, who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, as he exited a classified briefing.

And yet, 45 long minutes after the first strike, Bradley issued an order to kill the survivors.

When is he going to face charges for murder? 

You mean destroy the boat and its cargo.

BTW everyone on that boat had been identified as a narco terrorist.

When is he going to face charges for murder? 

Correctly......never

BTW everyone on that boat had been identified as a narco terrorist.

A bullshit claim. Terrorists have explicit political motivations. Drug cartels are simply out to make money. It's organized crime, not Al Qaeda.

Correctly......never

What does it feel like to have your former service branch, the once-proud U.S. Navy, turned into a global pariah of murderers and thieves, all because of your criminally deranged President and SecDef?

Terrorists have explicit political motivations.

Terrorism is the root of this definition, and thus one needs to define it to properly understand the word terrorist .   And, by the way, terrorist was used as a Noun by Dig, not as an Adjective.   

Merriam-Webster (as a noun) offered this for the word 'terrorist':

an advocate or practitioner of terrorism as a means of coercion

Details matter.

The meaning of terrorism

ChatGPT offered this:

Terrorism is the intentional use of violence or threat of violence against civilians or non-combatants, carried out by non-state actors, to intimidate or coerce a population or government in pursuit of political, ideological, or religious objectives.

Oxford offered this:

the use of violent action in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to act

Cambridge offered this:

Thanks for all that.

I have one correction: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is not even a good source for information because it is simply a place where individuals can contribute whatever they please.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

I did not claim it was a dictionary.  But it is very often correct, and since it correlates with the dictionaries, it supports the point.

You are engaging in some extreme nitpicking.   

The point is that Dig was correct.

This past week we had the Washington Post discredited once again for what basically was another lie based on 2 unnamed sources. 

These liberal shitbag rags just love their "unnamed" / anonymous sources. 

4) To what degree is the destruction of drug traffickers different from the actions of Barack Obama when he ordered the killing of individuals on the Pakistan border or in Afghanistan, during which at least one US citizen was killed, and many unknown individuals were killed.

you aren't supposed to call out Obama like that.  They can't see the similarities between the two and it makes them cry.

you aren't supposed to call out Obama like that.  They can't see the similarities between the two and it makes them cry.

When was President Obama last in office.....and you're still crying? Wow.. LOL

Exactly. And thus, Trump is so like Obama that Donald has not other choice left to him than to use Obama as a smoke screen for his administration's behavior in this matter.

That is is not how this works! 

He got three terms, each succeeding term worse than the other.

There are alike in one way: One led a revolution, and the other led a counterrevolution. I'd say they are inextricably linked.

Which is which, in your learned and accurate opinion?

He got three terms, each succeeding term worse than the other.

He had two terms, per the constitution. 

I see the conspiracy theory nonsense is still at play.

Thanks for making my point.

Thanks for making my point.

I would be happy to agree had you made one. 

You think I expect you to see it?  LMAO.

Don't worry they'll tell us what the difference was. There is always a difference.

Don't worry they'll tell us what the difference was. There is always a difference.

your meme leaves out Obama killing women and children at a wedding and killing US Citizens via "drone", being involved in the "Russia Hoax".

Don't worry they'll tell us what the difference was.

They can't tell us what a woman is but going to tell us the difference between what Trump is doing and what Obama did.  

Maybe they can get Kamala to 'splain it.

Don't worry they'll tell us what the difference was. There is always a difference.

Yeah and I have already posted the difference.

Here I ask ChatGPT to explain it to you.   Now all you need do is read and verify anything you suspect is wrong:

Core difference in legal authority (succinct):

• Obama drone strikes in Pakistan / Afghanistan

  • Generally justified as part of an ongoing armed conflict against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) plus the President’s Article II commander-in-chief powers. The U.S. position was that the law of armed conflict (IHL) applied, allowing lethal force against members of those groups as combatants or continuous combat function members, subject to targeting rules. ( Center for American Progress )

• Trump strikes on suspected drug-trafficking boats in international waters

  • There is no AUMF that covers drug cartels or generic drug traffickers , and the United States is not in a recognized armed conflict with cartels . Legal experts therefore argue that the boat strikes are governed by ordinary peacetime domestic criminal law (e.g., murder statutes, UCMJ) and international human-rights law , not the law of armed conflict. A secret OLC memo reportedly tries to justify the strikes as an exercise of presidential self-defense powers against “narco-terrorists,” but outside analysts say this is a legally novel and weak basis that does not create a lawful armed conflict. ( Just Security )

So, Obama’s program rested on a congressionally authorized war framework (2001 AUMF + IHL against designated terrorist groups) , while Trump’s boat-strike campaign targets non-AUMF entities (drug traffickers) in peacetime settings, which most experts view as extrajudicial killings lacking clear statutory war authority.

---

Best single explainer on the difference

A very good, accessible piece that squarely addresses why the boat strikes are legally different from “war on terror” drone strikes is:

Brian Finucane, “Asserting a License to Kill: Why the Caribbean Strike is a Dangerous Departure from the ‘War on Terror’,” Just Security (Sept. 15, 2025). ( Just Security )

You can read it here:
justsecurity

(Scroll to the article titled “Asserting a License to Kill: Why the Caribbean Strike is a Dangerous Departure from the ‘War on Terror’” in that collection.)

Here is a direct link to the referenced article:  justsecurity

Generally justified as part of an ongoing armed conflict against al-Qaeda

Your AI left out the part about dropping munitions on a WEDDING killing WOMEN AND CHILDREN.  That wasn't in the ROE in place at the time. 

She would only give one of her cackling word salads and look confused.  

Your AI left out the part about dropping munitions on a WEDDING killing WOMEN AND CHILDREN.  That wasn't in the ROE in place at the time. 

The wedding killing was a horrific failure.   It was a major mistake.   It was, however, NOT intentional.   

So I will go out on a limb and presume you agree that this was a horrific mistake.   Thus you would not use this to justify the intentional and repeated bombing of boats.

With that in mind, you have offered no defense whatsoever for the bombing of the boats.   You merely deflected.   And you (confirmation bias) ignored the explanation provided by ChatGPT and the supporting article.

It was, however, NOT intentional. 

It was intentional.  The mission was to eliminate a target.  ONE person.  And it was successful.  It took out the target.  Along with women and children they KNEW were in the area.  

So I will go out on a limb and presume you agree that this was a horrific mistake.   Thus you would not use this to justify the intentional and repeated bombing of boats.

You've got your head so full of partisan nonsense you can't see why the comparison is being made.  The bombing of the wedding should have never happened.  The second bombing OF THE SAME WEDDING should have never happened.  It went against EVERY line of the ROE in regards to use of "drones", usable force, protecting non-combatants and minimizing collateral damage.  But it all was overlooked and ignored because of WHO gave the order.  And YOU.  ALL.  WERE.  SILENT.

Now, taking out the drug boats (sorry, you all call them "fishing boats") is a measure taken to protect US Citizens.  I know that's an unfamiliar and foreign concept for the left but that's what it actually is.  And here you all are crying about illegal drugs being stopped from entering the US.  Who the hell does that?  Oh wait...

You merely deflected. 

No deflection.  I just don't buy into your partisan bullshit.  THAT is what you call "deflection" and is not my problem to work through.

It was intentional. 

Amazing that you can post such nonsense.   You actually believe that Obama set out to kill innocent women and children in a wedding party?   You ignore all the reporting on this that shows it was a mistake.

Major league confirmation bias.

And YOU.  ALL.  WERE.  SILENT.

Bullshit.   This is yet another unsubstantiated claim by you.  

Now, taking out the drug boats (sorry, you all call them "fishing boats") is a measure taken to protect US Citizens. 

I have never called them fishing boats.   Again, more fabricated crap from you.

You clearly disapprove of Obama's bombing thus there is no logical way you can use this to justify Trump's actions.

Thus you tacitly admit that Trump should not be bombing boats.

Further, you continue to ignore the detailed explanation that Trump has no legal authority to just bomb boats in international waters merely because we suspect they are carrying drugs.

In short, you are arguing from pure fantasy.   Nothing but bullshit and confused reasoning.   Truly laughable and feeble attempt to defend Trump.

Amazing that you can post such nonsense. 

You post that like it's supposed to matter to me.  

You actually believe that Obama set out to kill innocent women and children in a wedding party?

He did.  Or are you denying that fact?

I have never called them fishing boats. 

If you actually read what I actually said and not input your ego you will see that I said "YOU ALL".  Nothing pointing to you specifically.  

Trump has no legal authority to bomb boats in international waters simply because we suspect they are carrying drugs.

You ignore everything that does not fit your desires.   That is confirmation bias.   It is the opposite of critical thinking.

I asked ChatGPT to explain this to you.   Now all you need do is read and verify anything you suspect is wrong:

Core difference in legal authority (succinct):

• Obama drone strikes in Pakistan / Afghanistan

  • Generally justified as part of an ongoing armed conflict against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) plus the President’s Article II commander-in-chief powers. The U.S. position was that the law of armed conflict (IHL) applied, allowing lethal force against members of those groups as combatants or continuous combat function members, subject to targeting rules. ( Center for American Progress )

• Trump strikes on suspected drug-trafficking boats in international waters

  • There is no AUMF that covers drug cartels or generic drug traffickers , and the United States is not in a recognized armed conflict with cartels . Legal experts therefore argue that the boat strikes are governed by ordinary peacetime domestic criminal law (e.g., murder statutes, UCMJ) and international human-rights law , not the law of armed conflict. A secret OLC memo reportedly tries to justify the strikes as an exercise of presidential self-defense powers against “narco-terrorists,” but outside analysts say this is a legally novel and weak basis that does not create a lawful armed conflict. ( Just Security )

So, Obama’s program rested on a congressionally authorized war framework (2001 AUMF + IHL against designated terrorist groups) , while Trump’s boat-strike campaign targets non-AUMF entities (drug traffickers) in peacetime settings, which most experts view as extrajudicial killings lacking clear statutory war authority.

---

Best single explainer on the difference

A very good, accessible piece that squarely addresses why the boat strikes are legally different from “war on terror” drone strikes is:

Brian Finucane, “Asserting a License to Kill: Why the Caribbean Strike is a Dangerous Departure from the ‘War on Terror’,” Just Security (Sept. 15, 2025). ( Just Security )

You can read it here:

(Scroll to the article titled “Asserting a License to Kill: Why the Caribbean Strike is a Dangerous Departure from the ‘War on Terror’” in that collection.)

Here is a direct link to the referenced article:  justsecurity

I asked ChatGPT to explain this to you.  

Here is a direct link to the referenced article:

So according to what somebody / something else is telling you, Obama had authorization to drop munitions on a wedding party full of non-combatant women and children.  Against existing ROE and established policies for the use of UAVs. 

And you still don't see the problem with all this.  

No, Obama did not have legal authority to kill civilians in a wedding party.   If he had intentionally targeted these non-combatants that would have been a major issue.

You keep deflecting from the fact that Trump has no legal authority to INTENTIONALLY bomb boats in international waters merely because they are suspected of transporting drugs.

We all can see your pathetic attempts to defend Trump and that you have nothing but bullshit.

No, Obama did not have legal authority to kill civilians in a wedding party.

So why are you trying to make excuses?

If he had intentionally targeted these non-combatants that would have been a major issue.

Now take into consideration what YOU are doing - making excuses.  It's not the first time.  It's will not be the last time.

You keep deflecting from the fact that Trump has no legal authority to INTENTIONALLY bomb boats in international waters merely because they are suspected of transporting drugs.

