Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, August 04, 2026

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in a letter to the White House that the military has "exceeded" the parameters of President Donald Trump's orders in striking alleged drug-smuggling vessels ...

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

"I'm not looking to kill people." So, about those boat strikes ...

[image or embed]

-- Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) 12:03 AM · Aug 3, 2026

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article ...

... Briefings and notifications provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee, of which Kaine is a senior Democrat, include information on the targets, he said. Kaine said the military had struck and killed people who did not fit the order's criteria.

"You selected numerous organizations for targeting," Kaine wrote, addressing Trump. "That target list is classified so I cannot reveal it."

"Importantly, the classification of the list means that those you have asked the Department of Defense to target are entirely unaware that they are marked for execution," he said. ...

Kaine claims that his review of the classified materials provided to Congress, which included a legal memorandum from the Department of Justice, "makes clear that the United States is engaged in violent and fatal attacks against people far beyond those whom the [legal] opinion claimed could be lawfully targeted." ...


#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-08-03 04:14 PM | Reply

Sen Kaine says US boat strikes likely killed innocent people

No "likely" about it.

They were all innocent people.

No court found them guilty.

#2 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-08-03 04:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

No ----. Pickled Pete needs to swing.

#3 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2026-08-03 09:27 PM | Reply

Last I checked presumption of innocence was still a fundamental principal of the US justice system. Trump, Hegseth and those just following orders are murderers.

#4 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2026-08-04 02:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Likely?

If Kaine is safe, might be time to write in my anarchist son again.

#5 | Posted by Dbt2 at 2026-08-04 03:43 PM | Reply

We're balls deep in Bill of Attainder territory, with this administration.

Declaring people criminals with no trial -- from undocumented immigrants to "drug" boats.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-04 04:10 PM | Reply

Murder is murder, and the killing of criminal suspects in an extrajudicial fashion is murder in every jurisdiction in America.
And then, of course, were the murders of the 80 Iranian leaders told to gather to create a new agreement, and then they were killed in the single stupidest military action of my lifetime, and I am a Vietnam Veteran.

#7 | Posted by Hughmass at 2026-08-05 06:35 AM | Reply

The US did this all the time in Syria and Afghanistan. In Syria, ISIS took over oil fields which the organization then shipped to Turkey for sale. The people weren't the target, the trucks were. Because they were being used for a military purpose-the funding of ISIS, that made them valid military targets. And completely legal.

In Afghanistan, the US bombed narcotics production facilities which were used to fund Taliban operations. The people operating the facilities were civilians.

Again, valid military targets, and legal IAW with international humanitarian law.

"No court found them guilty."

I know when I was doing the thing, every target was reviewed by multiple JAG's, intelligence professionals, Ops professionals, and others, before finally being blessed off on by a senior general. And again, it's not the people. It's the boat. The boat is the target.

#8 | Posted by madbomber at 2026-08-05 10:27 AM | Reply | Funny: 3 | Newsworthy 1

And again, it's not the people. It's the boat. The boat is the target.

#8 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Meaningless.

#9 | Posted by Zed at 2026-08-05 10:38 AM | Reply

#8

When you were doing the thing... that line of Command was much more legit than the Trump First loyalists that now hold sway.

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2026-08-05 10:40 AM | Reply

"And completely legal."

lol according to whom?

"legal IAW with international humanitarian law"

Americans be so gullible.

The U.S. has not ratified the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions.

The U.S. signed but did not ratify Protocol II

The U.S. rejects the jurisdiction of the ICC over American service members and officials, maintaining that accountability must be handled through domestic military justice systems.

The United States recognizes international human rights law "selectively".

#11 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-08-05 11:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Just more white murder.

#12 | Posted by fresno500 at 2026-08-05 12:17 PM | Reply

More white violence

#13 | Posted by fresno500 at 2026-08-05 12:18 PM | Reply

#12 and 13

WMD = Weapons of Mass Destruction = White Man's Disease

Not too many People of Color are destructive arsonists or blood-lusting serial killers.

Dummkopf Trumpf launched the 77th US airstrike against the Somalis the other day, on top of these Caribbean Sea slaughters.

Add that sequence killer's POTUS portrait to the montage below.

