US Navy murders Venezuelan citizens on the open seas

[TheCount]

The law protects the rights of american citizens it doesn't protect enemies on a battlefield.

What was the citizenship of the people on the boat and how was that determined

 

[Occam's Banana]

RELATED:

'Venezuela & Guyana: war, oil, and/or "democracy"'

Dec 4, 2023

Venezuela gonna annex the Sudetenland (Guyana anyway)

Good summary of the situation here:

The Venezuelan government has called the referendum to measure popular support for its historical claim to a contested oil-rich swathe of jungle currently administered by Guyana.

The 159,500-sq-km (61,600-square-mile) region is known as Essequibo and makes up two thirds of the total of the land currently controlled by Guyana. It is home to 125,000 of Guyana's 800,000 citizens.

The dispute over the area has been rumbling on for more than a century.

In 1899, an international arbitral...

• pmbug
• Replies: 18
• Forum: World News & Affairs

'The Venezuela Military Deployment Is about Cronyism, Not National Security'

Sep 3, 2025

Mises Wire
Connor O'Keeffe
09/03/2025


In recent weeks, four US Navy ships and a nuclear submarine, all carrying thousands of service members, have been deployed by President Trump to the waters off Venezuela’s coast.

Tensions between Trump and the Venezuelan regime led by President Nicolás Maduro are nothing new. In his first term, Trump accelerated Washington’s long-standing strategy of using brutal sanctions to crush the Venezuelan economy while trying to prop up domestic officials aligned with the US government.

However, as is often the case, the Venezuelan...

• PAF
• Replies: 3
• Forum: U.S. Political News

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[nikcers]

What was the citizenship of the people on the boat and how was that determined

The people on the boat were alien enemies. They were outside of US territory.

Outside of US territory you don't have any expectation of US law enforcement because you are only subject to the US laws when you are on US territory.

 

[acptulsa]

Jefferson used the navy against the barbary pirates without congressional authorization. If the intent to harm American citizens is clear, you should be blown out of the water before being able to do so.

And if nothing is clear, then what the Navy did is the piracy.

 

[nikcers]

Murder is a legal definition. The US law that we are subject to defines it as murder.

Outside of US territory its not called that.

I can't call the US police and take them to court because the Russians bombed some American citizens on Ukraine's territory.

No its not murder and its not piracy its called war.

The president is well within his rights to fight wars that's what we hire presidents to do.

 

[acptulsa]

...murder.

Outside of US territory its not called that.

Sure it is, bot. It's called that everywhere the English language is spoken.

War is declared by Congress. Unless and until, the US is not at war. Spies murder people all the time. That doesn't make it war. The military can defend themselves, but nobody believes that little boat is a threat to a warship.

It's murder. Bloodthirsty piece of junk.

 

[nikcers]

Sure it is, bot. It's called that everywhere the English language is spoken.

Bloodthirsty piece of junk.

11 dead terrorists is a tragedy but hundreds of thousands of kids dying from fentanyl is just a statistic.

 

[nikcers]

War is declared by Congress. Unless and until, the US is not at war. Spies murder people all the time. That doesn't make it war. The military can defend themselves, but nobody believes that little boat is a threat to a warship.

War doesn't have to be declared if we are "at war" if we are "at war" then we are "at war".

The congress doesn't write reality when they use their pen to write a law that orders the government to wage war against people.

They specifically arm and fund a navy so that the we can fight off any potential adversary that seeks to harm us.

 

[acptulsa]

11 dead terrorists is a tragedy but hundreds of thousands of kids dying from fentanyl is just a statistic.

So the bot has proof that boat contained enough fentanyl to kill a hundred thousand people and the range to teach American soil.

Either that or the bot delivers hyperbole. Somebody invented a hyperbolebot.

 

[nikcers]

So the bot has proof that boat contained enough fentanyl to kill a hundred thousand people and the range to teach American soil.