I told you once already - No deflection.  I just don't buy into your partisan bullshit.  I'm not telling you what you want to hear just to stroke an ego.

We all can see your pathetic attempts to defend Trump and that you have nothing but bullshit.

Just as your pathetic attempts to give Obama a pass.  Don't shriek about one and not the other.

So according to what somebody / something else is telling you ,

Not to mention according to google AI chatgpt can be biased.  

• • Training Data:   The core source of bias is the vast dataset from the internet, books, and other sources, which inherently contains human prejudices.
  • Human Feedback (RLHF):   The process of reinforcement learning with human feedback, used to fine-tune the model's behavior, also introduces the biases of the human trainers.
  • Political Bias:   Multiple studies have found that ChatGPT models can exhibit a political leaning, often described as left-leaning or left-libertarian, though   OpenAI   has worked to mitigate this, and newer models show reduced bias .

• Gender and Racial/Ethnic Bias:   Research has shown that the AI can perpetuate harmful stereotypes, such as associating specific genders with certain professions (e.g., men as doctors, women as nurses) or discriminating against resumes with names that imply a certain ethnic background.

• Cultural and Geographic Bias:   The model is largely skewed toward Western views and performs best in English. Content and nuances from other cultural contexts may not be as well-represented or understood, potentially leading to a "positivity bias" or an "ethnically homogeneous standard of beauty" in some applications.

• Confirmation Bias:   The model's conversational nature can sometimes reinforce a user's pre-existing opinions or beliefs by agreeing with them, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as the "yes-man" bias.  

Kind of makes it hard to take ChatGPT as gospel.

So why are you trying to make excuses?

Where did I make an excuse?  Where do I give Obama a pass?    More bullshit.   You have no argument, just one lie after another.

From the article you ignore (along with all other posted and linked content that goes against your desires):

But the Trump administration’s lethal strike in the Caribbean is categorically distinct from these prior controversies.   With its fatal attack on a vessel in the Caribbean and vows to bomb more boats, the Trump administration is not so much seeking to stretch the legal underpinning of the war on terror to a new battlefield (which has been done all too frequently by past administrations). Instead, the administration is effectively asserting the prerogative to kill outside the law entirely.

justsecurity

ChatGPT can be biased .

Of course ChatGPT can be wrong.   Like any other source.

So what?   If you think ChatGPT is wrong then deliver an argument with facts and reason to show it.

Your entirely lazy bullshit of pretending ChatGPT is wrong simply because it goes against your desires is yet another example of a feeble attempt to defend Trump.

So show how ChatGPT got this wrong.   Good luck.

You have to be kidding.  Not only do I show you that you are often wrong but now you expect me to prove to you when you quote ChatGPT for confirmation bias that ChatGPT  is wrong also?  Sorry, the center of my universe lies elsewhere.

Where did I make an excuse?  Where do I give Obama a pass?    More bullshit. 

Lets see...  every comment you made in this thread.  You're having a tantrum because I'm not taking part of your partisan nonsense.  Just as you stated in 2.2.18:

Of course ChatGPT can be wrong.

And it is.  It and your referenced article make no mention of existing ROE and established policies for the use of UAVs.   Now, it's obvious that you don't understand how those played a part in the slaughter Obama unleashed on non-combatants.  And with that you give him a free pass because "we were at war".  

Not only do I show you that you are often wrong but now you expect me to prove to you when you quote ChatGPT for confirmation bias that ChatGPT  is wrong also?

That's the confirmation bias they are crying about that others supposedly have but they don't.

then deliver an argument with facts and reason to show it.

If it hasnt happened in the last 5 years its never gonna happen. 

That's the confirmation bias they are crying about that others supposedly have but they don't.

Confirmation bias is easy when they use AI sources that pull from mainly left wing sources such as Wiki

What i have noticed in all areas since AI has become more popular is the weaker the argument the more Gemini, ChatGPT and pilot are being used as an "expert witness" 

AI does not create opinions or facts out of thin air, they summarize articles and other material for which they provide links. 

See 2.2.16

All you have is bullshit.   You have not demonstrated that I am wrong or that ChatGPT is wrong.

All you do is make claims.   No facts, no reasoning, just bullshit.

Who do you think you are fooling?

Lets see...  every comment you made in this thread. 

Yet again, you post a lie and fail to back up your bullshit.

It and your referenced article make no mention of existing ROE and established policies for the use of UAVs. 

It does not reference Santa Claus either.   The point is and has been that Trump has no legal authority to bomb boats in international waters based merely on the suspicion that they are transporting drugs.

You fail to show the legal authority and instead continue with lies and bullshit.

Homework assignment

Show an AI post that used right leaning sources.

All you have is bullshit.   You have not demonstrated that I am wrong or that ChatGPT is wrong.

Believe what you want

All you do is make claims.   No facts, no reasoning, just bullshit.

Believe what you want

Who do you think you are fooling?

Who do you think you are fooling with your nonsense and consistant accusations. 

Yeah, constant lying and bullshit seems to work for Trump so I am not surprised when I see Trump supporters playing the same dishonest game.

That is not how an AI mechanism works.    Its corpus (what it is trained on) is across the board.   Any bias that an AI has is a resultant bias of its corpus.   And the developers are aware of this and actively seek to mitigate heavy bias.

So if you think that an AI is heavily biased a certain way, let's see you back up that claim with evidence.   AIs, in general, are biased towards truth as best they can determine it given their corpora.

Here is ChatGPT's explanation of bias:

Short answer first: ChatGPT and similar AI systems are not inherently left- or right-biased because they are not ideological actors. They are statistical language models trained to predict useful, safe, and accurate responses across a wide range of human viewpoints. Any perceived bias usually comes from three non ideological technical forces, not political intent.

Here is the clean breakdown.

---

1. Training data is broad, not ideological

Models like ChatGPT are trained on massive, mixed datasets that include:

• Academic writing

• News from many outlets

• Legal documents

• Technical manuals

• Public forums

• Books across the political spectrum

• Historical documents

There is no single political filter in that data. It contains left, right, centrist, libertarian, conservative, progressive, religious, secular, and apolitical material simultaneously. The model does not “choose a side.” It learns patterns of how language is used across all of them.

That alone prevents consistent ideological alignment.

---

2. The model optimizes for usefulness and safety, not politics

The core objective is not “agree with ideology X.”
It is:

• Be coherent

• Be fact grounded

• Avoid hallucination

• Avoid harm

• Follow user intent

• Avoid inciting violence

• Avoid targeted harassment

That often looks like political bias because:

• Most modern safety standards are rooted in law, professional ethics, and platform governance

• Safety rules restrict extreme content on both ends

• De escalation behavior is often misread as political alignment

This is risk management, not ideology.

---

3. The “bias mirror” effect explains most accusations

People on the right often perceive AI as left biased because:

• It enforces speech safety

• It avoids endorsing collective punishment

• It restricts violent framing

• It corrects misinformation

People on the left often perceive AI as right biased because:

• It explains conservative arguments accurately

• It defends due process

• It explains limits on government power

• It does not assume activist framing as default truth

Both sides feel opposed at different times. That is the key signal that the system itself is not ideologically anchored.

---

4. AI neutrality feels “hostile” in polarized environments

In a highly polarized culture:

• Any refusal feels like opposition

• Any correction feels like an attack

• Any neutrality feels like betrayal

Humans interpret disagreement socially. The model does not. It treats contradictions as data conflicts, not moral challenges.

---

5. Where real skew can come from

Real skew usually comes from input imbalance, not AI ideology:

• Media skew in source material

• User prompt framing

• Time period of dominant narratives

• Legal safety constraints

• Regional language usage

Those create statistical weighting differences, not political intent.

---

6. Why the “AI is politically aligned” claim persists

Because:

• Humans attribute agency to tools

• Political identity is emotionally charged

• Confirmation bias selects only the outputs that feel hostile

• People test AI adversarially and then generalize

A hammer is not pro or anti construction. But people argue over its use in building vs destruction. AI is the same category of tool.

---

Final conclusion

ChatGPT is not left, right, conservative, progressive, libertarian, or authoritarian.
It is:

• A probabilistic language engine

• Optimized for usefulness, safety, and coherence

• Constrained by law and platform policy

• Shaped by broad public data

• Interpreted through highly polarized human lenses

The strongest evidence that it is not ideologically aligned is simple:

Both sides are convinced it is biased against them.

If you want, I can also explain:

• Why “safety rules” get misread as political values

• How prompt framing can make the same model appear left or right

• Or how to structure prompts to minimize perceived ideological slant entirely

I can see why Trump supporters want to claim that ChatGPT, et.al. are left-biased.   It is very inconvenient to be shown to be wrong by AI.   So naturally, those who refuse to deal with facts will try to discredit AI.

Maybe a better approach is to engage in critical thinking (facts and reason) rather than follow partisan talking points and engage in confirmation bias.

Believe what you want of course. 

I have noticed that often times people accuse others of doing what they themselves are doing.  It is called projection.

And you are illustrating projection right now.

Rather than demonstrate how Trump has legal authority to bomb boats in international waters merely because we think they are transporting drugs you have delivered nothing but bullshit.   

Put forth a real argument.   Provide facts backed up by citations.   Offer something of value rather than engage in blatant intellectual dishonesty.

Well, with the time spent posting that comment. . .you could have provided the AI links you use for group critique and consideration. Maybe you did not consider it.

And you are illustrating projection right now.

Hmmm.  Believe what you wish

Rather than demonstrate how Trump has legal authority to bomb boats in international waters merely because we think they are transporting drugs you have delivered nothing but bullshit. 

Believe what you wish.  If you actually read what I have been saying instead of spending all your time pontificating you would see what I have been saying all along.  I will let the courts decide if Trump has the legal authority.  Until then no one (including ChatGPT) knows if the courts will say he has the authority and why he does or does not. 

  Offer something of value rather than engage in blatant intellectual dishonesty.

Now you are just making stuff up.

Until then no one (including ChatGPT) knows if the courts will say he has the authority and why he does or does not. 

Deliver the legal authority that says a PotUS can bomb a boat in international water merely because it believes it is carrying drugs.

Deliver the legal authority that says the USA can intentionally kill defenseless non-combatants.

You cannot because no such legal authority exists.

I posed this challenge to ChatGPT (on your behalf) and it provided this:

Here is the clean, law-accurate answer to both of your questions. I will be very direct because the law here is not ambiguous.

---

1. Is there any legal authority that allows a U.S. President to bomb a boat in international waters merely because it is suspected of carrying drugs?

✅ Short answer: NO. There is no such legal authority.

There is no U.S. statute, no international treaty, and no constitutional power that allows the President to lawfully use military force to destroy a civilian vessel solely on suspicion of drug trafficking .

Here is what the law actually authorizes:

---

✅ What the U.S. IS allowed to do against suspected drug trafficking vessels

The primary authority is:

Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA)
46 U.S. Code §§ 70501–70508

This law allows the U.S. to:

• Board vessels in international waters

• Search them

• Seize drugs

• Arrest traffickers

• Bring them to the U.S. for prosecution

It explicitly treats drug trafficking as a law-enforcement matter , not an act of war.

It does NOT authorize:

• Bombing

• Sinking vessels with military force

• Killing crews without hostilities

---

✅ What international law allows

Under international law, force is justified only for:

• Self-defense against an armed attack (UN Charter Article 51)

• Active armed conflict under the Law of Armed Conflict

Drug smuggling does not qualify as an armed attack .

