Please interview some “real Americans” on how they feel about these operations vs the echo chamber you have surrounded yourself with. This is exactly wha I voted for…and every one I know. Keep it up POTUS and SecWar. Finally the War on Drugs is actually tangible!
I specifically didn’t restrict myself to the usual panoply of TV lawyers. There are several Trump supporters in there, plus several serious critics of the Democrats. If you can find a legal opinion anywhere that calls shooting unarmed drug dealers legal in any real sense, please send them my way. There is a claimed legal authority, just like there was in Bush/Obama actions, but I think he jumped the shark on this one.
These drug dealers are armed with enough poison to kill tens of thousands of Americans. Wish people would get some perspective here. It's not like these criminals are bank robbers or art thieves.
Since when are drug dealers unarmed? The guy in the building across the street from my apartment sold weed. He chased four would be thieves armed with knives out of his apartment one night with a gun. I know because my dog ran over there right afterward and my shocked neighbors told me what had just happened after I ran and got her back. Even low level college weed dealers in the 90s had guns, yet we are expected to believe international fentanyl traffickers are not armed? Besides, what are the implications of shooting spies or soldiers infiltrating a country, if they plan to get weapons provided upon entry? Could that not be a tactic to make this look like low level, ‘nonviolent’ crime? Taibbi’s normally astute and razor sharp insight is resembling that of a dull vegetable peeler in this case.
Wow, please read what you wrote…”unarmed drug dealers”! Says who? Unarmed? A boat full of drugs ready to distribute, harm and kill? Seriously Matt! It’s as though you are defending the “drug dealers”…exactly what the Dems do in defending criminals…drug dealer = criminal. Have this conversation with families who have lost loved ones to the non existent “war on drugs”. Like I said, finally tangible, actionable war on drugs”. Not just talk. More please!
Again, your objection is 100% irrelevant to the point. This seems to be a habit. It does not matter--does NOT matter to the legality- whether or not the dealers are armed-I'm sure they are! Or whether that are awful people-I'm sure they are! The argument is that it is not legal for the military to strike, as it's a matter for police. Instead of making emotional points about how glad you are, please try to defend the legality-that is the ONLY point that matters.
and nowhere, in any law anywhere, does the law define drug dealers as terrorists. That is the issue. If they are terrrists, pass a f-ing law and stop emoting
The primary U.S. law that provides the authority to officially determine and designate foreign organizations as terrorist groups is the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), specifically Section 219 (8 U.S.C. § 1189). This authority is exercised by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, which acts under the direction and authority of the President as head of the executive branch.
Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) Designations: This process, established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), authorizes the Secretary of State to designate an organization as an FTO if it meets specific criteria. Multiple drug cartels have been designated as such.
We passed the f-ing law almost 30 years ago. Educate yourself and stop emoting.
There is a law that allows presidents to claim this is legal. I don’t think it’s valid, but it’s been used previously under some similarly dubious pretexts. At the same time there are general concepts - like that you can’t shoot as a matter of first resort in policing - that conflict more directly with this use of anti-terror law
Not quite sure what you mean by this - pretty sure we have not had IDF, SAS, or anything like that within our borders. Not meaning to be snarky - just don't know what you are saying here.
I agree with that. When people have had enough they don’t want some private armed guarded cartel payrolled lawyer telling them their kids have to be raped and killed because of the rights of the poor gangster. Recently NYC let violent felons out on the streets.
It’s a tragedy that will not end well and Trump is betting that Americans have had enough.
So, blowing the drug smugglers on the boats is preventing American kids from being raped?
We are on thin ice here, all around here.
A military with the traditional role and training of prevailing in combat against the peer military of our adversaries is tasked with an amorphous law enforcement role.
This is bound to get stinky and might have a bad effect on our ability to defend against China who already has more ships than we do.
The questions that you need to answer are:
1) How much of the flow of cocaine will this interdiction campaign actually stop? What effect will it have other than increasing the value of subsequent cargos? (Remember, Fentanyl, the cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths is coming from Mexico, not across the Caribbean.)
2) How much does the cost of the destruction of each boat compare with the value of the boat's cargo? Who wins this battle of attrition? (The Houthis ran circles around us in the Red Sea as we wasted $100k missiles to ditch $500 drones.)
None of this computes. Take a breath and take a look around.
Congress passes a law designating them as terrorists committing acts of war. Simple. Right now they are defined specifically as criminals, not terrorists. And criminals are a matter for police
Agree. Can or will Congress do that? How long will that take? Until some body with legal authority stops this type of action by Presidents of both Parties, then I’m OK with continued strikes. By now I’m sure those boat boys know there’s a good chance they won’t make it to US waters.
We declared a War on Drugs years ago and after no one having the balls to really combat this issue till Trump everyone is Monday morning quarterbacking. We don’t have the stomach to really conduct war. I guess if we had killed all these scumbag smugglers on the first shot alls good?
