The US isn’t supposed to execute people for smuggling cocaine.
You shouldn’t just be able to call them enemy combatants if they’re not even combatants. Words are supposed to have meanings.
By the logic that you can just call things whatever you want and then you’re magically allowed to treat them as that thing, then why not just call them “fish” and say that the American military was just “fishing”? That makes just as much sense to me as what they did.
After the attacks on September 11, 2001, the George W. Bush administration arrested hundreds of suspected terrorists. Most of them were never criminally charged and eventually let go. Some spent years in inhumane conditions, even though they had no connection to the Taliban or al-Qaida. In 2002, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where many of those prisoners were being held, and described them using this term.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
DONALD RUMSFELD: And one of the most important aspects of the Geneva Convention is the distinction between lawful combatants and unlawful combatants.
PFEIFFER: By labeling them unlawful combatants, the U.S. said it was justified in holding them indefinitely without trial and denying them international legal protections. The Trump administration is now applying the same term to people on board boats it’s blowing up because it says they’re transporting drugs from South America. The language here matters. It underpins the legal arguments presidents make to justify their actions. Here’s current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth referring to the cartels that ship drugs from the southern hemisphere to the United States.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
PETE HEGSETH: So our message to these foreign terrorist organizations is we will treat you like we have treated al-Qaida.
A lot more good information and history in that article, but the important point is that because they’re not soldiers (i.e. lawful combatants), they don’t get Geneva Convention protection, but because they’re not criminals either they don’t get due process protection either. It’s a completely blatant and stupid way to just ditch all the humanitarian guardrails around government violence we spent the 20th century building, it was fucked 20 years ago and it’s fucked today but we never held the people doing it accountable so here we are.
I reread the article and it doesn’t mention “narco-terrorists.” It’s about calling them combatants. Although I misremembered when I said “enemy combatants.” It’s “unlawful combatants.”
So the article is about that, as well as about what you’re even allowed to do or say about people who are clinging to flotsam and jetsam after a shipwreck.
I think calling them “narco-terrorists” wouldn’t give the military enough legal reason to murder those people as they had been illegally ordered to do.
I agree, but it’s also consistent with how the US operates. Through Afghanistan’s and Iraq, anyone appearing as a military-aged male in the vicinity of an operation (e.g. a village where insurgents were shooting from) was labeled an enemy combatant and treated as valid targets.
I don’t think it’s consistent with your example, because nobody in or near the boats was an insurgent. I’m not saying that it’s not similar, just that it’s a clear divergence. They don’t have any pretense that anybody on or near the boat was planning to attack them.
By the logic that you can just call things whatever you want and then you’re magically allowed to treat them as that thing
Welcome to realizing how actual geopolitics work. There are no rules, just “gentleman agreements” that most of the time major powers have held because they worried about reprisals for breaking the unwritten rules.
There is no such thing as “law.” Law is a word we use for the systems that keep citizens of a country from harming each other or the economy. When you’re a nation, there are no international police who will ticket you for literally just doing whatever the fuck you want to whoever you want.
The US isn’t supposed to execute people for smuggling cocaine.
You shouldn’t just be able to call them enemy combatants if they’re not even combatants. Words are supposed to have meanings.
By the logic that you can just call things whatever you want and then you’re magically allowed to treat them as that thing, then why not just call them “fish” and say that the American military was just “fishing”? That makes just as much sense to me as what they did.
That is correct. You are supposed to pardon them.
The US has been using this kind of logic since Sept 12 2001 (arc)
A lot more good information and history in that article, but the important point is that because they’re not soldiers (i.e. lawful combatants), they don’t get Geneva Convention protection, but because they’re not criminals either they don’t get due process protection either. It’s a completely blatant and stupid way to just ditch all the humanitarian guardrails around government violence we spent the 20th century building, it was fucked 20 years ago and it’s fucked today but we never held the people doing it accountable so here we are.
They’re being very specific with the language, calling them “narco-terrorists”.
I reread the article and it doesn’t mention “narco-terrorists.” It’s about calling them combatants. Although I misremembered when I said “enemy combatants.” It’s “unlawful combatants.”
So the article is about that, as well as about what you’re even allowed to do or say about people who are clinging to flotsam and jetsam after a shipwreck.
I think calling them “narco-terrorists” wouldn’t give the military enough legal reason to murder those people as they had been illegally ordered to do.
I agree, but it’s also consistent with how the US operates. Through Afghanistan’s and Iraq, anyone appearing as a military-aged male in the vicinity of an operation (e.g. a village where insurgents were shooting from) was labeled an enemy combatant and treated as valid targets.
I don’t think it’s consistent with your example, because nobody in or near the boats was an insurgent. I’m not saying that it’s not similar, just that it’s a clear divergence. They don’t have any pretense that anybody on or near the boat was planning to attack them.
Welcome to realizing how actual geopolitics work. There are no rules, just “gentleman agreements” that most of the time major powers have held because they worried about reprisals for breaking the unwritten rules.
There is no such thing as “law.” Law is a word we use for the systems that keep citizens of a country from harming each other or the economy. When you’re a nation, there are no international police who will ticket you for literally just doing whatever the fuck you want to whoever you want.