---

❌ What is NOT legal

There is no authority anywhere that permits:

• Lethal military force

• Against suspected smugglers

• In international waters

• Without an active battlefield context

If such force occurs, it is outside both U.S. statutory law and international law .

---

2. Is there any legal authority that allows the USA to intentionally kill defenseless non-combatants?

✅ Short answer: ABSOLUTELY NOT. This is explicitly illegal under multiple layers of law.

There is zero legal authority anywhere that permits the intentional killing of non-combatants.

It is one of the most strictly prohibited acts in all of international law.

---

✅ Explicit prohibitions

1. Geneva Conventions

• Non-combatants shall not be intentionally targeted

• Killing civilians is a grave breach / war crime

2. U.S. War Crimes Act

18 U.S. Code § 2441
Makes it a federal felony for any U.S. national or service member to commit:

• Murder of civilians

• Targeting of non-combatants

• Willful killing outside lawful combat

3. Department of Defense Rules of Engagement

ROE explicitly forbid:

• Targeting civilians

• Attacks not tied to military necessity

• Lethal force outside hostile engagements

4. UN Charter & Customary International Law

Intentional killing of non-combatants is:

• A crime against humanity when systematic

• A war crime even in isolated incidents

---

❌ The ONLY scenario where civilians die without criminal intent

Civilian deaths are only considered lawful when all of the following are true:

• The target was a lawful military objective

• The attack was proportional

• Civilian harm was unintended

• All feasible precautions were taken

That is called collateral damage , and it is not the same thing as intentionally killing civilians .

---

✅ Final Legal Summary (Plain English)

Claim	Legal Status
President can bomb boats just for suspected drugs	❌ Illegal
Drug trafficking is an act of war	❌ False
Military force allowed for smuggling alone	❌ False
USA may intentionally kill non-combatants	❌ Explicitly illegal
Civilian deaths are ever lawful	✅ Only if unintended + proportional during lawful attack

---

✅ Bottom-line Reality

If a U.S. administration were to:

• Destroy a vessel

• In international waters

• Based solely on drug suspicion

• With no hostile attack underway

That would fall outside all recognized legal authority and would raise serious issues of:

• Violation of U.S. statutory law

• Violation of international law

• Possible war-crimes exposure

• Unlawful use of military force

---

If you want, I can next:

• Contrast this directly with the AUMF authority used for terrorist strikes

• Show precisely why counter-terror operations had a legal framework that drug enforcement does not

• Or show historical cases where smuggling was intercepted versus destroyed and why the difference matters legally

Posing the same challenge to Google Gemini produced this:

Pontificate away. It is obvious you once again have completely ignored my point. If the supreme court determines he did/does have legal authority i am sure chatGPT will apologize, or maybe not. 

I have not ignored your 'point'.   I understand that you are refusing to acknowledge the facts and are deflecting by deferring to a potential future SCotUS ruling.

What you are doing is ignoring overwhelming evidence that no legal authority exists for Trump to bomb boats in international waters merely because we believe they are carrying drugs.   And that bombing human beings who are defenseless in the water is flat-out wrong under myriad laws.

But you refuse to be critical of the Trump administration no matter what.   You refuse to be critical even when such blatant abuses take place.

It is a sickening sight to behold.

It is a sight of your own making.

You believe that your comments do not show that you will dodge, deflect, lie, and fantasize rather than acknowledge that Trump has yet again engaged in acts for which he does not have legal authority?

Correct

You only need not be biased, partisan and fueled by trump hysteria.  

You only need not be biased, partisan and fueled by trump hysteria. 

Wouldn't it be helpful if you could be deemed sane and weren't in a Cult >?

You refuse to acknowledge that Trump has no legal authority to bomb boats in international waters much less authority to kill those who offer no threat.

A determined refusal to face reality (because it would result in you being critical of Trump) is what is on display with your comments.

You refuse to acknowledge that Trump has no legal authority to bomb boats in international waters much less authority to kill those who offer no threat.

Well, let's face it, those who worship Trump don't care about legal authority. They have, through their inaction to hold him accountable for any of his actions, made Trump above the law. The Republican congress has kneeled out of fear of Trumps rabid base that they need to stay in power. The conservative court has shamelessly kneeled. They believe they won't have to face reality because they are actively trying to defang it.

There is a problem that is slowly and methodically building. . . the international community is going to move on from its relationship with an untrustworthy, unreliable, "terrorist" on the high seas: The United States. Strange. . . if/when the United States is checked by the "Community,"  branded as "unfriendly-hostile even, " and placed in persona non-grata status around the world. 

No, Obama did not have legal authority to kill civilians in a wedding party.   If he had intentionally targeted these non-combatants that would have been a major issue.

Indeed, the right freaked out for months because he wore a tan suit. 

trump hysteria.  

He's a pedophile. Nice to see the right is totally cool with it. 

he right freaked out for months because he wore a tan suit

I love this argument because it shows exactly how much kool-aid a far left partisan has partaken and how immune they are to reality.  This, of course, never happened. One Republican dared criticize the sartorial choices of their God/Leader and the left has freaked about it for more than a decade.  They've created this whole mythology around a throwaway comment and continue to push a lie, even though they are old enough to have lived through it themselves. 

Fascinating to watch people tell on themselves. 

You have not demonstrated that I am wrong or that ChatGPT is wrong.

Did you not say it can be wrong in 2.2.18?  Looks like you did.

The point is and has been that Trump has no legal authority to bomb boats in international waters

Actually there is legal authority.  

uscode.house

Yet another item not covered in your AI bullshit or articles.  Quit taking shortcuts and do actual research.

Yes ChatGPT can get things wrong.   

It also gets things right the vast majority of the time.

Every source can get things wrong.

What one does is use ChatGPT like any other source.   If you suspect it is wrong then do some research to verify this.    It is irrational for you to presume ChatGPT (or any source) is wrong merely because a source can be wrong.

Did you actually think that tactic would work?   Just post a link and make a claim ... pretending your claim is supported by the link.

The link simply states what we know, that the USA has the right to act on boats suspected of trafficking drugs.   It says nothing about what we are talking about — the bombing of boats in international waters merely because we suspect they are trafficking drugs.

To double check, I gave the link to ChatGPT and asked it to find even a hint that this provides legal authority to bomb boats.   Here is what it offered:

I reviewed the text of the statute you linked — Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA, 46 U.S.C. Ch. 705) — and the answer is no : there is nothing in that law that even hints at giving the U.S. authority to bomb a boat in international waters merely because it is suspected of trafficking drugs . ( U.S. Code )

Here’s a breakdown of what MDLEA actually authorizes — and why that stops well short of bombing:

---

✅ What MDLEA does authorize

• MDLEA criminalizes certain acts on board vessels: manufacturing, distributing, or possessing controlled substances on a “covered vessel” on the high seas or otherwise outside U.S. territorial waters. ( Legal Information Institute )

• It gives U.S. authorities (principally the Coast Guard) boarding, search, seizure, and arrest powers over covered vessels — including foreign vessels under certain conditions (e.g., stateless vessels or with flag-state consent). ( Legal Information Institute )

• It creates civil- and criminal-law consequences: drug charges, forfeitures of vessels and cargo, and prosecution in U.S. courts for persons aboard such vessels. ( U.S. Code )

In short: MDLEA establishes a law-enforcement framework , analogous to arrest + prosecution — not a wartime or military-attack framework .

---

❌ What MDLEA does not authorize — and never hints at

1. No grants of “use-of-force” authority for bombing, sinking, or destroying vessels.

   • MDLEA does not include any language about “use of force,” “military force,” “attacks,” “bombing,” or “lethal force.”

   • Its prohibitions target drug-related crimes and property destruction of illicit cargo , not the vessel itself or persons aboard. ( Legal Information Institute )

2. No justification for killing people on board merely by suspicion.

   • Its focus is on criminal offenses and seizure , not on use-of-force or targeting individuals.

   • There is no provision for “self-defense,” “war powers,” or “combatant status.”

3. No transformation of suspected traffickers into “enemy combatants” or “belligerents.”

   • MDLEA works under U.S. criminal jurisdiction, not under the law of armed conflict.

   • It prescribes prosecution in U.S. courts — not summary execution or destruction of vessels. ( U.S. Code )

---

🔎 What independent experts conclude about MDLEA vs bombing

• In a detailed legal-analysis piece, experts argue the MDLEA provides no basis for the killing of suspected traffickers or military strikes; MDLEA’s seizure-and-arrest paradigm is incompatible with bombing or lethal force absent an armed-conflict context. ( Just Security )

• Legal scholarship repeatedly notes MDLEA is meant to prosecute “felonies committed on the high seas,” not to treat drug-trafficking as a war. ( Fordham Law Review )

---

✅ Conclusion

• MDLEA is a law-enforcement statute , not a war statute.

• It authorizes boarding, search, seizure, arrest, and prosecution , but never bombing, sinking, or summary killing of vessels or persons.

• Therefore, the law you linked provides no legal authority for the use of lethal military force against suspected drug-trafficking boats just because they are suspected — at least under its plain text and historical implementation.

If you like, I can run a quick survey of all U.S. federal statutes (post-2000) to show if any law authorizes “use-of-deadly-force → sink vessels on suspicion alone” — I predict you’ll find none .

"boarding, search, seizure, and arrest powers " does not mean bomb .

Yes ChatGPT can get things wrong.

Then don't get pissy when the information is called out.

What one does is use ChatGPT like any other source.

It's a shortcut.  Do the actual research and you'll be surprised at how much it leaves out.  

And NONE of what I have mentioned are are being shown[✘]

This is so pathetic.   You have no argument, no supporting facts.   All you are doing now is rhetorically plugging your ears, shaking your head, and repeating "nuh-uh".

Get serious, your slimy tactic has been destroyed and your comments are beyond foolish.

Personal attacks says more about you than it does me.

You have the wrong president.   Nice to see the left is totally cool with it.

Expected response.  See 2.2.33.  Or I have noticed that often times people accuse others of doing what they themselves are doing.  It is called projection.

Personal attacks says more about you than it does me

WHat I 'says' is I believe Trump is an insane Cult liter that beat our Quart system. Is it your opinion he is a sane Cult liter...?

And NONE of what I have mentioned are are being shown

I remember when I was starting out in computer science there was a saying "garbage in and garbage out".  Seems valid today.  Not to mention (or I will mention) how you word a question will always have an effect on the output.  So if you are looking for confirmation bias and don't get it the first time just word the question differently until you do.  Same goes with polls people are so fond of.  Results can often be manipulated by the wording of  the questions poll takers ask.

This is so pathetic.   You have no argument, no supporting facts.

And here you are again avoiding discussing the ROE, Policy on the use of UAV's or anything else I've brought up.  When you can do the actual research instead of using bullshit, shortcuts and veiled personal attacks, come talk.

Neither, it is just a personal attack with no substance that could be spouted out about any president that people blindly support.  That would be the vast majority of presidents.

"garbage in and garbage out".

I learned that as well. But for some reason, many cannot grasp the idea of it.

Not to mention (or I will mention) how you word a question will always have an effect on the output.

In their liberal heads, there is only one way to word a question and what ever their search generates is supposedly "fact" despite it being incomplete or completely wrong. Then they blather on and on about "deflecting".

Same goes with polls people are so fond of.

The poll thing is fking hilarious. The idea that they go to a very specific location and ask loaded questions then try to apply that to everybody is laughable. It's about as accurate as a Kamala Harris speech.