#14 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-08-05 12:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

In Afghanistan, the US bombed narcotics production facilities which were used to fund Taliban operations. The people operating the facilities were civilians.
Again, valid military targets, and legal IAW with international humanitarian law.
#8 | Posted by madbomber

Good to know that Wall Street is a valid military target.
So was the World Trade Center, as a matter of fact.
People working at those places fund United States government operations.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-05 03:14 PM | Reply

@#2 ... They were all innocent people.

No court found them guilty. ...

Worth a repeat.

Pres Trump has shown that he has little regard for due process under the Constitution. Indeed, his owned (not a typo) SCOTUS has ruled against him in that regard.

Yet he continued to target and kill people without any regard of whether they may actually be guilty.

What, or more important, who may Pres Trump target next?

American Citizens who protest against him?

Oh wait, he has already done that ...


#16 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-08-05 09:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Not too many People of Color are destructive arsonists or blood-lusting serial killers.

Do you truly believe there have been no slaughters in Africa, Asia, South America, the Middle East that weren't committed by the 'white man'?

#17 | Posted by MBlue at 2026-08-06 11:12 AM | Reply

Not too many People of Color are destructive arsonists or blood-lusting serial killers.

Do you truly believe there have been no slaughters in Africa, Asia, South America, the Middle East that weren't committed by the 'white man'?

#17 | Posted by MBlue at 2026-08-06 11:12 AM | Reply

You raise a valid point, MBlue. I am referring to the United States of America where white soldiers (and sadly the Buffalo Soldiers) callously wiped out our indigenous population from ~1790 to ~1890.

The Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) documented over 4,400 racial terror lynchings of Men of Color by white perpetrators in the US between 1877 and 1950 alone.

In more recent times, the Columbine shooters, Dylann Roof, the Minnesota killer, Kyle Rittenhouse, the Boulder theater shooter, the Charles Manson cult, the Las Vegas sniper, and the Parkland HS shooter were all white.

The Pulse disco shooter in Miami was an Afghan-American.

One AI snapshot: "The racial breakdown of serial killers varies significantly by region and dataset. In the US, statistics suggest that Black offenders account for approximately 41% of identified serial killers, followed by Hispanic individuals at 7%, Asian at 1%, and Native American at 1%."

So, half of America's mass murderers are white.

White governors Ron DeSatan (R-FL) and Jim Abbott (R-TX) lead the US in executing prisoners.

Look at white Dummkopf Trumpf bombing Venezuelans and Somalis.

AI snapshot on arson: "In the US the majority of arsonists are white males, typically aged 16 - 30, with below-average education and IQ, often driven by anger or impulsivity."

Like I wrote, MBlue, you raised a valid point -- not all the lunatics are white.

#18 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-08-06 12:10 PM | Reply

"Meaningless."

You're free to think whatever you want.

#19 | Posted by madbomber at 2026-08-07 08:39 AM | Reply

#11

When I was doing the thing, those submitting something as a target had to justify why it was a target. Then it went through target development. Then it went through vetting.

Maybe they don't do that anymore. But when I was, y'know, "doing the thing," I was doing it alongside people from France, Germany, Belgium, Norway, Netherlands, and the UK. Not to mention the Aussies, kiwis, and other nations supporting target development that didn't drop bombs.

#20 | Posted by madbomber at 2026-08-07 08:43 AM | Reply

"Good to know that Wall Street is a valid military target. So was the World Trade Center, as a matter of fact. People working at those places fund United States government operations."

So do you.

Do you consider yourself a valid military target?

#21 | Posted by madbomber at 2026-08-07 08:44 AM | Reply

"Worth a repeat. Pres Trump has shown that he has little regard for due process under the Constitution. Indeed, his owned (not a typo) SCOTUS has ruled against him in that regard."

Are you suggesting that any potentially hostile force should be given a chance at trial?

Should the US not have gone after ISIS the way they did?

Again, the boat is the target. Not the people.

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2026-08-07 08:46 AM | Reply

During WWII, did the US commit war crimes by sinking merchant ships flagged in adversary countries?

#23 | Posted by madbomber at 2026-08-07 08:47 AM | Reply

During WWII, did the US commit war crimes by sinking merchant ships flagged in adversary countries?

