How can the extrajudicial killings of (over 80 by now!) alleged drug traffickers without any charges or trials be justified or accepted? These are, in fact, crimes against humanity.
I'm convinced at some point in the future U.S. citizens will have to learn what war means.
While drug trafficker convicted of trafficking 400 tons of cocaine get full presidential pardon.
It's _been_ accepted for years, if not decades now. Ever since the US started drone striking people without trial, or via trial in absentia, this has been the new normal. It being against international law is meaningless if no one care what the international law is, and especially if other countries are also breaking the law in the exact same way.
It is a de facto declaration of war, focussed (on its face, it has other propaganda and diplomatic purposes) on informing civilians of the imminent actions and associated risks so that they can conduct themselves accordingly.
To be fair, closing airspace before engaging in air operations is an international courtesy. It reduces the chances of downing civilian airliners. (In a similar vein, announcing closures and then not following through is incredibly damaging.)
> alleged drug traffickers without any charges or trials be justified or accepted? These are, in fact, crimes against humanity
They are war crimes.
If you're concerned about it, call your representative and tell them you care about the American military committing war crimes. There is currently momentum on the issue [1].
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/30/war-crimes-hegseth-...
Is this true? Legitimate question.
(Under U.S. law, I do believe they are war crimes given they're an abuse of war powers, whether exercised legally or not.)
> ICC classified these strikes as crimes against humanity
No, it did not. A "former chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC)" told the BBC "US air strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats would be treated under international law as crimes against humanity" [1].
I haven't seen the ICC take an official position on any of this, which is expected, since it's a judicial body that grinds deliberately.
In order to define an act as a war crime, this act must, besides having nexus to an armed conflict, be a serious violation of international humanitarian law and entail individual criminal responsibility."
https://www.rulac.org/legal-framework/international-criminal...
There is not.
The Trump admin wants to say they’re invaders therefore we don’t need Congressional authorization, but they’re actually irregulars therefore we don’t need to follow Geneva, but they’re actually terrorists therefore…
All of it is nonsense.
International human rights law is back to being an aspirational ideal. Every one of the world's great powers have explicitly rejected it. (So have most of regional powers.)
I'd love it if Trump, Xi and Putin could be hauled in front of an international tribunal for the atrocities they've committed. But it isn't happening. Not to them. Nor to Netanyahu, Kim, Khamenei, Modi, Lukashenko or MBS.
At the end of the day, the only thing that can hold Trump and the U.S. military accountable is U.S. law. Bickering over what crime is committed under that law might be teidous. But it is a legitimate activity that could bring real consequences in a way bringing up what a former ICC prosecutor thinks does not.
> All of it is nonsense
This is lazy. Top of the thread. Real debate happening around whether war crimes were committed. Dismissing that as "nonsense" enables and implicitly supports the illegal behaviour.
> Real debate happening around whether war crimes were committed
But the debate isn't about whether war crimes were committed. The debate is whether war crime law is relevant. And that debate is endless for the reason I just explained: the Trump admin will play the shell game of defining the relevant legal framework as X when it suits them, then Y when it suits them, then Z when it suits them, despite the fact that X Y and Z are mutually exclusive of each other.
Are they a stateless vessel? Are they narco-terrorists? Are they drug smugglers? Are they foreign invaders? Are they agents of the Venezuelan government?
Well, all and none of the above, depending on who is asking for what reason.
This is legal nihilism and Schmittian Decisionism. The administration has declared itself unbound by law altogether. All that matters is calling it a violation, collecting evidence, and when political powers shift, holding the relevant parties to account. Under a non-nihilistic/decisionist legal framework, there will be no shortage of chargeable offenses.
That body politic remains, for now, grounded in voters. The number of calls Congressmen receive in the coming days about this issue will determine whether it's taken seriously.
> the debate isn't about whether war crimes were committed. The debate is whether war crime law is relevant
First step in any court opinion is the establishment of juridiction. That's important here.