I also notice [r] [✘] those who don't comply with those giving out the circular bullshit and personal insults.

And here you are again avoiding discussing the ROE, Policy on the use of UAV's or anything else I've brought up.

You have not once shown that a PotUS has legal authority to blow up boats in international waters merely because we suspect they are trafficking drugs.

So let's see you actually put forth facts and reason to show this legal authority.   Mere claims that you have (especially after we show your claims are bullshit) do not cut it.

More vague philosophical bullshit rather than an actual argument based on facts and logic.

Show that a PotUS has legal authority to blow up boats in international waters merely because we suspect they are trafficking drugs.

More dishonesty.  Is the rational the Trump administration is using because we suspect they are trafficking drugs?  If no then your question to ChatGPT is irrelevant.  And the answer is no.

I asked Gemini what rational Trump is using.  This is what the Supreme court will be ruling on, not bombing them because we suspect they are trafficking drugs.

• Armed Conflict Determination: President Trump formally determined that the U.S. is in a non-international armed conflict with various drug cartels, a move that legally reclassifies cartel members as "combatants" rather than civilians or criminal suspects.
• Self-Defense and National Interest: The administration argues the strikes are an act of collective and national self-defense. The argument posits that the drugs on the boats, particularly fentanyl, cause tens of thousands of American overdose deaths annually, which constitutes an "armed attack" by the cartels.
• Military Objectives: The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo, which has not been made public but was briefed to members of Congress, is said to frame the narcotics cargo itself as the primary military objective, with the goal of choking off the cartels' money supply used to buy weapons and fund violence.
• Commander-in-Chief Authority: The administration asserts that the President has the constitutional authority as commander-in-chief to order these strikes without a formal Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) from Congress, as the operations are considered limited in scope and duration.
• "Narco-terrorist" Designation: By labeling the cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, the administration seeks to apply a legal framework previously used in the post-9/11 "war on terrorism". 

I will even include criticism.

• Drug trafficking, while a serious crime, does not meet the legal threshold for an "armed attack" required to trigger the right to use military force under the UN Charter.
• The targeted individuals are considered civilians under law enforcement rules, and deliberately targeting them without an imminent threat of violence constitutes illegal extrajudicial killings or even potential war crimes.
• The administration has not publicly provided concrete evidence that the specific boats targeted were carrying drugs, nor that the cartels operate as a state-like enemy engaged in an actual armed conflict with the United States. 

This is what needs to be ruled on to determine if he has the authority,  not some bullshit we are doing it because we suspect they are drug traffickers.   Obviously the administration has already gone through lawyers to determine they have the authority to do it but there are valid concerns.

Again, we won't know if he has the authority until the above is determined.  Instead of focusing on something that is irrelevant it may behoove you to stay in reality.

More dishonesty. 

Another ridiculous claim that is countered by reality.   Pathetic.

The Trump administration is using the logic that it is in an "armed conflict" with "narco-terrorist" drug cartels and that the drug-carrying boats are legitimate military targets.

Do you see any evidence whatsoever that an armed conflict took place?   Anything at all?

Looks like you are just buying Trump's bullshit again.

... not some bullshit we are doing it because we suspect they are drug traffickers. 

Attempt to focus on reality.   What we have is at best a suspicion that these are drug traffickers.   That is it.   There has been NO ARMED CONFLICT whatsoever.   Nothing.   These boats have not fired a shot.

So, show us the armed conflict.   Let's see it.  Produce some actual evidence.  (You will fail, yet again.)

( Amazing that you post this easily refuted nonsense. )   ( Amazing that you still believe what Trump says without verifying with credible sources. )

I posted what the administration is using for rational and what the concerns are.  Those are facts as is  "legal authority to blow up boats in international waters merely because we suspect they are trafficking drugs" not in the rational for the bombings..  But you stick with the irrelevant " legal authority to blow up boats in international waters merely because we suspect they are trafficking drugs" if it makes you feel better.  I guess that might be considered nonsense to the Trump hysteria crowd.  Nothing worse than facts.

I also thought I was clear several times that I am not buying into what Trump says but will wait for a judgement from people that matter as to if what he says is valid. 

Partisans don't want to wait that long.

You have not once shown that a PotUS has legal authority to blow up boats in international waters merely because we suspect they are trafficking drugs.

I haven't given you one you agree with, but the link and references are there.  What I haven't seen is anything from you showing he doesn't have the authorization.  Just incomplete AI nonsense and random articles telling you what to think.

What is hard to understand is if there is already proof he has overstepped his authority why haven't the dems taken him to court?  They have proven they know how and I am sure it would be fast tracked.  This has been going on since September.  I guess the idea of some congress people trying to get some kids to disobey orders while the dems kept saying the orders are illegal was a better way to go.

I posted what the administration is using for rational and what the concerns are.

Correct.   You posted Trump's bullshit and did not even bother to verify that his premise was even remotely valid.

It is not.   You failed to do the most basic fact-checking and just bought what Trump is selling.

The facts are that there has been NO armed conflict from these boats.   Nothing whatsoever.   All we have is suspicion of drug trafficking.   That is it.

You refuse to deal with the facts.   Instead you prefer to parrot Trump's lies and believe what arguably the worst pathological lying PotUS in our history says.   Pitiful.

Now if you think I am wrong, then deliver the evidence that these boats engaged in armed conflict ... that they fired even a single shot.

You will fail.   As you have done this entire thread.   

I haven't given you one you agree with, but the link and references are there. 

Nowhere do you show the legal authority to blow up boats in international waters based only on the suspicion that they are trafficking drugs.  

It is impossible for you to show it because there is no such legal authority.    You can pretend there is but without proof, your comments are simply bullshit.

You have no argument.   Lying is not an argument.

ooops

facebook

What do you fantasize this does for your claims?

Nobody has argued against going after drug lords.   The argument has been that blowing up boats in international waters merely based on suspicion of drug trafficking has no legal authority.

You cannot deliver the legal authority.   Deflection and bullshit do not cut it.

It is not.

Then why haven't the dems brought it to court to stop it?  They have had 3 months.  I am sure there has been plenty of time to stop it.

It is pretty funny.  I am saying wait for the supreme court to decide if he is overstepping his authority (you know, kinda why we have 3 branches of government) and you are saying the heck with that, either prove to me that he has the authority(putting aside the BS blow up boats in international waters merely because we suspect they are trafficking drugs argument) or admit he overstepped his authority.  Why do we need the Supreme court again?

Simply pointing out hypocrisy.

"Lets go after the Drug Lords where they live".  So going in their country to kill them is OK but boats are off limits.

No one is arguing he says he is "blowing up boats in international waters merely based on suspicion of drug trafficking " other than you.

You can not do the job of the Supreme Court.

You are the one claiming he does not have the legal authority, it is up to you to prove it. You haven't even come close. I have never said he has the authority, why do I need to prove he does?

Your argument is getting more and more feeble.

Then why haven't the dems brought it to court to stop it? 

I have no special access into the inner workings of the D party and am certainly not going to try to hypothesize their strategy, if they have one.

You are deflecting instead of showing where a PotUS has legal authority to bomb a boat in international waters simply because we suspect they are trafficking drugs.

I am saying wait for the supreme court to decide if he is overstepping his authority ...

Of course, you kick the can.  This is classic deflection.   You refuse to criticize Trump —even when the facts are blatantly obvious— so you demure and push things off to some future SCotUS event.

Simply pointing out hypocrisy.

You have invented some hypocrisy then.

"Lets go after the Drug Lords where they live".  So going in their country to kill them is OK but boats are off limits.

Again, pay attention, the methods are the issue.   Blowing up boats in international waters based on the belief they are trafficking drugs has no legal authority.   Going into the country is vague.   We need specifics to be able to intelligently determine if this is lawful.

Your argument is getting more and more feeble.

Projection, yet again, from the guy who cannot show the legal authority for the USA blowing up boats in international waters based on the belief they are trafficking drugs.

[deleted] [✘] Are you suggesting the dems wouldn't bring it to court if they felt they would win?

[deleted][✘]

[deleted] [✘] There is nothing vague about going into the country.

[deleted][✘]

What is hard to understand is if there is already proof he has overstepped his authority why haven't the dems taken him to court?  They have proven they know how and I am sure it would be fast tracked.  This has been going on since September. 

I think the proof is the problem.  As we've seen since 2015, they throw out random accusations with absolutely no backing.  A DECADE of investigations, the Democrats have come up empty handed.  It's all based on emotion.  And they actually expect to be taken seriously.  It's become tiresome.

I guess the idea of some congress people trying to get some kids to disobey orders while the dems kept saying the orders are illegal was a better way to go.

What's pathetic NONE of them can point out what these "illegal orders" are supposed to be.  I did read where one was rightfully pending Article 32 Investigation under the UCMJ.

Nowhere do you show the legal authority to blow up boats in international waters based only on the suspicion that they are trafficking drugs.

Pay very close attention to what I am talking about instead of what you WANT to talk about.  

You will fail.   As you have done this entire thread.   

Opinions on that, vary ….. greatly.

And this is a huge problem with almost any discussion around here.

It is not important to point out which orders are illegal,  just knowing that some are is enough.

They know that they have no argument besides "I am Right! So there!" 

That is why they produce no arguments besides the above, even when challenged to do so. 

Well, that 'one' would be Captain Mark Kelly, and I believe his rights of the accused will bear up under scrutiny. Personal note: only a fool would risk charging an American hero over a flagrant violation of the UCMJ over an innocuous ad about not obeying an illegal orders. The ad itself was more of a 'public service announcement' (PSA) than anything else!

There is nothing vague about going into the country.

The English word 'vague' means:  "of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning".

The USA could go into a country in many different ways and under many different conditions.   Thus the specifics are unclear, uncertain, and indefinite.

See?

The USA could invade a nation or, on the opposite extreme, partner with the nation to help it fight its drug production problems.   There are many variations between those extremes.   The former would almost certainly be an act of war, the latter would be a diplomatically arranged partnership (win-win).

You presume to know the specifics of what Biden meant to the point where you would declare it to be unlawful.   That is faulty reasoning.   Yet again.

What's pathetic NONE of them can point out what these "illegal orders" are supposed to be.

How many times do I have to post this?   Pay attention!

TiG@3.1.24 ☞ ChatGPT offered this, and I have posted it several times now:

Two military orders were actually ruled unlawful by federal courts in 2025:

• Use of National Guard in Los Angeles for policing → violation of Posse Comitatus.

• Extended National Guard deployment in Washington DC after “crime emergency” ended → ruled unlawful.

Two is two too many and there are others that are currently being adjudicated.   And unless Trump's appeals (as always) prevail, these are illegal orders.   Trump is out of control.   Now, regarding illegal orders, do you NOT support the military refusing to obey illegal orders??   You support a rogue PotUS issuing illegal orders?  

Nowhere do you show the legal authority to blow up boats in international waters based only on the suspicion that they are trafficking drugs

For. . . some who can not figure. . . the ad does not accuse anybody of having (yet) done anything (even if they had done 'it'). The ad is a reminder to servicemembers that they do not have to follow illegal orders in and of itself or themselves. That is all it does. There is nothing the matter with issuing a reminder to servicemembers of a fact in the law.

Are you suggesting the dems wouldn't bring it to court if they felt they would win?

No.

You continue to deflect rather than show the legal authority for the USA to bomb a boat in international waters merely because we believe they are trafficking drugs.