#23 | Posted by madbomber

Don't go there. The US committed war crimes against civilians, as one of the main men responsible for them, Curtis LeMay, said.

#24 | Posted by Zed at 2026-08-07 08:53 AM | Reply

Are you suggesting that any potentially hostile force should be given a chance at trial?

#22 | Posted by madbomber at

How about any potentially innocent man be given a chance at trial?

Jesus.

#25 | Posted by Zed at 2026-08-07 08:54 AM | Reply

Again, the boat is the target. Not the people.

#22 | Posted by madbomber

Darkly funny.

#26 | Posted by Zed at 2026-08-07 08:55 AM | Reply

"How about any potentially innocent man be given a chance at trial?"

Like Anwar al-Awlaki?

#27 | Posted by madbomber at 2026-08-07 09:18 AM | Reply

"Don't go there. The US committed war crimes against civilians, as one of the main men responsible for them, Curtis LeMay, said."

Yup.

The US sunk around 1100 merchant ships during WWII. Never gave the sailors on board a trial.

#28 | Posted by madbomber at 2026-08-07 09:21 AM | Reply

#22 | Posted by madbomber

Bad things never excuse other bad things.

That's MAGA thinking.

#29 | Posted by Zed at 2026-08-07 09:35 AM | Reply

Yeah, like Anwar al-Awlaki.

You throw around Arabic Names like we're supposed to reflexively be ready to deny due process because they are "Terrorists".

Arrest the Man and give him due process.

Extra judicial killings are Murder.

#30 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-08-07 09:36 AM | Reply

The US sunk around 1100 merchant ships during WWII. Never gave the sailors on board a trial.

#28 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

The US sunk around 1100 merchant ships during "World War II?"

During a WORLD War.

So are you implying we are in World War III now?

#31 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-08-07 09:43 AM | Reply

al-Awlaki was an American Citizen. His Murder was particularly Egregious.

They also murdered his son, I believe.

I give Obama No Pass on this.

Murder is Murder.

Also his death created more Terrorists than it removed.

He got extra Gravitas with the "Terrorists" because, The Man, Snuffed him.

#32 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-08-07 09:44 AM | Reply

The US sunk around 1100 merchant ships during WWII. Never gave the sailors on board a trial.
#28 | Posted by madbomber

So who are we at war with in 2026?

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-07 09:52 AM | Reply

Again, the boat is the target. Not the people.
#22 | Posted by madbomber

Incorrect.
Not sure if you're deliberately lying, or simply willfully ignorant. Perhaps both.

Regardless, if people weren't the target, we wouldn't be making a second pass to kill the shipwrecked survivors.
Which is a war crime, even in war.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-07 09:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Like Anwar al-Awlaki?

#27 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Anwar Al-Awlaki was a one off.

Anwar Al-Awlaki was not an innocent man. The U.S. and Yemen had reams of evidence against him. Did Obama go on after and repeat that exact action 65 times? While the country seethed and protested him?

No. He did not.

#35 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-08-07 10:04 AM | Reply

Do you consider yourself a valid military target?
#21 | Posted by madbomber

This isn't about me.

Do you consider a boat alleged to be full of drugs a valid military target?

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-07 10:07 AM | Reply

His son was Not Guilty; Of Anything.

He was 16 years old.

Same treatment, a drone killed him too. Two weeks later.

Was that a "One Off" Too?

Shilling for Murder is --------.

Anwar-al-Awliki was an American Citizen he had a Constitutional right to Due Process.

His son was Also an American.

Donnerboy, you're better than this.

#37 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-08-07 10:13 AM | Reply

Again, valid military targets, and legal IAW with international humanitarian law.
#8 | Posted by madbomber

Not sure if you're deliberately lying, or simply willfully ignorant. Perhaps both.

www.ohchr.org
UN Report find alleged drug facilities were not lawful targets - airtrikes caused significant civilian casualties
...
USFOR-A assessed there were no civilian casualties resulting from the airstrikes. The United Nations understands that according to longstanding United States policy, economic objects that contribute to the war effort of a party to a conflict are considered legitimate military objectives.
However, according to international humanitarian law,' including international customary law, facilities that contribute economically or financially to the war effort of a party to a conflict are considered civilian objectives.
The report, jointly produced by UNAMA and the UN Human Rights Office, concludes that drug facilities and associated workers may not be lawfully made the target of attack and should be protected.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-07 10:17 AM | Reply

"Was that a "One Off" Too?"