Even in this thread, we have folks arguing war crime statute doesn't apply. That appears to be false. It's an example of why debating and establishing that this law is relevant in the popular discourse is important.
> Are they a stateless vessel? Are they narco-terrorists? Are they drug smugglers? Are they foreign invaders? Are they agents of the Venezuelan government?
Another reason to focus on U.S. law. I don't believe these distinctions matter under it.
Any time a state uses armed force against another state (and sometimes against other entities), there is a war in which there can be war crimes.
> There is no declaration of war
War is war whether or not it is formally declared. (And the Trump Administration has described that it is fighting a war against Venezuela for months, though it has characterized Venezuela as the aggressor.) This was, among other things, the explicit premise of the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act months ago.
> and no approval of Congress.
That might arguably make any war also a violation of domestic law, but from the standpoint of international law it isn’t particularly a meaningful argument against their being a war.
> The ICC classified these strikes as crimes against humanity.
No, an individual who used to be a prosecutor with the ICC, acting as a private individual, described them that way.
eg: Pentagon Is Investigating a Member Of Congress Who Criticized Trump
~ https://talkingpointsmemo.com/where-things-stand/pentagon-is...
is essentially direct retribution against elected members, former military members who merely state that serving troops are required to follow the law and the constitution first as a priority.
This wastes the time, money, and resources of those prepared to state the emperor has no clothes and serves as a dire warning to any other that might think to stand up.
>leave Venezuela immediately to allow the restoration of democratic rule
and then sunshine and unicorns ensue.
If this regime were capable of seeing past its own shoelaces, one could imagine a conspiracy to prompt a migrant crisis so the GOP has an issue its trusted by voters on.
It's a final step to overthrowing the US's elected officials or rendering them powerless.
Russia is in no position to help Maduro, they're currently being bailed out by Tehran and Pyongyang. China could, and it's genuinely interesting to see them sitting it out so far [1].
[1] https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/why-russia-and-china-are-...
Those are the upsides. The downsides are prompting anti-American balancing moves across South America, Bay of Pigsing and increasing Maduro’s legitimacy, giving Russian air defences a paintbrush to our kit and fucking it up completely and sparking a refugee crisis.
In practice, I’m increasingly convinced we’re about to go to war because of what a dead pedophile knows about the President.
Bombing fishing boats, saying it's "drugs" and using that to justify a war in our back-porch is insanity.
Who even supports this? It seems like the most unjustified war we've ever started.
Distracts from a tariff-ravaged economy and the Epstein files. Potentially lets him funnel defence spending to allies.
it won't have any
even the UK has decided not to support the US regime on this one
The insane stock price of Nvidia & friends due to them passing around billions between each other doesn't matter even the slightest bit when your family business is going bankrupt.
Production is good, you're right. Where Trump is feeling electoral pain is in cost of living. It's why the U.S. has started lifting "tariffs on bananas, coffee and dozens of other food-related items" [1].
[1] https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/trump-tariff-exemptions-fo...
The guy was like a walking auction item as soon as he started his second term. He’s nearly 80. He’s gonna amass a nice fortune for his family and dip.
Come on man, the guy was shilling his own shitcoin as sitting president.
Over a third of each of 2024 Trump voters and self-identified conservatives consider Venezuela America's "enemy" [1]. (Over two fifths of each of the male, Hispanic, 65+ and $100k+ income demos view Maduro unfavourably.)
Also, "weapons and AI platforms that were designed for a future conflict with China or struggled to prove themselves on the Ukrainian battlefield have found a niche in the administration’s tech-enabled crackdown on drug trafficking" [2]. ("In an interview, Palantir Technologies Chief Executive Alex Karp declined to say whether his company’s technology was involved in counternarcotics operations, but voiced support for the strikes. 'If we are involved, I am very proud,' Karp said.")
[1] https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabRepor... The Economist/YouGov, November 15 to 17, U.S. Adult Citizens
[2] https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/trumps-focus-...
