You can declare war on the drugs trade, many countries claim to have done this including us
US Politics
- Topic starter Stirlingsays
- Start date
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
Scotland
The US oath of enlistment does include the line
...and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
England
Not in a formal international sense. The so called “war on drugs” is more rhetoric than real war. Internal law enforcement campaigns are of course legal and can sometimes request military assistance. It can also be done in cooperation with other countries.
Sinking ships, and presumably killing their crew, which are suspected of running drugs, belonging to any country you haven’t actually declared war on, is illegal under international law. Permission to board and search can be sought from the country of registration but they cannot touched in international waters otherwise. Best to track and arrest when they enter your territory.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
It does but selective quotes are misleading, sometimes very misleading, as this is.
The actual oath is:- “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”
So allegiance to the constitution comes first.
You would need to study and understand what the precise meaning of those regulations and code is, but in essence it means nothing illegal is permissible. You can read about it here:-
What the military oath of enlistment says about legal and illegal orders
The call from Democratic veterans in Congress highlights the federal law that dictates the conduct of members of the military.
abcnews.go.com
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
-
Scotland
Except when Trump is being quoted of course. Now the order of words is important.It does but selective quotes are misleading, sometimes very misleading, as this is.
The actual oath is:- “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”
So allegiance to the constitution comes first.
You would need to study and understand what the precise meaning of those regulations and code is, but in essence it means nothing illegal is permissible. You can read about it here:-
What the military oath of enlistment says about legal and illegal orders
The call from Democratic veterans in Congress highlights the federal law that dictates the conduct of members of the military.
Nevertheless they do swear to obey the orders of the President.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
Because the issue of sinking suspected drug boats seems to have been behind the video made by the Congressmen.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
You weren’t making a documentary about a much wider subject.
They don’t swear to obey the orders of the President. They swear to obey them, “according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
Just swearing to obey any orders of any individual would be unconstitutional.
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
-
Scotland
That's right; I'm not the BBC.
As always it's about context and the context here is that you feel so sorry for Donald Trump that even verbatim quotes can be discounted.
cryrst
Member
- Location
- The garden of England
- Country
-
England
I doubt any of these boats are fishing or taking tourists on a tour. They all look like high powered speed boats. Probably carrying many kgs of drugs which will kill Americans and others. Good riddance to bad rubbish. I reckon the numbers of smuggling boats have reduced in the last few months. Not through sinking, just through the fact that trump is correct yet again and they are crapping themselves. If they were innocent you would have read about it by now so poirot not needed.
Stop the boats. Rings a bell you think !
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
Of course verbatim quotes cannot be discounted, whilst partial quotes can be questioned.
It’s nothing at all to do with me. The subject is US politics and all I, and you, are doing is commenting on it.
The BBC made a wide ranging documentary that addressed why Trump remained popular after everything he had done. Showing clips from a speech that highlighted his attitude towards a legal election was but 11 seconds of an hour long programme. You were solely addressing the oath taken by servicemen, extracting just 12 words from 70. Hardly comparable.
If you don’t believe context matters, then I completely disagree. It self evidently always matters for without it nothing has any meaning.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
That all that may be true doesn’t make what Trump has ordered legal.
If the leader of the western world is seen to be acting illegally without regard for the personal consequences of the individuals involved then this sends extremely bad messages.
When there are better, legal, ways to achieve the desired outcomes then they must be taken. No matter how hard they are.
If we simply “stopped the boats” by machine gunning them, sinking them and allowing their passengers to drown would you accept it?
georgenorman
Member
- Country
-
England
How about torpedos? It would be good practice for World War III.
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
-
Scotland
Justify it how you like but one example was a direct quote and the other changed the meaning. The only context that matters here is that Trump is involved.
Last edited:
cryrst
Member
- Location
- The garden of England
- Country
-
England
What about my assumption they are drug traffickers. Do they deserve quarter given and for what. So they can shoot a few police or DEA agents when stopped. Or sell their s*** and kill loads of people. Feck em and your child like reply about stop the boats was irony not an expectation. Ffs this hmg struggles to turn them around let alone forcibly return the ones arriving on said boats.