Yes. One shot, two kills.
Unlike what Trump is doing. Over sixty shots, over 200 kills.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-07 10:19 AM | Reply

The Son was killed in a separate attack two weeks later.

Not by the same drone.

Not a One Off.

Two Separate Murders of Americans by their Government.

#40 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-08-07 10:24 AM | Reply

I know Obama is So "Righteous" but Murder is Murder regardless of Party.

I'm Bipartisan In Opposing it.

Are You?

Or does the D before Obama's name make it all Good?

That kind of thinking is The PROBLEM.

Just Sayin'

#41 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-08-07 10:30 AM | Reply

"The Son was killed in a separate attack two weeks later."

Was he the actual target of that strike? No. He was collateral damage in that strike.

So a one off.

...

Two Separate Murders of Americans by their Government.

#40 | POSTED BY EFFETEPOSER

And if we are counting murder of Americans by their own government...

Pretty sure America has murdered more than 2 Americans.

#42 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-08-07 10:34 AM | Reply

I'm Bipartisan In Opposing it.

Are You?

Ez pz..

I oppose Americans murdering anyone. Including Americans.

#43 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-08-07 10:35 AM | Reply

The Son was killed in a separate attack two weeks later.
#40 | Posted by Effeteposer

Gotcha. "U.S. officials later stated the strike mistakenly targeted an Egyptian al-Qaeda figure who was not present, and that they were unaware the teenager was there."

You still have more crocodile tears to shed, though. Or maybe this one doesn't count since it wasn't Biden?

"Anwar al-Awlaki's other child, 8-year-old Nawar al-Awlaki, also a U.S. citizen, was killed in a 2017 U.S.-authorized raid in Yemen."

Trump is the only President who says we have to take out the families of terrorists.
I guess you think that's a distinction without a difference?
www.youtube.com

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-07 10:40 AM | Reply

"Bad things never excuse other bad things."

It was a bad thing to disrupt Japanese supply lines during WWII?

#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2026-08-07 10:41 AM | Reply

I believe you. I respect you more than most on this forum, Donnerboy.

That's why I was surprised you supported this action.

Or seemed to.

Collateral Damage is no defense.

Killing a bunch of Innocent people to kill one person is Unacceptable.

It's Israeli Tactics and Ethics.

The Morals of Murderous Swine.

#46 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-08-07 10:41 AM | Reply

Pretty sure America has murdered more than 2 Americans.
#42 | Posted by donnerboy

Police kill an average of two point seven people every day.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-07 10:42 AM | Reply

"Regardless, if people weren't the target, we wouldn't be making a second pass to kill the shipwrecked survivors. Which is a war crime, even in war."

Totes.

If the allegations that the commander ordered strikes against distressed seamen, that is a war crime. No question.

If the commander ordered a re-strike because the task was to destroy the ship, and the ship had not been destroyed...not a war crime.

#48 | Posted by madbomber at 2026-08-07 10:45 AM | Reply

I oppose Americans murdering anyone. Including Americans.

#43 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Btw- as I recall most of America supported Obama's actions against those terrorists but because it created a troubling constitutional precedent most of American was against Obama doing anything like that again. Which he then refrained from doing.

Most lawmakers and the general public supported the action because al-Awlaki was a senior leader of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) actively plotting attacks against Americans.

#49 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-08-07 10:46 AM | Reply

How much Time, Effort and Expense, do you think Uncle Sam put into deploying a drone 7,000 miles from North America to Yemen to kill Two people, one by Mistake?

Not exactly police excessive force, is it?

#50 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-08-07 10:49 AM | Reply

If the commander ordered a re-strike because the task was to destroy the ship, and the ship had not been destroyed...not a war crime.
#48 | Posted by madbomber

^
That's the type of nonsense you'd find in a John Yoo Torture Memo.

Firing on shipwrecked survivors is a war crime. Saying you were only trying to completely destroy the ship that the shipwrecked survivors were clinging to is a distinction without a difference.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-07 10:50 AM | Reply

If the commander ordered a re-strike because the task was to destroy the ship, and the ship had not been destroyed...not a war crime.