The USA could invade a nation or, on the opposite extreme, partner with the nation to help it fight its drug production problems

Therein lies the problem: For the Machiavellians in this administration 'partnering' is too costly and time-consuming, whereas threats or actual violence is 'exciting' and oh so much 'quicker' and you get the end results immediately!

As we have seen time and time again, Trump is a 'I want it yesterday' -type of man. He loves to see his expectations fulfilled 'immediately.' 

The ad is a reminder to servicemembers that they do not have to follow illegal orders in and of itself or themselves. That is all it does.

When i first heard of this , i waited for the other shoe to drop , as had always happened in the annual briefings i got for 10 years on active duty. it never came and only in discussions here has it even been mentioned in passing .

That second shoe is of course , if they re going to refuse an order , that they will be doing so at their own risk of court martial and other actions the military and government can take . because unless an order is blatantly illegal , they are not in a position to determine if an order is actually illegal, that is for a higher pay grade to decide when a complaint is registered  and usually in a court of some kind , be it military or civilian .

that is just the way it has been and likely always will be .

 As Paul Harvey use to say , there is always "the rest of the story ".

That second shoe is of course , if they re going to refuse an order , that they will be doing so at their own risk of court martial and other actions the military and government can take . because unless an order is blatantly illegal , they are not in a position to determine if an order is actually illegal, that is for a higher pay grade to decide when a complaint is registered and usually in a court of some kind , be it military or civilian.

Your statement (above) is factually correct. However, it does not negate the ad participated in by a sitting Senator and retiree from the Navy. (It certainly does not merit recalling said retiree to active duty to allegedly take legal action against him.) Military personnel are familiar with the services: general orders. And we 'all' have heard that we should not obey an illegal order - blatant or otherwise once 'contested' and found to be so.

There is reason why our system extends so much allowable GRACE to senior members of the armed forces, and why commanders give lenient when they can to their soldiers, marines, air personnel, and sailors—their dedication to the 'sanctity' to the corps for which they serve. We 'used' to not tear it down or dismiss its heroes on scattershot 'hurt' feelings. Indeed, we used to be a nation that would tell its politician to buck up and take their 'medicine' and continue to put out appropriately. 

Furthermore, I humbly think it is disgusting that a president would use such immense power to investigate such a feeble ad rendering. There is nothing to investigate, unless it is the UCMJ itself for making the fact—factual. 

we will have to agree to disagree, i wasnt attempting to negate anything the senator was saying , i merely pointed out he left out a very important part of what he was talking about , and as a naval officer , should have known better than to leave it out .

Now if he were as a senator trying to make political points , that is not really for me to decide one way or the other  and is very open to debate as far as im concerned , but as a voter , i can decide if someone is playing fast and loose with readily known facts .

Devil is always in the factual details isnt it ?

First, I was not accusing you of negating anything. I was AFFIRMING that the ad itself was not a NEGATIVE ad. It was a 'supportive' ad for any soldier misinformed, disinformed, or grossly negligent of understanding what is permissible under the UCMJ. Because not every order is, and an 'alert' servicemember will do themselves a 'solid' to understand the differences -when it counts!

That said, you are 'absolutely' correct: A member of the military should seek guidance from his superior (duty officer/higher up) before disobeying an order. Otherwise, carry out the order immediately, and then go INFORM a higher ranking personnel or officer of what occurred and seek understanding of the actions taken.

Secondly, I could be wrong, but Naval officer, astronaut, senator Kelly impresses upon me as a man who loves and is dedicated to his country. That is, one should give him the benefit of the doubt, rather than what is being told will occur to him over this factual ad. My opinion.

Finally, 99.99 percent of service personnel should agree with the facts of the ad and going farther should stand with Captain Kelly, that he is being harassed by the president who does not respect his service and see him as a 'taunt.'

I will give you one reason why Trump and his relevant cabinet officials do not understand the 'folly' in pursuing Captain Kelly this way: A lack of having served; and/or a lack of fidelity to the spirit and meaning of the UCMJ. 

Realistically, the order would need to be blatantly illegal based on the expected knowledge of the recipient.

An illegal order that could compromise an admiral if obeyed might be inapplicable for a captain and certainly a Seaman Recruit.

To wit, the lower the rank, the less likely an individual would be punished for obeying an illegal order.

And that goes deeper than the ad itself. Because the ad is about generally violation request under the UCMJ.  The rationale is in the implication: Trump and his administration officials take issue with the Captain participating in an ad which (the way they receive it) implies that the Trump Administration has committed: Murder on the high seas and a certain war crime or crimes. 

And so they seek to back the Senator down from his proper understanding of the UCMJ and his own professional judgement in taking out time to point out and emphasize what servicemembers already should know.

BTW, it behooves (benefits) servicemembers to be acquainted with the rules of the UCMJ and 'keen' to know civil laws too that overlap with the UCMJ ahead of time (receiving a 'questionable' order that potentially can compromise an individual or service group integrity, discipline, or career service.

Note: The elephant in this discussion: Trump is attempting to charge Kelly with disloyalty (interference) to the Commander in Chief. A serious charge. Thus, Trump (and his 'team') are seeking to make Kelly an object lesson for all military servicemembers to stay quiet and do whatsoever it is they are told! There will be cases and circumstances where that will not be. . . practical. . .if/when it may EVER happen. (Which is what Kelly and others in the video are signifying.)

An illegal order that could compromise an admiral if obeyed might be inapplicable for a captain and certainly a Seaman Recruit.

Generally speaking, no. Illegal orders are simply not legal orders. And are the same for all servicemembers.

Specifically, yes you are correct that officers are held to a higher standard because of their education, training, grave duties and responsibilities, and control over rank and file service personnel. Officers (Ensign and up) have the 'weightier' responsibilities and accountability. That is, this is demonstrated by their recognition by senate confirmations, and yes the president of our country at the time who appoints officers. 

Then what would be a logical reason foe the dems not to stop him in the courts now?

You keep deflecting asking me to prove something I never claimed

Are you suggesting trump is the only president that was ever railed in by the courts?

Nice dance but you fail once again.

I do see what your saying but there are other forms of punishment that would be applied to those of lower rank . Art 15 , general court martials with loss of rank or pay, extra duty days  , depends on the command in charge, and dare i say , how fast do they want something to go "away" . perfect example would be the incident of my lai( likely spelt wrong), and Lt Calley, one they use in the briefing on illegal orders as an example , at least they did when i was active in the 80s . The other trueism that also always came through was the Nuremburg trials , just following orders is never an excuse nor does it mean following illegal orders will be condoned no matter what ones rank is . so that ended with WW2.

Now the last briefing i got on this issue is well past 40 years in the past so i might not be exactly accurate anymore , my shit isnt as hot , or as tight as it once was . when they sent me my complete discharge certificate( different from the DD form 214) i washed my hands of the whole situation  and went feral.

“Above your pay grade” comes to mind in this instance for most lower ranks but there is always some shithouse lawyer pushing this yardbird nonsense or that.    This discussion reminds me of some of those geniuses I had the misfortune to run across back in the day.

This whole topic here is about 90% Trump partisan and 10% thoughtful.

Then what would be a logical reason foe the dems not to stop him in the courts now?

Look, I told you upfront I have no special insight into the inner workings of the Ds.   Your guess is as good as mine.  

You keep deflecting asking me to prove something I never claimed

Again with the bullshit.   

Do you then assert that you know of no legal authority that allows the USA to bomb boats in international waters merely because we believe they are trafficking drugs?

And if you know of no legal authority, then any argument you make defending these bombings is by definition made in ignorance.

I was not suggesting lower ranks are immune.

ChatGPT offered

Again with the shortcut.  Military operational movements are documented.  These documents outline the unit, it's mission, chain of command and legality.  Your shortcut doesn't define ANY of that.

Find the documents if you expect to be taken seriously.  

Nowhere do you show the legal authority to blow up boats in international waters

Actually I did.  As expected, you choose to ignore it. 

Personal note: only a fool would risk charging an American hero over a flagrant violation of the UCMJ over an innocuous ad about not obeying an illegal orders.

Then lets see what the Article 32 brings to light.

Actually I did.  As expected, you choose to ignore it. 

No you did not.   And you cut short my requirement to dishonestly change the meaning.

This is what I wrote:

TiG@2.2.91 ☞ Nowhere do you show the legal authority to blow up boats in international waters based only on the suspicion that they are trafficking drugs.

Respond without such blatant dishonesty.

( You cannot because there is no legal authority for the USA  to blow up boats in international waters based only on the suspicion that they are trafficking drugs.   So I expect more bullshit from you. )

This is what I wrote:

I.  Don't.  Care.  I posted the link.  I ask what the policies were.  I ask what the ROE was.  You referred to your short cut.

Yeah, of course you 'do not care' since you cannot show the legal authority for the USA to bomb boats in international waters merely because we believe they are trafficking drugs.

All you have, yet again, is deflection and bullshit.

yeah, have a good day.  I'm done playing your game on this.

And in all that, you failed to produce the legal authority for the USA to bomb boats in international waters merely because we believe they are trafficking drugs.

[✘] And STILL haven't looked up policies, ROE or the link I provided.

Maybe we can expand the question? where Did Obama have the legal Authority to bomb the Houtis in Yemen? or ISIS in Syria? or Somalia's "pirates" because they were only alleged pirates? 

You continue to deflect while pretending (as usual) that you 'already addressed' my challenge.  

Thing is, you cannot possibly address my challenge because no such legal authority (as I described) exists.

How about just stay on point and deliver the legal authority that allows the USA to bomb a boat in international waters merely because we believe they are trafficking drugs.

Let's.

The exact same legal authority that the former president had to do the actions i described. Prove he didn't or admit Obama was a war criminal. 

What is this legal authority?   Deliver it!   You cannot because there is no way this can be framed as an ongoing armed conflict.

So cease the deflection and the bullshit and deliver facts to support your claim that the USA has legal authority to bomb boats in international waters merely because we suspect they are trafficking drugs.

Make an argument.  A real one.  Facts, reason, all of that stuff.

I did list the legal authority, the same one used in Somalia, Yemen and Syria where there was no ongoing conflict, all you have is bullshit and deflection. Prove this same authority doesn’t extend with facts and sources.

make an argument, a real one! Facts reason and all that.

You cannot because there is no way this can be framed as an ongoing armed conflict.

They know there's no actual legal authority, if this was a Democrat doing all this these conservatives would be losing their minds accusing him of murder and everything else. Hell, we have one here who apparently loves terrorists because he keeps defending Obama killing them in an actual 'armed conflict' which clearly this moronic one-sided Rambo game of blowing up drug boats is not. But you can't reason with the clingers stilling clinging to the Trumptanic, they're like little rabid Chihuahuas that can only hear the sound of their own yapping. And it doesn't matter what you say, the yapping never changes, there is no thought put into it, just nonstop nonsensical full of shit yapping.

"Donald Trumps the best! He does everything legal! All those felonies are fake news! Biden is the fascist! Obama bombed innocent kids and he liked it!" yap, yap, yap. You simply can't get into that kind of mind set without stuffing the entire cranium through Donald Trump's balloon knot.

Wrong.   That legal authority does not allow the bombing of boats in international waters because we believe they are trafficking drugs.

I have put forth tons of information on this.

You have offered nothing but bullshit and lies.

They know there's no actual legal authority, if this was a Democrat doing all this these conservatives would be losing their minds accusing him of murder and everything else.

I agree, it is obvious.