You are correct about trump though. A great leader setting examples of how to get s*** done. Gaza, Iran and hopefully Russia/ Ukraine. Along with Epstein release which you shouted about. That’s comedy gold now with the dems. Shame our crap hmg can’t take his example and have some conviction in what they want to do.
In less than 20 years none of us will be working at all, says Elon
The world's richest man said the decision to work will become like a hobby such as sport or growing your own vegetables.
I like Musk but he's only telling half the story here. He's saying that we will all own robots to do our work and that we wont need money. So how can we afford a robot then?
He's right about AI and robotics causing mass unemployment but someone is going to have to generate wealth to feed house and clothe them.
The earliest known writing in human history isn't a love poem, or a complaint but relates to tax records. As soon as man could write the first thing they did was to document their wealth e.g. that goat and land is mine.
Maybe in some Star Trek future money will not be required and we will all work for the benefit of mankind but for the next 20 years it's going to make the Luddites like a vicar's tea party. The unemployed will not be happy when a future governments starts cutting benefits because the smaller and smaller working population can't afford it.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
In less than 20 years none of us will be working at all, says Elon
The world's richest man said the decision to work will become like a hobby such as sport or growing your own vegetables.www.dailymail.co.uk
I like Musk but he's only telling half the story here. He's saying that we will all own robots to do our work and that we wont need money. So how can we afford a robot then?
He's right about AI and robotics causing mass unemployment but someone is going to have to generate wealth to feed house and clothe them.
The earliest known writing in human history isn't a love poem, or a complaint but relates to tax records. As soon as man could write the first thing they did was to document their wealth e.g. that goat and land is mine.
Maybe in some Star Trek future money will not be required and we will all work for the benefit of mankind but for the next 20 years it's going to make the Luddites like a vicar's tea party. The unemployed will not be happy when a future governments starts cutting benefits because the smaller and smaller working population can't afford it.
Maybe thirty or forty....Musk is a visionary who's done much to improve humanity but he frequently gets time scales wrong......it's certainly up in the air as to whether this future is better or worse for us....but like biological weapons and nukes they will be developed and refined regardless.
I'll be dead in twenty years anyway....I can't be bothered with this salad muck.
Anyway, you make valid points, Musk was being very positive, but then again that's probably due to the amount of investment he's putting into these machines.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
It did not change the meaning of the programme! It changed the meaning of an 11 second segment taken out of context. That’s not “justifying” anything. It’s the simple truth.
Your selected quote, also taken out of context, did change the meaning because the context was solely the oath. Trump being the person involved changes nothing. The same would be true of every President.
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
-
Scotland
They changed the entire meaning of what he said and the only reason you don't want to see it is because it doesn't fit the agenda of Trump being a bad man. It was the BBC. It was Trump. Case closed.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
OMG you really have swallowed the Trump bs! I thought you were better than that.
If he is a great leader I would hate to encounter a bad one. Supporting Netanyahu and Putin and helping them to get all they wanted isn’t clever. He was forced to say he agreed to release the Epstein files when Congress passed their legislation. He could have done it himself months ago. Don’t hold your breath that you will actually see anything worthwhile. Not with a Justice Department that’s now just doing his bidding.
So an assumption is now enough to justify lethal action? That’s no way for anyone to behave let alone a POTUS. Of course you need to apprehend drug smugglers but in any democratic country you must do it legally. Prepare properly and overwhelm when in your jurisdiction but don’t behave like a gang lord.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
😀
While I tend to agree with you that the morality of what Trump is doing is very dodgy what I find wholly ridiculous is this childish notion about 'international law'.....it's like someone has listened to the Lib Dems and somehow thinks that 'international law' is some independent working framework.
Errr no.....The POTUS gets to do pretty much what the feck he wants, as does the head of China.
The only way these guys will ever suffer any consequence from 'international law', would be if they were captured by an enemy presumably during a war......which isn't going to happen.....Not least because the US has nukes....as does China, as does Russia.
'International law' in the real world is only enforced by the powerful and they ignore what they aren't interested in.....You literally had a former terrorist who fought against the west in the White House welcomed by both the GOP and the Democrats as the head of Syria.
'International law'......don't make me laugh.