Regardless friend..

If people were still alive on or clinging to the ship that was ordered destroyed and it is deliberately restruck knowing they were still alive ... war crime.

Certainly you are intelligent enough to see this.

#52 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-08-07 10:50 AM | Reply

"How much Time, Effort and Expense, do you think Uncle Sam put into deploying a drone 7,000 miles from North America to Yemen to kill Two people, one by Mistake?"

In a year, the military spends about one-fifth of what we spend on health care.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-07 10:50 AM | Reply

Certainly you are intelligent enough to see this.
#52 | Posted by donnerboy

He thinks he's intelligent enough to see around it.
He thinks wer're dumb enough not to notice what he's doing.

Ever have an older brother hit you in the arm, and say I didn't hit you, I hit your shirt, and your shirt hit you?
That's how MadBomber understands the world.

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-07 10:52 AM | Reply

Remember this debate (preserve all documents!) because a little over two years from now(or even less!) I suspect it will all be relitigated all over again and indictments made and charges filed.

#55 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-08-07 10:54 AM | Reply

Obama is No Trump.

He did refrain after one incident.

He really didn't have to.

Obama made some bad decisions, but he isn't a Bad Person intrinsically.

Trump is a Monster in "Human" Form.

Not remotely the same...

#56 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-08-07 10:56 AM | Reply

Ever have an older brother hit you in the arm, and say I didn't hit you, I hit your shirt, and your shirt hit you?
That's how MadBomber understands the world.

POSTED BY SNOOFY

Yup! I had two older brothers myself remember it well ... double the trouble double the fun!

I had (was forced or tricked) into taking the rap for them many many times before I learned to rebel (hide).

#57 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-08-07 10:59 AM | Reply

Not remotely the same...

#56 | POSTED BY EFFETEPOSER

Thank you. Obama learned from his mistakes and grew into his role.

Unlike Diaper Don.

#58 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-08-07 11:01 AM | Reply

"Obama made some bad decisions.."

Yup.

As all presidents do. JFK made a terrible mistake early in his presidency with the Bay of Pigs fiasco. But now he is an American hero and a legend who saved the world from a nuclear Holocaust and sent a man to the moon.

Some humans learn and get better. Some cannot.

#59 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-08-07 11:04 AM | Reply

He did refrain after one incident.

As I recall the DOJ gave him cover, his only refrain was that they just didn't find another American.

Obama used drones like noone's business (which I recall the CodePink types hated it when Bush did it), I am sure the likes of Wingman Holder could draw something up to give him cover if he had too.

Saying you were only trying to completely destroy the ship that the shipwrecked survivors were clinging to is a distinction without a difference.

What about a building? Because there were plenty of restruck buildings during the Iraq/Afghan conflict. Were all of those war crimes?

Probably not, certainly you are intelligent enough to see this. Why the ship exception?

What does clinging mean in your fantasy? flotsam jetsam?

#60 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-08-07 11:05 AM | Reply

"The people weren't the target, the trucks were."

And that's why the WTC was a valid military target on 9/11.

No people were targeted.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-07 11:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Do you consider a boat alleged to be full of drugs a valid military target?"

I can't say.

I didn't see the intel reporting on it.

#62 | Posted by madbomber at 2026-08-07 11:22 AM | Reply

"Bad things never excuse other bad things."

It was a bad thing to disrupt Japanese supply lines during WWII?

#45 | Posted by madbomber

Is war a bad thing?

The reason you lack moral clarity on issues like this is that you aren't interested in moral clarity.

In my world, we give a man a trial before we burn him alive on a boat.

In your world, not so much.

#63 | Posted by Zed at 2026-08-07 11:35 AM | Reply

"Anwar Al-Awlaki was not an innocent man."

He went to court and was found to be innocent?

Let's level the bubble here. The strike on Anwar-al-Awliki was completely justified. Ex Parte Quirin held that US citizens acting as enemy combatants forfeit their right to a criminal trial. Google it. al-Awliki was part of an organization that had been declared hostile combatants. The US also killed several ISIS members who were US citizens.