There is no attempt to seriously show the legal authority for Trump's actions.   Every single one of his defenders here has used the same tactic:    bullshit, deflection, and lies.    All the while ignoring the analysis and supporting links I have provided.

It is pitiful, in the same way that Trump's cabinet is pitiful.

Wrong! You offer nothing but TDS driven Bullshit, it is exact same authority that was used in the examples given and you can’t dispute it so you post the same bullshit demanding proof that has already been provided.

Prove it’s not true with facts and sources!

If it was a democrat other than Obama doing this we would be shocked because all they elect are pussies like Carter and Clinton or Biden, Obama was the only president who had a pair.

plus republicans wouldn’t be upset because it isn’t driving up our drug prices.

You ignore the substantial argument, and links I have provided because you have no rebuttal.   Just pathetic.

Obviously you have no argument.   You cannot show how the USA has legal authority to bomb boats in international waters merely because we believe they are trafficking drugs.

You attempt to defend Trump but have nothing to work with.

It would be funny if this blind devotion to Trump were not so detrimental to our nation.

I haven’t ignored anything, because all you have provided is TDS bullshi! Trump has the same authority as Obama had attacking Somalia pirates in international waters and attacking ISIS on a sovereign countries land, it is only TDS that says they aren’t exactly the same.

Now make an argument that proves this wrong with facts or continue to post TDS denials and bullshit.

[deleted][✘]

[deleted][✘]

you 'already addressed' my challenge.  

"Challenge".  That's funny.  

I have repeatedly argued with facts and reason that no legal authority exists for the USA to bomb boats in international waters merely because we believe they are trafficking drugs.   Neither you nor any of your fellow Trump supporters have provided this legal authority (no surprise since it does not exist).   

The very idea that you cannot deliver the legal authority and then absurdly declare no such argument has been made illustrates that you are not serious and are just making  obnoxious posts.

I'm going to type this one more time then i am going to impasse you if you continue to badger me, Trump has declared these Narco entities as terrorists, and the state department has confirmed this, your complete bullshit deflection to trafficking drugs is meaningless, they are using drugs to fund a TERRORIST organization, so trump has the same authority to bomb foreign terrorists that Obama had to murder Americans he had decided were terrorists.

Your absurd bullshit is not worth my time; especially since you ignore everything I wrote.

So instead, I copy and pasted your argument to ChatGPT and asked it to analyze it legally, factually, and logically.

Here is what it produced:

This argument is legally wrong at every level. 

It sounds forceful but collapses immediately under actual U.S. law, constitutional structure, and international law. Here is the precise rebuttal, in clean legal terms.

---

1. A President cannot create a war or new “terrorists” by declaration.

The commenter claims:

“Trump has declared these narco entities as terrorists, therefore he can bomb them.”

This is legally false.

A President’s unilateral declaration does not:

• Create an “armed conflict”

• Convert criminals into “enemy combatants”

• Authorize war powers

• Activate the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)

• Change the legal status of foreign persons

• Permit lethal force outside imminence or armed conflict

A President may designate Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) for sanctions and immigration purposes, but:

FTO designation does not grant authority to kill people.

Only Congress can authorize sustained military force against new groups.

---

2. Narco-trafficking is NOT an armed conflict under U.S. or international law.

Drug traffickers — however violent — are criminals, not war combatants.

U.S. law:

The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act and related statutes treat this as criminal law enforcement, not war.

International law:

Use of military force is lawful only when:

1. In self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack, or

2. Pursuant to a Congressional authorization (UN Charter Article 51 and U.S. Constitution Article I)

Drug trafficking is not an armed attack against the U.S.

There is zero precedent for treating drug smuggling vessels as combatants.

---

3. Obama’s authority was NOT based on simply “calling people terrorists.”

This comment misrepresents the Obama-era legal justification.

Obama’s actions were grounded (rightly or wrongly) in:

• 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)
  — explicitly authorizing action against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces.

• A defined, ongoing armed conflict recognized by Congress and the courts.

Whether one agrees with the drone program or not, the legal structure existed.

By contrast:

There is no AUMF authorizing war against “drug traffickers,” “narco-terrorists,” or cartels.

Congress has repeatedly refused to expand AUMF to cartels.

---

4. State Department labeling does NOT authorize military killing.

The commenter wrote:

“the state department has confirmed this”

Even if the State Department called a cartel a terrorist group (which they have not officially done), that still does not authorize:

• War powers

• Lethal force in international waters

• Treating suspects as combatants

• Killing shipwrecked survivors

The State Department cannot authorize war.
Only Congress can.

---

5. U.S. killing authority is extremely narrow — and this doesn’t meet any criteria.

The U.S. can lawfully kill outside U.S. territory only if:

1. In an armed conflict AND

2. Target is a combatant OR

3. Target poses an imminent threat

None of these apply here.

• suspected drug boats

• far from U.S. shores

• no hostile acts

• no imminent threat

• no armed conflict

This is extrajudicial killing, not wartime engagement.

---

6. “Obama murdered Americans” is factually and legally incorrect.

This is political rhetoric, not legal argument.

In the controversial Anwar al-Awlaki case:

• The individual was a senior al-Qaeda figure

• AUMF provided statutory authorization

• OLC issued a legal memo (later disclosed)

• He was judged a combatant in an armed conflict

You may disagree with the reasoning, but the claim that Obama simply decided someone was a terrorist and killed them is false.

Nothing comparable exists for drug traffickers.

---

7. Even if cartels WERE terrorists, you still could not bomb boats this way.

Even against terrorists, the U.S. may use force only if:

• They are in an armed conflict zone,

• Or they pose imminent threat,

• Or Congress authorized military force against them.

Bombing a vessel:

• in the Caribbean or Pacific

• not attacking anyone

• not posing imminent threat

• containing unarmed men

• hundreds or thousands of miles from the U.S.

…fails every single legal test.

---

8. Killing defenseless survivors is a war crime — even in a lawful war.

Even if (hypothetically) a lawful armed conflict existed:

Shipwrecked, fleeing, or incapacitated persons cannot be killed under the law of armed conflict.

This is black-letter law under the Geneva Conventions.

So the commenter’s argument collapses even under its own hypotheticals.

---

9. Summary of why the argument is wrong

Claim	Reality
President can declare criminals "terrorists" and bomb them	❌ False — requires Congress, and designation doesn’t authorize killing
Drug smugglers are part of a terrorist war	❌ False — legally they are criminals
Obama did the same thing	❌ False — Obama acted under an AUMF in a defined armed conflict
State Dept confirmation authorizes lethal force	❌ False — State cannot authorize war
This is lawful self-defense	❌ False — no armed attack or imminent threat

In short, your argument is pure bullshit.   You clearly do not have a grasp of the law here.   You have nothing.   As with others, you put forth utter nonsense trying to defend Trump no matter what he does.

Pitiful.

( Now, by all means, carry out your IMPASSE '~~threat~~' so I need not deal with more nonsense from you on this. )

... haven't you heard, AI has a liberal bias. you will never get that time back ...

Yeah, a pathetic excuse issued by those who are frustrated by how easily their nonsense can be disputed.

Thing is, if someone believes an AI response is biased, they should fact-check it.   Easy to do.   Show that the AI is wrong.

But they do not do that.   Of course not.   They just claim the AI is biased and think that their mere declaration refutes the sometimes detailed analysis provided by the AI.

Well,  "META AI" has a strong/significant conservative leaning. . . so MAGA supporters have 'something' they can work with any liberal 'naughty' AIs!

I copied ChatGPT's response @2.2.139 (labeling it a critique) and asked Meta AI (Llama) to give very specific reasons for anything it finds wrong.   Here is its response:

This critique is accurate and highlights several key issues with the original argument.

The argument is wrong for several reasons:

• The President can't unilaterally declare entities as terrorists and authorize military force against them.

• Drug trafficking is treated as a criminal issue, not an armed conflict, under U.S. and international law.

• The comparison to Obama's actions is flawed, as those actions were grounded in the 2001 AUMF and a recognized armed conflict.

• State Department labeling doesn't authorize military force or killing.

• The use of force would likely be considered extrajudicial killing, not lawful self-defense.

The critique effectively breaks down the original argument's flaws and provides a clear explanation of the relevant laws and principles.

So Llama agrees with ChatGPT.

In general, one better be on the right side of the truth if one expects much help from AI tools.

Thank you for sharing that! Just today , I asked " Alexa " about META AI being conservative leaning because of this article I read dating back to 2023:

ChatGPT and GPT-4 skew the most liberal — and Meta's LLaMA is the most conservative AI model, a new study says

By  Kylie Kirschner

Aug 11, 2023, 2:09 AM PT

After testing 14 major language models, the researchers found that OpenAI's ChatGPT and GPT-4 were the most left-leaning and libertarian, and Meta's LLaMA AI model was the most right-leaning and authoritarian. Savanna Durr/Insider

• It's widely known that  AI has a bias problem , with models criticized for racism, sexism, and more.
• In a new study, researchers gave 14 AI models a political compass test and graphed the data.
• OpenAI's ChatGPT and GPT-4 were the most liberal, Meta's LLaMA was the most conservative, and Google's BERT models were in between.

businessinsider

The first response from Alexa was yes, Meta AI is conservative-leaning. After reading your comment, I asked Alexa again about Meta AI being conservative and it stated it is not. Very interesting. Perhaps I did not get the 'ask' right the first time.

I am glad for the follow-up check and re-ask steps taken! 

The way to use AI is to treat it as one would with any source.   If it offers something that one finds questionable, then verify it with other sources.   The other sources could, by the way, include other AIs.

Those who categorically dismiss AI responses as biased (or whatever) will typically be those who find themselves being contradicted by AI sources and thus will try to discredit them.   Not only is that an obvious bullshit tactic, but AI sources continue to improve over time.

Who programs AI?

If it is the same people from Silicon Valley and Google, their prejudices and bias will be baked into the AI.

AI is unlike any technology we have seen before in that its behavior is NOT explicitly programmed but rather is an emergent property of its training.   Its training is based on vast corpora (e.g. the web and supporting documents) and thus represents a broad scope beyond human comprehension and thus beyond our ability to directly control.

Bias in AI is predominantly a function of its training data.   Programmers are involved in established frameworks for how the AI interacts with users and they can infuse some bias there, but AI developers work hard to NOT impose bias.   So while bias is real, it is nowhere near what you are thinking (which is something like 'programmers code their political/ideological bias into the AI').  

ChatGPT offered this based on your post:

You’re describing AI as if programmers sit down and code its opinions in by hand. That isn’t how modern systems work at all.

Models like ChatGPT are not explicitly programmed to “think” one way or another. Their behavior is an emergent result of training on enormous datasets (web pages, books, articles, code, etc.). No single person, or even team, can micromanage what comes out of that training — it’s statistically learned, not scripted.

Bias in AI is real, but it mostly comes from two places: the data it is trained on and the safety rules used to keep it from producing harmful content. That means developer choices matter, but not in the simplistic “they injected their personal politics into the code” way you’re suggesting. It’s much more about how they curate data and define what counts as acceptable behavior.

I agree. That said, I am 'glad' AI recognizes truth more than presenting error for error sake. A lie should not be equal or have equity next to the truth!

MAGA supporters, Trump, and the GOP can not concede to truth. They are in the business of 'generating' narratives and more. . . . Such people are in the habit of bending reality to their will. Just look at the CDC as an example of will over science and established facts!

Always check. Always. 

I noticed that in the little bit given in the blurb with the click-bait title above, it just states "the most" it does not give the description of how much the most is or what criteria were used in the determination. 

