home

Thursday Open Thread

Our last open thread is full. Here's a new one, all topics welcome.

What I'm following: Marco Rubio in Mexico, and his comments at a press conference after announcing yet another "task force" will be formed to fight drug traffickers. This one will include Mexican and American officials. Rubio calls it an "implementation force" -- a force that will act to fulfill Donald Trump's plan to murder suspected gang members who are believed to be involved with importing drugs or chemicals to the U.S.

Trump and Mario think it's legal to order the U.S. military to blow up a boat in international waters because intelligence sources said there were gang members and drugs aboard, headed to the U.S. Mario says: [More...]

[T}he President, under his authority as Commander-in-Chief, has a right under exigent circumstances to eliminate imminent threats to the United States, and that’s what he did yesterday in international waters, and that’s what he intends to do. We’re not going to sit back anymore and watch these people sail up and down the Caribbean like a cruise ship. It’s not going to happen. It’s not going to happen anymore. They’re not going to bring drugs into the United States. We’re going to stop them. I know a lot of presidents have talked about doing it; this President is not a talker, he’s a doer. He’s going to do it.

What was Mexico's response to this? At the joint presser, Mexico's Foreign Affairs secretary said:

We have, as many of you may know, some basic principles in our constitution that rule our foreign policy. These principles are clearly stated in article 89 of our constitution, and some of them are very clear: self-determination. We believe in self-determination. Nonintervention. Peaceful solution of controversies. All countries are legally equal. We believe in cooperation for development, and so on. So these principles are the ones that really rule our foreign policy, and we are going to stick to them because that’s our mandate, and of course those have been also the instructions I have received from President Sheinbaum.

Shorter version: Mexico is not giving an inch when it comes their sovereignity. If the U.S. blows up a boat in Mexican waters, there will be hell to pay. Goodbye "implementation" force. Mexico is going to grab the free goodies: training, technology equipment, and all the "shared intel" the U.S. is offering, right up until the day the U.S. crosses the line. Mexico will then punt and say, bye-bye, we told you about Article 89.

Marco continued his anti-fentanyl strong man trip to Ecuador today. He also announced two Ecuadorian gangs were added to the narco-terrorist sanctions list: Los Choneros and Los Lobos.

The document, identified as 2025-17067, states that the Attorney General and Secretary of the Treasury, "concluded that there was sufficient grounds to apply Section 219 of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. This law allows armed groups or drug trafficking networks to be designated as terrorist threats, which opens the door to economic sanctions, asset freezes, immigration restrictions, and greater intelligence sharing between agencies."

Where does it say extra-judicial killings are allowed in the absence of Congress declaring war?

Again, this is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Melania and Jared: They're Back
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Rubio's statement is miles from anything (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 04, 2025 at 03:06:10 PM EST
    that could pass for a legal justification. The simple fact is that there is no justification whatsoever -- either legal or moral -- for what they did yesterday in destroying that boat and murdering the people on it.

    I have (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 04, 2025 at 03:24:55 PM EST
    read that they lawyers are scrambling to figure out a justification AFTER the fact because of course no one did anything prior to this happening. And most agree with what you are saying.

    I guess we are just supposed to believe "dear leader" when he says it is Trende de Agua or whatever they call themselves with no evidence.

    Parent

    It is (none / 0) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 04, 2025 at 03:22:15 PM EST
    curious that a speed boat running drugs would have a crew of eleven.  Rather than drug trafficking, could it have been migrant trafficking.  And, they can't even get their stories straight--- Little Marco said the speed boat was headed for Trinidad, but changed his story after Trump said it was coming to the U.S.  Even Alito will be hard pressed to come up with a legal basis for blowing up a speed boat in International waters that is suspected of running drugs to Trinidad.

    Parent
    That was my first thought. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Sep 04, 2025 at 03:33:58 PM EST
    Why would drug smugglers put that much additional weight and take up that much more room with human bodies. The profit is in more weight vis-a-vis drugs.