The strikes we did on the Narco labs in AFG and the strikes on oil tankers in Syria? I don't think that was effective. Especially in AFG, given how that mess turned out. The drug boat thing is pure Trump theatrics. But that doesn't change the fact that, if the strikes on the boats fall under counter-threat finance, they're legit targets.

#64 | Posted by madbomber at 2026-08-07 11:36 AM | Reply

The drug boat thing is pure Trump theatrics.

#64 | Posted by madbomber

Sufficient reason to condemn them.

#65 | Posted by Zed at 2026-08-07 11:38 AM | Reply

"Firing on shipwrecked survivors is a war crime. Saying you were only trying to completely destroy the ship that the shipwrecked survivors were clinging to is a distinction without a difference."

And you've come to that conclusion based on your extensive experience in targeting?

Anyone else here have targeting experience??? Other than me?

#66 | Posted by madbomber at 2026-08-07 11:39 AM | Reply

"Sufficient reason to condemn them."

Oh, I think it's ------- stupid. I did counter-drug ---- down in Honduras for a while. Equally stupid. 90% of the things I've done in the military were, IMO, theater. 10% mattered and made a difference.

But because I think something is stupid doesn't make it illegal or a war crime.

#67 | Posted by madbomber at 2026-08-07 11:41 AM | Reply

When you conflate law enforcement with military action you get things like ICE.

As I recall, all people murdered by ICE are labelled as terrorists by current regime.

#68 | Posted by Zed at 2026-08-07 11:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Anyone else here have targeting experience??? Other than me?
#66 | Posted by madbomber

Targeting experience is not legal expertise.
You lied about the attack in Afghanistan being legal under international law.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-07 11:41 AM | Reply

"Anwar Al-Awlaki was not an innocent man."
He went to court and was found to be innocent?
#64 | Posted by madbomber

That's not how the "presumption of innocence" works.
But your comment effectively underscores the difference between targeting expertise and legal expertise.
So you've got that going for you.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-07 11:44 AM | Reply

Obama used drones like noone's business (which I recall the CodePink types hated it when Bush did it), I am sure the likes of Wingman Holder could draw something up to give him cover if he had too

Obama had authorization from Congress (the American People) for the use of military force (AUMF).

Does Humpy Trumpy have authorization from Congress and the American People to use military force? No he does not.

"Why the ship exception?"

It's not an "exception". A war crime is a war crime.

#71 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-08-07 11:45 AM | Reply

#67 | Posted by madbomber

Because an ICE protestor is named a terrorist, it doesn't make his death illegal or a war crime.

This is exactly what the dictator is going for. There's no functional difference between incinerated boats in the Caribbean and a dead nurse in Minneapolis.

#72 | Posted by Zed at 2026-08-07 11:45 AM | Reply

"Targeting experience is not legal expertise. You lied about the attack in Afghanistan being legal under international law."

It wasn't?

Please, do explain. I'm not aware of any finding stating that counter threat-finance operations are/were illegal?

#73 | Posted by madbomber at 2026-08-07 11:48 AM | Reply

He went to court and was found to be innocent?
#64 | Posted by madbomber

Terrorists in a war zone actively threatening and making plans to attack Americans do not get to go to court. Especially when you have an AUMF.

Again. Where is Trumpy's authority to use military force? Where is the imminent danger?

Apples and oranges bro. Apples and oranges.

#74 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-08-07 11:48 AM | Reply

"That's not how the "presumption of innocence" works. But your comment effectively underscores the difference between targeting expertise and legal expertise."

Fair enough. I'm no lawyer.

But how about the Supreme Court and Ex Parte Quirin.

Do you think that FDR's Supreme Court had sufficient legal experience?

#75 | Posted by madbomber at 2026-08-07 11:50 AM | Reply

if the strikes on the boats fall under counter-threat finance, they're legit targets.
Posted by madbomber

You're parroting Trump, do you do that on purpose, or do you just think alike?
You're also parroting you, when you falsely claimed the strikes on civilians in Afghanistan drug manufacture were legal.

"The claim that boat strikes are legitimate targets under "counter-threat finance" is not supported by prevailing legal analysis in the provided context. While the Trump administration argues that drug trafficking funds terrorist activities, legal experts and international bodies assert that merely transporting drugs or financing a group does not make civilians lawful military targets absent an active armed conflict." -- AI Summary

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-07 11:50 AM | Reply

"Ex Parte Quirin."