Also, the companies responsible for the production of the AI are aware of this and I would assume that they are constantly tweaking the the Large Language Models to alleviate this....?

And from the perspective of AI, two years is an awfully long time.

Thank you, Thomas for this timely input.

LOL!

To what degree is the destruction of drug traffickers different from the actions of Barack Obama when he ordered the killing of individuals on the Pakistan border or in Afghanistan, during which at least one US citizen was killed, and many unknown individuals were killed.

I gave your question directly to ChatGPT via copy/paste and it offered this answer:

Short version: they are very different in law and partially similar in morality, and the details really matter.

I’ll break it into three angles:

1. Legal framework

2. Context and targets

3. Moral / practical differences and similarities

I’ll also quietly fix a couple factual points as I go.

---

1. Legal framework

Obama-era targeted killings (e.g., drone strikes)

How they were justified, legally:

• The Obama administration framed most strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan as part of an ongoing armed conflict under:

  • The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and “associated forces”.

  • U.S. constitutional Commander-in-Chief powers.

• They argued that these strikes were governed by laws of armed conflict / international humanitarian law:

  • You can target members of enemy armed groups (combatants or continuous combat function members).

  • Civilian casualties are permitted only as “collateral damage” under proportionality rules (arguably and controversially applied).

U.S. citizen killing example:

• The most famous case is Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen killed by a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in 2011, not on the Pakistan border.

• The Obama administration claimed:

  • He was a senior operational leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

  • Capture was not feasible.

  • He posed a “continuing, imminent threat”.

• A DOJ white paper (and later a leaked OLC memo) laid out internal criteria for targeting a U.S. citizen abroad connected to terrorism:

  • High-level official determination of threat.

  • Infeasibility of capture.

  • Compliance with laws of war (proportionality, etc.).

Whether those arguments are convincing is heavily debated. But the key point is: they were framed as war measures, not criminal law enforcement.

---

“Destruction of drug traffickers”

If by “destruction” you mean:

• Killing drug traffickers as a matter of policy (e.g., “shoot drug dealers,” “execute traffickers,” or adopting Duterte-style “kill them in the streets” policies), that is a law enforcement / domestic criminal justice context rather than an armed conflict (unless you’re in the middle of a genuine civil war or insurgency).

In a normal rule-of-law framework:

• Drug traffickers are criminal suspects, not enemy combatants.

• Use of lethal force by police is only lawful when:

  • There’s an immediate threat to life or serious bodily harm.

  • It’s not possible to neutralize the threat by less lethal means.

• Executing traffickers after arrest requires:

  • A valid statute prescribing the death penalty.

  • A fair trial, due process, appeals, etc.

So, summary killing of traffickers as a policy is:

• Extrajudicial execution in the human-rights sense.

• Almost certainly illegal under domestic law and international human-rights law.

In other words:

Obama’s drone strikes were (controversially) argued as acts of war against enemy fighters; killing traffickers without trial is an extrajudicial punishment of criminal suspects.

That is a major legal distinction, even if you find both morally troubling.

---

2. Context and targets

Obama strikes in Pakistan/Afghanistan region

• Declared/undeclared war context: Afghanistan clearly a war zone; Pakistan border areas were treated as part of a “theater” because of cross-border militant activity, though Pakistan’s consent and international legality are highly contested.

• Targets: alleged members of al-Qaeda, Taliban, and associated groups.

• Civilians and “unknown individuals”:

  • Many strikes killed people whose identities were not fully established, leading to criticism that in practice the U.S. sometimes targeted “military aged males in a strike zone” as presumed militants.

  • Civilian casualties and “signature strikes” are among the most heavily criticized aspects.

Drug traffickers

• Not generally part of a group with which the U.S. (or most countries) is legally at war.

• They are engaged in criminal activity that is handled under criminal law, not the laws of armed conflict.

• Even when a state frames traffickers as a “threat to national security,” that does not automatically create a lawful armed conflict classification.

So:

• Obama policy: “We’re at war with these armed groups; we target their fighters under war law.”

• “Destroy drug traffickers” policy: “We will kill people engaged in crime without trial,” which is straight-up extrajudicial killing unless it’s immediate self-defense.

---

3. Moral and practical differences and similarities

Key differences

1. Due process vs. war paradigm

   • Drug traffickers in most contexts have a right to arrest, trial, and legal representation.

   • Enemy fighters in an armed conflict do not have a right to be arrested rather than shot, if they’re valid military targets. The debate with Obama’s policy is mostly:

     • Were all those people really valid targets?

     • Were the civilian casualties and “unknowns” acceptable or reckless?

2. Who counts as a lawful target

   • In war, you may target members of the enemy armed group and people directly participating in hostilities.

   • In policing, you may not target someone solely for past crimes; lethal force is for stopping an immediate threat.

3. Citizenship and rights

   • Killing a U.S. citizen as a wartime target abroad (al-Awlaki) is legally and morally explosive, but was wrapped in a thick layer of internal legal justification and executive review.

   • A state policy of killing citizens at home for drug crimes, without trial, would flatly collide with constitutional protections (due process, cruel and unusual punishment, etc.) and international human-rights obligations.

4. International law regime

   • Obama strikes sit in the hotly debated realm of counterterrorism + IHL.

   • Killing traffickers is in the realm of human rights and policing. The standards on necessity and proportionality of lethal force are much stricter there than in a war zone.

Important similarity

There is a morally relevant similarity you might be pointing at:

In both cases, the state is using lethal force against people who are not actively shooting at anyone at the moment of impact, and in both cases civilians and unknown non-combatants can and do die.

Critics of Obama’s drone program say:

• The “war on terror” framework became so elastic that it functioned like a global license to kill suspects far from traditional battlefields.

• Secret targeting criteria, little transparency, and a low bar for “associated forces” means that in practice it looked more like a high-tech assassination program than a conventional war.

From that perspective, someone could argue:

• “Killing drug traffickers” and “killing terror suspects with drones” are on a spectrum of state violence against legally murky categories of enemies, both risking erosion of rule-of-law norms.

Supporters of the Obama program would respond:

• Terror groups like AQ and ISIS are engaged in organized armed violence against the U.S. and allies.

• Drug traffickers, however destructive, are not in an armed conflict against the state in the same way.

• There were internal legal checks, interagency review, and post-strike assessments for drones, whereas a “destroy traffickers” posture often lacks any comparable procedural safeguards.

---

So “to what degree” are they different?

In my view, in formal legal terms, they are very different:

• Obama’s killings were framed (and partially constrained) as wartime targeting under the AUMF and laws of armed conflict.

• “Destroying drug traffickers” as a policy, outside of immediate self-defense or a formal death-penalty sentence after trial, is extrajudicial killing and almost certainly unlawful.

In moral and political practice, the gap narrows if:

• A state expands “war” language to cover more and more enemies,

• uses opaque criteria,

• and accepts repeated killing of “unknowns” in the process.

That is where critics see the drone program as a dangerous precedent: once you normalize killing people far from conventional battlefields without trial under a broad “war” banner, it becomes easier for other leaders (or future U.S. administrations) to justify similarly aggressive actions against whatever category of enemies they choose.

My view is that there is a difference between trying to take out leaders of a terrorist group actively trying to attack the USA vs. stopping drug trafficking.

We stop suspected smugglers all the time.   We do not just blow their ships out of the water.   Bottom line, we should follow the law and our normal protocols.   If capturing the presumed traffickers is feasible we should do so.  The USA military is very sophisticated and has plenty of options other than a last resort of just blowing boats out of the water.

We stop suspected smugglers all the time.   

Correct.  Not sure it is working all that great.

We do not just blow their ships out of the water. 

It seems we do.

 Bottom line, we should follow the law and our normal protocols.   

I agree but I am still waiting for a court (the supreme court) to say it is illegal.

If capturing the presumed traffickers is feasible we should do so. 

That is a toughie.  It has not really worked so maybe something else is needed.  Not sure it is blowing things out of the water but I will leave the legality of that up to the jag lawyers presumably telling them full speed ahead and not the internet lawyers.

The USA military is very sophisticated and has plenty of options other than a last resort of just blowing boats out of the water.

It seems they are looking for immediate results.  Not sure of the lasting results but they sure do  have the attention of the bad guys.

It seems we do.

No, the USA historically does not do that.   This is the (rogue) Trump administration, not the norm.   If you think otherwise, provide an example.   (Good luck.)

I wasn't talking about historically.  You stated we do not and I responded that we do.

Faux obtuseness; a pointless tactic.   Obviously I was speaking historically since we are discussing the Trump administration's current acts.

Do you (try to be serious now) recognize that what Trump is doing flies in the face of historical protocol (and law)?

If you were talking historically maybe you should have used the word historically. 

I already said he is doing something different.  "It has not really worked so maybe something else is needed.  Not sure it is blowing things out of the water". "It seems they are looking for immediate results."

Please tell me which court has deemed it illegal.  If I have missed it and if it has gone through the courts I will say he should stop immediately.  

If you were talking historically maybe you should have used the word historically. 

You play the faux obtuseness game again.  

Please tell me which court has deemed it illegal. 

I provided a detailed summary by ChatGPT.   If you do not see why this is illegal, then do some actual research and find something that appeals to whatever mindset you have.

I initiated a comment to that (4) but gave up because its 'futile' to ask conservatives to be 'bigger' than a conservative talking point once they have 'established' it: They will apply it again, again, again, ad nauseam. 

You play the faux obtuseness game again.  

 I always find it funny when someone says something and then dance around with "Well you know what I meant" when there is a response to the actual wording.

I provided a detailed summary by ChatGPT. 

I am fairly confident ChatGPT has not earned a law degree.  

 If you do not see why this is illegal, then do some actual research and find something that appeals to whatever mindset you have.

If you are so sure it is illegal it sure hasn't gotten through the courts. Or please tell me which court has deemed it illegal.  If I have missed it and if it has gone through the courts I will say he should stop immediately.  

My mindset is clear, as I have already stated. I will abide by the court and ignore internet lawyers and pundits.  I guess you can add Chat GPT to that list.  No amount of layman's research can give a valid answer to the question.  

Bottom line.  A court should determine the legality, not you, not me, not ChatGPT.  That is my rational, well thought out non partisan mindset.

[✘]

You have nothing; as expected.

You play a pointless faux obtuseness game trying to take issue with an obvious statement.

And then when encouraged to be serious and factual, you post bullshit and deflect.   You make no attempt to research the law and precedent.

Pathetic.

Ah, the usual bullshit accusations when you have no intelligent response. The facts are nothing has been deemed illegal by anyone that matters. The fact is if it is deemed illegal by the courts I will say it is illegal. Any rational non biased person would say the same thing.

Take your little game elsewhere.  I am not going to play

Same old bullshit game.   You refuse to look at facts and instead demand that a court rule on this specific case before recognizing that Trump has no authority to bomb these boats.

Another feeble attempt to defend Trump.

Cite the legal authority for Trump to violate norms and bomb vessels suspected of drug trafficking.

Here is more context for your research.   This is a head start for you provided by ChatGPT.   You will of course fail and give us more bullshit.

Per ChatGPT:

Below is the clearest possible breakdown of every authority Trump could claim, paired with why none of them clearly authorize bombing suspected drug-trafficking vessels in international waters. This analysis reflects what military lawyers, former DOJ officials, Just Security, HRW, and maritime-law experts are publishing right now.