Either that or the bot delivers hyperbole. Somebody invented a hyperbolebot.

Its called military intelligence.

In war you collect intelligence on your adversary and then you use that intelligence to carry out your military objectives.

Our military objective is to remove the terrorist organizations that are killing our kids in an opiate war.

This is called defense.

You are the one who said offense was the best defense.

 

[Anti Globalist]

Gonna win that war on drugs eventually

The war on drugs has been kicking our ass for years. We aren't ever going to win that war.

 

[TheCount]

The people on the boat were alien enemies. They were outside of US territory.

Outside of US territory you don't have any expectation of US law enforcement because you are only subject to the US laws when you are on US territory.

Everyone outside the US loses their US citizenship?

 

[nikcers]

Everyone outside the US loses their US citizenship?

The rule of US law only extends to the borders of the USA.

Unless you are going to just start annexing territory outside of our borders then any territory we annex would extend our rule of law to that territory too I suppose.

 

[TheCount]

The rule of US law only extends to the borders of the USA.

Unless you are going to just start annexing territory outside of our borders then any territory we annex would extend our rule of law to that territory too I suppose.

You said that the law protects the rights of US citizens.

Is that not the case?

 

[nikcers]

You said that the law protects the rights of US citizens.

Is that not the case?

We can't enforce our US laws outside of our borders.

Doing that is considered annexation.

Whether its temporary annexation or permanent annexation it would be annexation.

Otherwise our laws have no power outside of our borders.

When our military strikes a terrorist in another region of the world thats a war power.

There are hundreds of years worth of historical and legal precedent for a president's constitutional authority to wage wars.

 

[TheCount]

We can't enforce our US laws outside of our borders.

Doing that is considered annexation.

Whether its temporary annexation or permanent annexation it would be annexation.

Otherwise our laws have no power outside of our borders.

When our military strikes a terrorist in another region of the world thats a war power.

There are hundreds of years worth of historical and legal precedent for a president's constitutional authority to wage wars.

The people making military decisions are inside our borders. We can enforce our laws against them.

 

[nikcers]

The people making military decisions are inside our borders. We can enforce our laws against them.

The president makes the decisions.

The people elect the president to make those decisions.

Its the presidents sole authority. No one else has this authority in our government that has seperation of powers.

The president is immune to prosecution when he is carrying out the role of the president he has immunity.

 

[TheCount]

The president makes the decisions.

The people elect the president to make those decisions.

Its the presidents sole authority. No one else has this authority in our government that has seperation of powers.

The president is immune to prosecution when he is carrying out the role of the president he has immunity.

The president doesn't magically acquire infinite power because they have been elected by the people. Neither does the executive branch. If that were the case, there would be no need for a constitution, nor any need for other articles besides article two.

Whether or not the president personally can be prosecuted in the moment for violating the law is irrelevant to my point.

The government and the executive branch in it's entirety is subject to US law and legal action can still be taken against the executive branch and the department of defense, from those who ordered the crime all the way down to the individual who committed the crime and those who aided in the commission of the crime.

One count of manslaughter per "narco-terrorist" killed should be adequate encouragement to convince military officers to follow the law.

 

[nikcers]

The president doesn't magically acquire infinite power because they have been elected by the people. Neither does the executive branch. If that were the case, there would be no need for a constitution, nor any need for other articles besides article two.

Whether or not the president personally can be prosecuted in the moment for violating the law is irrelevant to my point.

The government and the executive branch in it's entirety is subject to US law and legal action can still be taken against the executive branch and the department of defense, from those who ordered the crime all the way down to the individual who committed the crime and those who aided in the commission of the crime.

One count of manslaughter per "narco-terrorist" killed should be adequate encouragement to convince military officers to follow the law.

There are no legal limitations to the presidents authority to do their job which is to defend the United States.

The judicial branch is not more powerful than the executive branch of government.

We have a separation of powers.

The president's authority under article 2 is the law.

There is no higher law or authority you can appeal to.