Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (14) |
Author: commonone   😊 😞
Number: of 84359 
Subject: America’s Descent into Lawless Power
Date: 09/09/25 12:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 15
Jon Duffy, a retired Navy captain whose active duty career included command at sea and national security roles, writes in "Defense One" about last week's strike against a small vessel in the Caribbean, killing 11 people the Trump administration claims were drug traffickers:

For decades, the U.S. military and Coast Guard have intercepted drug shipments in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific under a careful legal framework: Coast Guard officers would tactically control Navy ships, invoke law enforcement authority, stop vessels, and detain crews for prosecution. The goal is not execution; it is interdiction within international law.

This week’s strike ripped up that framework. The people on board were not given the chance to surrender. No evidence was presented. No rules of engagement were cited. The administration claimed authority to kill on suspicion alone.

International law does not permit such action. A vessel in international waters is not a lawful target simply because officials say so. Contending that narcotics pose a long-term danger to Americans is at best a weak policy argument, not a legal justification for force. Unless this boat posed an imminent threat of attack—which no one has claimed—blowing it out of the water is not self-defense. It is killing at sea. A government that ignores these distinctions is not fighting cartels. It is discarding the rule of law.


With the Supreme Court’s ruling that presidents are immune from prosecution for “official acts,” experts warned this would give the commander-in-chief license to commit murder and the president ordered killings in international waters. The logic used -- redefine the threat, erase legal distinctions, and justify force as the first tool -- is the same logic being used to go after “criminals” in Chicago today or, one day, “radicals” in Atlanta.

Congress has turned its back, the court has given its permission, will the military now stand silent as it is misused or will those who serve remember their oath?

defenseone.com - Killing sea americas descent lawless power
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to commonone here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (14) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community