---

✅ SHORT ANSWER

There is no U.S. law, no treaty, and no international legal doctrine that clearly gives a president the authority to order military airstrikes on vessels suspected of drug trafficking outside an armed conflict.

The actions are widely described as unprecedented and legally unsupported.

The closest things Trump could claim are:

1. Article II Commander-in-Chief powers

2. Law enforcement / maritime interdiction statutes (MDLEA, DTVIA)

3. Self-defense (domestic or international)

4. A war paradigm (“narco-terrorism as armed conflict”)

But none of these, even when stretched, legally justify what he is doing.

Below is the detailed breakdown.

---

🚫 1. The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA)

What the law authorizes:

• The U.S. Coast Guard can interdict, board, search, seize, and arrest people on vessels suspected of drug trafficking in international waters.

What it does NOT authorize:

• Airstrikes

• Lethal force except in immediate self-defense

• Destroying a vessel rather than arresting suspects

• U.S. military involvement beyond support roles

MDLEA is a criminal law enforcement statute, not a war authorization.
Every expert agrees it does not authorize bombing.
(You can confirm by reading 46 U.S.C. §§ 70501–70508.)

---

🚫 2. The Drug Trafficking Vessel Interdiction Act (DTVIA)

This law criminalizes “stateless semi-submersible vessels” used for smuggling.
Again:

• It authorizes arrest and prosecution, not lethal force.

• It gives jurisdiction, not war powers.

• It does not authorize the military to destroy boats.

So this cannot justify Trump’s strikes.

---

🚫 3. 2001 AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force)

This is the legal basis for most U.S. drone strikes under Bush/Obama/Trump (first term).
It applies only to:

• al-Qaeda

• The Taliban

• Associated forces engaged in hostilities against the U.S.

Drug traffickers are not covered.
Unless Trump can claim they are terrorists associated with al-Qaeda or the Taliban (he has not), AUMF does not apply.

No credible scholar argues the AUMF covers drug cartels.

---

🚫 4. Article II Commander-in-Chief Powers

This is the closest thing Trump could claim, but it still fails legally.

Article II allows the president to:

• Use limited force to protect U.S. personnel

• Conduct self-defense operations

• Respond to sudden attacks

It does not permit:

• Initiating sustained hostilities without a statutory basis

• Using military force for criminal enforcement

• Killing non-combatants outside an armed conflict

• Bombing vessels not posing imminent threat

Legal experts across the political spectrum agree:

Article II does not authorize initiating a lethal counter-drug war in international waters.

---

🚫 5. “Self-defense” under international law

To justify force between states under the U.N. Charter, a president would need:

• An armed attack or

• An imminent threat of attack

Drug trafficking is not an armed attack.

Drug boats fleeing or evading detection are not imminently threatening U.S. forces or territory.

Thus, no self-defense theory works here.

---

🚫 6. Claiming an “armed conflict” against drug traffickers

Some Latin American governments (e.g., Colombia historically, Mexico rhetorically) have used “war on drugs” language.
But under international humanitarian law (IHL):

• An armed conflict requires organized armed groups

• With sustained military hostilities

• That rise above criminality

Drug cartels do not meet this threshold vis-à-vis the U.S.

The U.S. has never treated narcotrafficking as an armed conflict for legal targeting purposes.

If Trump claims this, it would be a brand-new legal invention, and it is not supported by existing law.

---

🚫 7. No maritime or security treaty allows this

Relevant treaties include:

• UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

• 1988 Vienna Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs

• U.S.–Colombia maritime narcotics agreements

All allow seizure, boarding, and arrest — not military strikes.

---

📌 What legal experts say

Here is where legal scholars converge:

(a) The strikes violate international human-rights law (extrajudicial killing)

Because trafficking suspects are criminal suspects, not combatants, killing them without due process violates ICCPR Article 6 protections against arbitrary deprivation of life.

(b) They may violate domestic homicide laws

If no statutory authority or armed conflict exists, ordering lethal force against non-combatant suspects at sea constitutes homicide under U.S. law.

This position is spelled out in detail in analyses by former DOJ officials and military legal scholars.

(c) They are unprecedented in U.S. history

No U.S. administration — not Bush, not Obama, not Trump (first term), not Biden — ever authorized bombing suspected drug vessels.

---

✅ FINAL ANSWER

There is no established legal authority that permits Trump to bomb suspected drug-trafficking boats.
Under U.S. law, he lacks statutory authorization.
Under the U.N. Charter, he lacks an armed-attack or self-defense basis.
Under human-rights law, the killings constitute extrajudicial executions.
Under maritime law, interdiction must be conducted through boarding and seizure, not military destruction.

The strikes are:

• Unprecedented

• Unsupported by existing law

• Potentially illegal under both U.S. and international law

If you'd like, I can summarize how a president could legally justify force at sea (and why Trump’s approach still fails).

• Potentially illegal under both U.S. and international law

Thank you. I rest my case.

It is amusing to see you cling to any word you can while totally disregarding the context and all other content.   Here you cling to the word ' potentially ' (which, by the way, was qualifying the 'and international law' since it was already established that this act is not supported by US law.)

You even ignored the line above it: " Unsupported by existing law ".

And you ignored:

There is no established legal authority that permits Trump to bomb suspected drug-trafficking boats.
Under U.S. law, he lacks statutory authorization.
Under the U.N. Charter, he lacks an armed-attack or self-defense basis.
Under human-rights law, the killings constitute extrajudicial executions.
Under maritime law, interdiction must be conducted through boarding and seizure, not military destruction.

And, in short, you ignored everything else in the post.   

A fine example of confirmation bias.

If this is how you do analysis, I would expect you to then routinely post crap on the wrong side of truth.

But you 'rest your case' ...     Pathetic.

I always find it funny when someone says something and then dance around with "Well you know what I meant" when there is a response to the actual wording.

I always find it fascinating when someone can’t engage the actual facts of a matter and instead defaults to side-channel quibbling and tone-policing. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of shadowboxing: lots of motion, zero substance.

You currently have no position at all. You’re waiting to be issued one by a court while simultaneously attacking forum members who are willing to examine the law as it exists right now. That is not neutrality, that is intellectual outsourcing.

Courts do not create executive authority; they merely adjudicate disputes over authority that must already exist. Authority is bounded by statute and the Constitution before any gavel ever falls.

And under the laws and statutes presently on the books, the President of the United States possesses no express or implied authority to order the blanket destruction of civilian vessels and the summary killing of every person aboard under the public rationale that’s been offered.

None.

Zero.

Not even close.

Waiting for a court ruling does not suspend constitutional limits any more than waiting for a speed-trap ruling means the speed limit ceases to exist. The law isn’t paused until someone litigates it. The law governs continuously.

And that brings us to the larger point.

Neutrality does not mean declining to think. Being non-partisan does not require refusing to reason. And rationality does not consist of outsourcing judgment until someone else renders a verdict for you.

A democracy depends on citizens who are willing to examine the facts as they stand, not simply wait to be told what to believe.

And that is all that’s being asked here.

Amazing, is it not, that Trump supporters will abandon ethics, rule of law, and basic reasoning and refuse to condemn extrajudicial bombing of boats hundreds of miles off our coast that are not part of a military defense operation.

Since when does the USA engage in such practices?   This is not how we operate.

Since when does the USA engage in such practices? 

I realize the question was rhetorical, but if we have done things like this in the past, the government would stay mum about it if possible. If it were found out, at least past the late 19th century, the government would presumably have been at pains to deal with it much more diplomatically. 

The current regime does not respect any law but it's leader's, and it's leader respects no law but that of his immediate whim. 

What a country.

What a country.

What a disaster Trump has created, with the non interruption of a check on executive powers that the pathetic Republicans have permitted.

It is amusing to see you cling to any word you can while totally disregarding the context and all other content.   Here you cling to the word ' potentially ' (which, by the way, was qualifying the 'and international law' since it was already established that this act is not supported by US law.)

You are not fooling anyone with this BS.  It is amusing to see you totally ignore the word potentially and continue on with your speel saying it is illegal.  As an added bonus you try to change meanings by saying "was qualifying the 'and international law' since it was already established that this act is not supported by US law." when it clearly said "Potentially illegal under both U.S. and international law".

Sad that you have to resort to it but it seems to be what happens when you don't have anything else.

 If you wish to be an internet lawyer that is fine.  Of course you run the risk of having it go through the courts and find out that Trump has the power to do what he is doing.  If that happens I will accept it.  If it turns out to be illegal I will accept it.  If he turns out to has the authority to do what he is doing will you say you were wrong in insisting what he is doing is illegal and being an internet lawyer really doesn't mean much in the real world.  

It is well established that if the courts rule that what he is doing, we will hear incessantly, that whatever court ruled favorably for Trump, it must be a far right court only bidding what he wants them to do. 

It happens every time, like clockwork. 

Yep, I may or may not like the decision but I will accept it and not lose any sleep over it.  Some will insist they know more law than the supreme court(if it gets that far).

As I seem to recall even the seditious 6 has not and can not specify which order given that was illegal.  Also to my knowledge the dems congress folks that are screaming illegal haven't started going though the courts.  It would also be interesting to see what would happen to the poor fool that refuses and order based on what so many of the dems and the seditious six are telling them to do.  

What utter bullshit.   This is laughably pathetic.

You cherrypick one word out of a narrative which clearly states, repeatedly, that Trump has "no established legal authority to bomb suspected drug-trafficking boats".

You try to build an entire case on one word taken entirely out of context while ignoring the balance of the content.

That is classical confirmation bias and a blatantly dishonest and desperate tactic.

This illustrates, again, the ridiculous levels to which Trump supporters will go in a feeble attempt to defend Trump no matter what he does or says.

If he turns out to has the authority to do what he is doing ...

There is no such authority.

If it turns out to be illegal I will accept it. 

The indication based on your words is the opposite.

As I seem to recall even the seditious 6 has not and can not specify which order given that was illegal. 

ChatGPT offered this, and I have posted it several times now:

Two military orders were actually ruled unlawful by federal courts in 2025:

• Use of National Guard in Los Angeles for policing → violation of Posse Comitatus.

• Extended National Guard deployment in Washington DC after “crime emergency” ended → ruled unlawful.

Two is two too many and there are others that are currently being adjudicated.   And unless Trump's appeals (as always) prevail, these are illegal orders.   Trump is out of control.   Now, regarding illegal orders, do you NOT support the military refusing to obey illegal orders??   You support a rogue PotUS issuing illegal orders?  

  All personal attacks aside (something done when their is nothing else) what will you say if and when the courts come down and say what he is doing is legal?  

You are deflecting yet again.

My response will be a function of the reasoning offered in the ruling.   As with presidential immunity, I looked at the reasoning, the CotUS, and delivered my analysis.

Trying to change the discussion?  We are talking about blowing ships out of the water.  But I will say that shows what I have been saying is possible.  When the courts say something he is doing is illegal I will abide by that decision and state it is illegal.  What court has said blowing things out of the water is illegal?

cherrypick one word out of a narrative

In other words , how dare you seize upon the word upon which the whole debate hinges and completely undermines my point?

The indication based on your words is the opposite.

Seems you are not understanding my words then.  I will abide by whatever the courts rule.  Simple.

My response will be a function of the reasoning offered in the ruling.   As with presidential immunity, I looked at the reasoning, the CotUS, and delivered my analysis.

And in the grand scheme of things your analysis will not mean a thing and not change a thing to what the courts decide.

You are deflecting yet again.

Not worth answering.  I did not take a word out of context.  It was an 8 word sentence that you tried to change the meaning of.