1. Took place on United States soil.
2. Was applied to enemy soldiers during a time of war

Neither of those statements apply to people on boats in the Carribean.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-07 11:52 AM | Reply

"Firing on shipwrecked survivors is a war crime. Saying you were only trying to completely destroy the ship that the shipwrecked survivors were clinging to is a distinction without a difference."

And you've come to that conclusion based on your extensive experience in targeting?

#66 | Posted by madbomber

He comes to that conclusion by way of the actual history of World War II, the actual participants of which didn't always have as low standards in human behavior as you project.

#78 | Posted by Zed at 2026-08-07 11:53 AM | Reply

"Terrorists in a war zone actively threatening and making plans to attack Americans do not get to go to court."

Anwar al-Awlaki probably doesn't fit that description. He was a propagandist. He was something like the Charlie Kirk of Al-Qaeda.

What did we get for our efforts? "The New York Times wrote in 2015 that al-Awlaki's public statements and videos had been more influential in inspiring acts of Islamic terrorism in the wake of his killing than they were before his death.[25]" --wikipedia

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-07 11:56 AM | Reply

And you've come to that conclusion based on your extensive experience in targeting?
#66 | Posted by madbomber

^
You targeted shipwrecked survivors and/or the debris they were clinging to, after the initial strike?
Yes or no.

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-07 11:58 AM | Reply

#60

It figures you like boat people.

Soggy rice no taste nice!

#81 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2026-08-07 12:15 PM | Reply

al-Awlaki was targeted for Speech, not Acts of Violence.

He was never allowed the Opportunity to rebut his Accusers.

He was Murdered, For Talking.

About as Un American a thing as can be imagined.

The Terrorist label is More Israeli influence on our legal system.

Anyone can be declared a "Terrorist", any Group can be labelled "Terroristic", Antifa isn't even an Organization,it's a loose term for being Anti Fascist, now it is all declared "Terrorists", because Trump said so but they can't even define who "Antifa" actually Is.

All these developments point to Dictatorship in the Making.

Militarism is the underlying Morbidity.

#82 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-08-07 12:29 PM | Reply

"He was Murdered, For Talking."

WTF?

Anwar al-Awlaki was an American-born Yemeni cleric and senior leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

He was never going to come to America again. He was never going to get captured and put on trial.

So the U.S. military killed him in a drone strike in Yemen on September 30, 2011 under the AUMF passed by Congress.

An action that was never repeated. Because it was a grey area. And Obama actually listened to his legal advisors.

#83 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-08-07 01:42 PM | Reply

Btw- If it was indeed a criminal act by Obama chargeable in a court of law I guaranGodDamnTee he would be indicted and charged by now by the Convicted Felon and his personal lawyer.

#84 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-08-07 01:45 PM | Reply

He was something like the Charlie Kirk of Al-Qaeda.

Interesting analogy. Charlie Kirk was an earlier version of Alwaki.

He was indeed a propagandist like Charlie Kirk. But he also was involved in operational plans to attack Americans.

"Anwar al-Awlaki was directly involved in operational planning and direction for attacks against the United States as a senior leader of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). U.S. intelligence and declassified government documents confirmed he transitioned from an inspirational figure to an active operational planner."

"Alwaki was directly linked to multiple terrorism plots in the United States and United Kingdom, including an attempt in December 2009 to blow up a jetliner bound for Detroit. He had morphed from a mainstream Muslim into one of al-Qaeda's most public personalities and influential voices in large part because of his numerous online sermons and propaganda videos that allowed him to spread his message around the world."

www.britannica.com

#85 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-08-07 02:14 PM | Reply

He still never killed anyone.

Trump murdered Ayotollah Khamenei in a Murderous Sneak attack.

No declaration of war,just stone cold Murder.

Should Iran send a Drone to kill Trump and Barron? Maybe throw in Ivanka for chuckles?

That's the Logic here.

It's Israeli in Origin,before they Corrupted our Worldview, Assassinations were Taboo, In theory at least.

No w we Kill like it's the Normal and Wholesome thing in the World.

DISGUSTING.

#86 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-08-07 02:36 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort