USA just sunk a drug boat from Venezuela

[UltraBudgie]

If we're fighting narco-terrorism, then government employees who buy these drugs are abetting terrorism.

Drug screening is required for some security clearances, but standards vary between agencies, from none at all, to a single test, to periodic testing for some roles. This should be standardized, and could be, simply, by Trump issuing a single order.

Congress too is subject to background checks, when certain sensitive committees require security clearances. This should include regular testing for cocaine and other drugs, both for members and staff. Again, the President could implement this with a single order.

That he does not tells me this is all theatre. It's commonly thought that politicians and powerful government officials think they're "above the law" in certain respects, especially in regards to drug use and other unsavoury aspects of their personal lives. Why should we expect them to actually attempt to solve these problems, rather than playing a cynical political game with the problem? They've been doing that for decades, to no avail.

It's time for solutions that work. If they object, listen carefully: their objections will speak volumes. There's more corruption than they want to admit.

[CriticalStinker]

If we're fighting narco-terrorism, then government employees who buy these drugs are abetting terrorism.

Here's the thing though, narco-terrorism is a made up word.

Let me explain, first though, I'd like to preface that our system is based off of English Law, which requires crimes be charged showing intent. Meaning, if you are charged with a form of murder, intent has to be proven.

So if someone is a terrorist, we need to prove the intent is terrorism. Selling drugs is illegal, but a vast majority of people do it to make money, not kill people. If they kill people, they lose customers. Selling drugs is still a horrible life choice, and worthy of prison, but to say it is terrorism opens the door to just start killing people who are accused of crimes we can somehow make the case that could lead to someone's death even if it's not probable.

It was proven in court that pharmaceutical companies lied about their drugs being addictive, and over the years there were networks shown of reps lying to doctors, doctors over prescribing, pharmacies knowingly distributing large amounts illegally. None of these people were charged with terrorism, yet I can promise everyone here that more people got addicted through that avenue, and ended up dying than people from Venezuelan dealers. Venezuela is a very small part of the drug trade, and primarily deals with Cocaine. A majority of deaths come from opiates, I'd even be willing to bet that most cocaine deaths are due to being cut with fentanyl.

I hate to be the one that tells people, but cocaine is probably one of the more popular hard drugs. Meaning, if there is someone who has done a hard drug illegally, it was probably cocaine. It's in Wall St, law offices, party scenes, a lot of the people aren't even addicted, they just do it here and there. Alcohol kills more people per year than cocaine. The difference is a societal acceptance of one over the other. 

That's why intent matters. At the end of the day, a vast majority of people choose to buy and use the drug. Unless someone cut it with fentanyl, I don't see how it could be considered intent to kill.

That's not me just being contrarian, or playing devils advocate, it's literally how our legal system is designed.

If we look at how we are trying to predicate this war, it's more sloppy than Iraq. At least with Iraq, it came after 9/11, and we alleged that Iraq had a part in that, and possessed weapons of mass destruction that they intended to use. In this instance, even official government sources say that Venezuela makes up around 5% of the drug trade, and even that is almost all, if not solely cocaine, not even fentanyl.

So let's say we go to war, and completely take them out. What does that do? Increase street cocaine cost by 5% because of supply and demand? What is the cost benefit of that?

Or is it more likely that the stated reason is just a justification, and the real reason is other geopolitical ones, or even that they are the largest reserve of oil? That's what we have to ask ourselves. And if people have to be skeptical of why we should even question our war footing after knowing all of post WWII wars, we are in deep deep danger as a nation.

[UltraBudgie]

I hate to be the one that tells people, but cocaine is probably one of the more popular hard drugs. Meaning, if there is someone who has done a hard drug illegally, it was probably cocaine. It's in Wall St, law offices, party scenes, a lot of the people aren't even addicted, they just do it here and there. Alcohol kills more people per year than cocaine. The difference is a societal acceptance of one over the other. 

That's why intent matters. At the end of the day, a vast majority of people choose to buy and use the drug. Unless someone cut it with fentanyl, I don't see how it could be considered intent to kill.

That's not me just being contrarian, or playing devils advocate, it's literally how our legal system is designed.

There's no need to resort to generalization regarding mens rea (knowledge/criminal intent). There's specific Supreme Court opinions issued discussing how it applies in terms of the "aiding and abetting" prohibited in the Anti-Terrorism Act:

To summarize the requirements of §2333(d)(2), the phrase “aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance,” points to the elements and factors articulated by Halberstam. But, those elements and factors should not be taken as inflexible codes; rather, they should be understood in light of the common law and applied as a framework designed to hold defendants liable when they consciously and culpably “participate[d] in” a tortious act in such a way as to help “make it succeed.” Nye & Nissen, 336 U. S., at 619 (internal quotation marks omitted). And the text requires that defendants have aided and abetted the act of international terrorism that injured the plaintiffs—though that requirement does not always demand a strict nexus between the alleged assistance and the terrorist act.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal...on-4742169

The case that made it to the Supreme Court was Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh. It regard Google, Twitter, and Facebook being charged with aiding and abetting international terrorism by failing to take meaningful or aggressive action to prevent terrorists from using their services. Since the underlying action, providing communication, was free speech, and the companies had no knowledge of the impact of what they were providing, they were held to be not liable.

That's different than cocaine users. Cocaine is not manufactured domestically, its use implicitly supports the illegal international drug trade. There's no reasonable way to deny that knowledge. Additionally, cocaine possession and use is by itself an illegal act. There is no way for a cocaine user to deny that their actions are aiding and abetting international drug cartels and illegal narco-terrorism. Following the Court's citation of Nye, that is a clear indication of mens rea; they "consciously and culpably participated in a tortious act in such a way as to help make it succeed." Do they have to go to the port and unload the drug-boats directly, to be abetting? No, the Court notes "that requirement does not always demand a strict nexus between the alleged assistance and the terrorist act." It is enough that they financially enable the supply-chain with illegal acts of local purchase.

Be that as it may, you are correct, in my opinion, that the "narco-terrorism" card is being played cynically and disingenuously, likely to conceal oil-economy and geopolitical agendas that might be a "harder sell" to the American public. That's dishonest, and underestimates the pragmatism of the American public. It also does a disservice to a very real problem of drug addiction, to use it that way. Shame. But if they are going to use the terrorism rhetoric, they need to realize it is a double-edged sword. It also applies to the cokehead wire-junkies on Wall Street and in the Congressional cloakroom.

Being able to afford a three-piece suit is not a shield from being treated as an unlawful degenerate. Or even a supporter of terrorism, if that's the way the Administration wants to spin things.

[CriticalStinker]

There's no need to resort to generalization regarding mens rea (knowledge/criminal intent). There's specific Supreme Court opinions issued discussing how it applies in terms of the "aiding and abetting" prohibited in the Anti-Terrorism Act:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal...on-4742169

The case that made it to the Supreme Court was Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh. It regard Google, Twitter, and Facebook being charged with aiding and abetting international terrorism by failing to take meaningful or aggressive action to prevent terrorists from using their services. Since the underlying action, providing communication, was free speech, and the companies had no knowledge of the impact of what they were providing, they were held to be not liable.

That's different than cocaine users. Cocaine is not manufactured domestically, its use implicitly supports the illegal international drug trade. There's no reasonable way to deny that knowledge. Additionally, cocaine possession and use is by itself an illegal act. There is no way for a cocaine user to deny that their actions are aiding and abetting international drug cartels and illegal narco-terrorism. Following the Court's citation of Nye, that is a clear indication of mens rea; they "consciously and culpably participated in a tortious act in such a way as to help make it succeed." Do they have to go to the port and unload the drug-boats directly, to be abetting? No, the Court notes "that requirement does not always demand a strict nexus between the alleged assistance and the terrorist act." It is enough that they financially enable the supply-chain with illegal acts of local purchase.

Be that as it may, you are correct, in my opinion, that the "narco-terrorism" card is being played cynically and disingenuously, likely to conceal oil-economy and geopolitical agendas that might be a "harder sell" to the American public. That's dishonest, and underestimates the pragmatism of the American public. It also does a disservice to a very real problem of drug addiction, to use it that way. Shame. But if they are going to use the terrorism rhetoric, they need to realize it is a double-edged sword. It also applies to the cokehead wire-junkies on Wall Street and in the Congressional cloakroom.

Being able to afford a three-piece suit is not a shield from being treated as an unlawful degenerate. Or even a supporter of terrorism, if that's the way the Administration wants to spin things.

My broader point is that we're incredibly selective, and often arbitrary in how we combat social health issues.

Again, far more people die from alcohol a year than cocaine (granted it's more prevalent, so per capita may be a bit more on par).

For every death of cocaine a year, a child develops type 2 diabetes. And I'll show my bias here as a libertarian, at least someone could have some fun with cocaine, sugar is just a way to hijack the brain. Hell, the sugar industry even started the lie that saturated fats were causing obesity.

Now, I don't think we should go after any person or industry for terrorism when they are simply operating a for profit business model that leads to injury or death whether their model is legal or illegal. 

The truth is, we have laws in place to combat all of this. Hijacking words so we can be more harsh is damaging to individual rights. It's a huge problem in today's climate. Hyperbole leads to the over use of words like terrorism, nazi, communist, treason, ect ect. It's all an effort to blur the lines an make it more acceptable for the government to circumvent existing laws and crack down on selected groups.

We have laws for drug trafficking, some of the strictest in the world. We have more citizens incarcerated than any other nation, not per capita, total. We're less than a fourth the population of China, who is an authoritarian regime with concentration camps, and we have more people in prison.

That should be alarming for anyone who champions individual rights and the concept of a robust justice system. Even if someone does lean more authoritarian, they're simply failing at their stated aims. If the goal is to combat drug traffic and use, we're doing a horrible job.

[UltraBudgie]

Again, far more people die from alcohol a year than cocaine (granted it's more prevalent, so per capita may be a bit more on par).

Now, I don't think we should go after any person or industry for terrorism when they are simply operating a for profit business model that leads to injury or death whether their model is legal or illegal. 

Your point about sugar is a good one, but I'm omitting addressing it because the whole topic of food chemistry as an attack on the public welfare would be a big debate. But I think you cut to the crux of it with the second thing you said here: are we a country where business has no moral culpability selling a product that can destroy even informed users?

I don't think legislating morality works. That said, I also think Prohibition was one of the best things to ever happen to this country. That is because it arose from a wellspring of popular opinion that drunken degeneracy was socially unacceptable. What did the domestic cartels and libertines do? They attacked the legitimacy of that opinion, became destructive and outrageous in their lawlessness, and eventually cudgelled the public back into relegalization. One could say, "the terrorists won".

Trump's argument has some legitimacy. If I understand correctly, it is that Venezuela's government is directly using cartel money to fund Venezuelan government approved actions, actions that oppose American interests. That's terrorism, by the realpolitik definition: doing what we do to you to us, like we're not exceptional. Clearly the only valid use of cartel drug money is via the CIA, funding American government approved actions, actions that undermine those who would oppose American interests.

Trump needs to stop acting like American Hegemony isn't a thing. It is. Because we're better at it than even England was.

[quintessentone]

Your point about sugar is a good one, but I'm omitting addressing it because the whole topic of food chemistry as an attack on the public welfare would be a big debate. But I think you cut to the crux of it with the second thing you said here: are we a country where business has no moral culpability selling a product that can destroy even informed users?

I don't think legislating morality works. That said, I also think Prohibition was one of the best things to ever happen to this country. That is because it arose from a wellspring of popular opinion that drunken degeneracy was socially unacceptable. What did the domestic cartels and libertines do? They attacked the legitimacy of that opinion, became destructive and outrageous in their lawlessness, and eventually cudgelled the public back into relegalization. One could say, "the terrorists won".

Trump's argument has some legitimacy. If I understand correctly, it is that Venezuela's government is directly using cartel money to fund Venezuelan government approved actions, actions that oppose American interests. That's terrorism, by the realpolitik definition: doing what we do to you to us, like we're not exceptional. Clearly the only valid use of cartel drug money is via the CIA, funding American government approved actions, actions that undermine those who would oppose American interests.

Trump needs to stop acting like American Hegemony isn't a thing. It is. Because we're better at it than even England was.

There are two sides to this story.

"The standoff represents one of the sharpest escalations between the United States and Venezuela in years. Maduro has accused Trump of seeking regime change under the guise of anti-narcotics operations, while Washington maintains its campaign is aimed at disrupting drug trafficking networks."

Maduro reacts to Trump’s threat to strike in Venezuela

Trump wanting regime change seems logical to me when considering Venezuela is seeking foreign assistance to build up their oil and gas industry and trade.

[Mantiss2021]

Has the question of whether the type of boats the US seems to be targeting, could even make it to the US, been brought up?

Could one of these fishing "drug" boats actually carry enough crew and fuel to make the trip from Venezuela to the US....

While carrying a load of illicit drugs large enough to make the trip worthwhile?
 
Are they restocking, or at least, refuelling somewhere along the way? If so, where?  Why are we not trying to "cut the enemy's supply lines" by taking out these sites as well?


And once they make their delivery, if they do...


What happens to the boat? Do they refuel and return to Venezuela? Do they abandon the boat on the US shore? Do they sell the boat?  Does the Coast Guard, or Homeland Security have a vast shipyard of these drug boats anchored somewhere....presumably preserved as potential evidence?


"Show. Me. All. The. Boats!"

[Sky727]

The Venezuelan Nobel Peace Prize winner speaks.. She is the opposition but still an interesting take on the subject. 

[cherokeetroy]

Link

[cherokeetroy]