    Parent
    Apparently the rotting orange hulk... (none / 0) (#10)
    by desertswine on Thu Sep 04, 2025 at 04:37:52 PM EST
    thinks he is now free to murder anyone on the planet.

    Parent
    It's a very short boat trip (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by fishcamp on Thu Sep 04, 2025 at 05:02:40 PM EST
    From  Venezuela to Trinidad and Tobago and they smuggle hundreds of different items back and forth down there.  We used to buy diesel fuel for 30 cents a gallon in Venezuela  on our way through the canal to Costa Rica.  We met people smuggling perfume, soap, cigarettes, boat parts, and one guy had boxes of lingerie.  Sounds to me it was people smugglers or just people wanting to leave Venezuela .  They could have had some drugs, but that's not a location where they go with tons of cocaine like we usually read about, and they don't blow those people up either.

    The peasants are revolting (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 04, 2025 at 03:02:08 PM EST

    A five-alarm fire': Federal judges are unloading grievances after Justice Gorsuch called out one of their own for defying SCOTUS

    "The Court is mindful of Justice Gorsuch's comments in his opinion in APHA and fully agrees that this Court is not free to 'defy' Supreme Court decisions and is, in fact, 'duty-bound to respect 'the hierarchy of the federal court system,'" Burroughs began. Consistent with these obligations, this Court (and likely all district courts) endeavors to follow the Supreme Court's rulings, 'no matter how misguided [it] may think [them] to be.'"



    Federal judges (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 04, 2025 at 03:30:25 PM EST
    have been one of the few lights in all this mess and the supreme court would do well to just let their decisions stand and not take up the cases. John Roberts is going to go down as one of the most feckless chief justice in the history of the court.

    Every day and case by case the supreme court is making a case for their own expansion.  

    Parent

    No! Not Los Lobos! (none / 0) (#7)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Sep 04, 2025 at 03:35:14 PM EST
    I love those guys. I listen to "Will the Wolf Survive" all the time.

    /s


    218 (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 04, 2025 at 03:50:11 PM EST
    Politico reporter Ben Jacobs agreed, adding, "Worth noting the number will grow by another in the next week or two, regardless of what Republicans do after the VA-11 special election where Democrat James Walkinshaw is expected to win easily on Tuesday."

    Journalist Gabe Fleisher explained that Swalwell also intends to sign onto the order, but he has been with his family after his mother passed away. His support will make 216 votes, and after the Virginia election, it will equal 217. Another Democrat is expected to win in the Arizona special election on Sept 23 will equal 218 votes in support

    Matter of policy choice (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 04, 2025 at 04:24:43 PM EST

    Trump Claims Power to Kill Suspected Drug Smugglers
    September 4, 2025 at 3:37 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 87 Comments

    "By ordering the U.S. military to summarily kill a group of people aboard what he said was a drug-smuggling boat, President Trump used the military in a way that had no clear legal precedent or basis," the New York Times reports.

    "Mr. Trump is claiming the power to shift maritime counterdrug efforts from law enforcement rules to wartime rules. The police arrest criminal suspects for prosecution and cannot instead simply gun suspects down, except in rare circumstances where they pose an imminent threat to someone."

    "By contrast, in armed conflicts, troops can lawfully kill enemy combatants on sight."

    "Because killing people is so extreme -- and doing it without due process risks killing the wrong people by mistake -- the question of which rules apply is not simply a matter of policy choice."



    If I were (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 04, 2025 at 05:48:48 PM EST
    in the military this would make me think twice about obeying any orders. Trump obviously doesn't care about the law and that puts the soldiers at risk.

    This could have another effect of making our foreign relations even worse.

    Parent

    Trump impregnates Satan (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 04, 2025 at 05:53:23 PM EST
    in the new episode of South Park.  Which is mostly about tariffs.