Has the CIA actually advanced American interests in South America? Legitimate question. My layman's understanding is they serially fucked the theatres they were assigned to alongside America's reputation in exchange for, at best, short-term U.S. wins.
The CIA is popular with voters [1].
Not superbly. But more than the IRS, DoJ or Department of Education.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/08/12/americans...
Not really. See [1]. A competent clandestine service lets one achieve foreign policy goals without going to war.
But more to the point, pretending everything one doesn't like is an elite conspiracy is self defeating. If you want to gut the CIA, convince voters to hate it.
Three letter agency that mostly harasses people outside US borders polls higher among US voters than three letter agencies that do most of their harassing within US borders. Water is wet.
Maduro has created an ongoing migrant crisis for a decade. Colombia, Chile, etc., are up to their gills in Venezuelan migrants already. Pretty sure lots of them would love to go back home if even a barely mediocre government replaced him.
They said, it’s their mess. They should fix it by themselves —we don’t need to go in there. Let them figure it out.
Venezuela has seen only two presidents in 26 years, Chavez and Maduro, and both belong to the same ruling party.
It’s nice to have a different ruling party every few years and not just every three decades like in Venezuela(so far).
Maybe Venezuelas want to give their oil to another 3rd-party that is not Iran, Cuba, Russia or China for a change.
I have some choice words for that, but the mods wouldn't like it.
1. The US has sent a shitload of weapons to Ukraine over the last years.
2. Given the US military superiority and how weak Russia is supposed to be, Russia should be on its knees right now.
3. The US is promoting a peace plan that seems to heavily favor Russia.
1. Trump is a russian asset
2. The US military is privately shitting its pants about how weak they are in this proxy war.
So I'm going with 2, and it's the cold war again. This is an attempt by the US military to spread Russia thin for further conflicts coming all over the place.
If the MIC gets to test out some new toys in the field along the way they just consider that icing on the cake.
What? Our 90s air defences are shooting down Russia's bleeding-edge missiles. We're withholding Tomahawks because Putin throws a hissy fit every time it comes up because Russia's newest, shiniest air defence systems--the ones it has been selling for hundreds of millions of dollars to Iran and Venezuela--have been getting potted by homemade Ukranian SEAD tactics.
Ukraine has exposed weaknesses in our drone arsenal. I bet China (or Venezuela) would have preferred to have encountered those weaknesses directly, but that's what you get for fucking around.
Trump probably isn't a Russian asset. And the U.S. military isn't shitting itself over a spent conventional power.
Because Trump wants to end the war to get a Nobel peace prize and Russia can plausibly unilaterally deliver that. What that means for Ukraine or Europe or frankly American strategic interests is not being considered because MAGA voters aren't exactly your internationally literate types. (Which is fine.)
> US should be laughing at Russia's puny attempts to breach their invincible defenses
Nobody is ever laughing in war. But to the extent we've had martial hilarity in the last few years, it's been in Russia mangling their elite forces in the failed sacking of Kyiv; Moscow almost getting bulldozed by Prighozin, a disaster stopped only because Belarus bailed Putin out; and potentially Indian warplanes' confused radio calls while Pakistan's integrated air defences potted them.
This makes me have funny thoughts. You know, we're all heavily influenced by propaganda. We have american propaganda, they have russian propaganda, they have chinese propaganda, etc.
So here it's the peace prize, and over there it's their super mega unstoppable missiles. There might be a day when foreign propaganda explains the reality that americans can observe in a manner that is more straightforward than their own nation's propaganda. That would be a fun day.
You're confusing motives and tactical reality. We're unsure about motives on both sides. We can, however, confidently speak to how weapons and tactics are facing off against each other, in large part due to the overwhelming amount of OSINT coming out of Ukraine.
Those data let us reject the hypothesis that the U.S. has any rational basis for being worried about Russian weapons or defences. (Which doesn't mean, of course, that they can't flip out. But again, motives versus tactical truth.)
Unnecessary waste of life, attention, money coming soon.