This conversation is ridiculous given this nation’s history over the last 250 years. For fuck sake we strategically bombed whole cities like Tokyo and Dresden during WW2 ostensibly to hit military relevant targets like government buildings or ball bearing plants, etc. In Vietnam we used Agent Orange and napalm indiscriminately. Multiple recent admins have allowed black site interrogation (torture) and have killed thousands of people with drones most of whom were considered collateral damage. So silly to watch people melt down when the Orange Menace breaks another norm by doing what all the past POTUS have done. It’s quite simple, Congress abdicated its authority to approve military force a long time ago culminating in the often abused AUMF from after 9/11. Last declared war was WW2 but we have been in more wars since then than for the entire 152 years from ratification to Pearl Harbor. What the hell is legality in war? It’s created by the winners to punish the losers and enforced on the weak by the strong. Otherwise it’s just killing. Most have never been on the battlefield so it’s always some pedantic argument about notions of our civility. These silly arguments only occur in Western nations. Do you think the forces fighting in Sudan, Congo, Ukraine, etc care about rules of armed conflict? They do not. Watch the videos. Drone pilots routinely kill unarmed wounded soldiers which is a war crime per the Geneva Convention, which the USA observes but has never formally signed on to IIRC. I find it perplexing how everyone comes at this like our government should be a paragon of lawful conduct given our history. Killing drug runners on the high seas should just be a regular Tuesday at this point but since the Orange Man did it instead of Sleepy Joe, Obama, or Hillary its a code red for the usual suspects. IIRC the USA was suffering about 3000 overdose deaths a year in circa 2018. Consider that by 2023 almost 100k died from fentanyl overdose. Seems like not all weapons shoot projectiles. If the intel (none of us have seen) supports this being an overt act of undermining the USA’s society to weaken it, then it’s arguably a National Security matter. That will often include kinetic targeting.
Trump is bombing Venezuelan boats to interrupt the support and funding for Hezbollah inside Venezuela The saving Americans from drugs pretext is laughable.
Yes if they had any interest in curtailing drugs. in which case they wouldn’t be bombing boats off Venezuela. Firstly Venezuela is one but not a major source of drugs into US. Second it won’t make a lick of difference to the amount of drugs entering the U.S. nor in any manner curtail the drug business. This bombing is all about Hezbollah. For several reasons Venezuela is a major target for Israel-Its relationship with Iran etc.
The issue as I understand it is that the second strike was at two survivors of the attack clinging to the side of the boat. Professional military forces are under no lack of clarity as to the rules of engagement here.
As I understand it, the 2 "survivors" climbed back in the boat and were observed using the radio. JAG advisors deemed them "still in the fight" and possibly communicating info to the enemy. Declared legal targets and blow to bits.
Yeah, a lot of “…as I understand it…” floating around. I’m fine with Congress checking things out, the AUMF has been exactly what its critics predicted, every president since does whatever they want anyway.
As I understand it, the direct order was “to destroy the boat and its drug cargo”. The boat required a second strike to sink it. The second strike was to destroy the boat and cargo. The men were collateral damage.
Matt it is not "legal" but the Empire and its citizens are deeming it necessary. The US has put up with Mexico\Columbia etc dealing poison for 60 years-and yes demand is hard to police in a free society, but citizens dying, not just being incapacitated is too much. Drugs are bombs launched by terrorists.
Sheinbaum just delivered a bunch of cartel leaders, which I am sure was not her first choice. So, the extra-legality may be having an effect on Mexico.
Of course, if Russia does some extra-legality, it's a bad thing; we do it, it's a good thing.
At long last, final victory in the War on Drugs. We are so close! Just a few more drug transporter killings and drug-taking Americans will finally be safe and our kids will be drug free forevermore. Can we put aside the legality thing please?
AUMF is an acronym that most commonly refers to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, a type of U.S. congressional resolution that grants the President authority to deploy military force under specific circumstances. Passed during Bush II
Passed during a climate of fear, hysteria and confusion. It's been used continually since then, and I'm not giving any administration a pass. But it should be repealed.
I am not a lawyer but I am pretty good with history. I see a pretty strong parallel to the situation with the Barbary pirates. The Barbary Pirate Wars were legally justified by the United States primarily on the basis of self-defense against ongoing acts of state-sponsored criminal activity and the internationally recognized right to use force to protect its commerce and citizens.
Venezuela has devolved from a republic to a dictatorship with its top leader, apparently, essentially a cartel boss. So, I am not terribly concerned about the fundamental concept of bombing drug boats.
The assumption you make about this just being a case of "shooting unarmed drug dealers" is where I think you veer to far from facts in evidence. The distinction we are dealing with here is unavoidable loss of life in a legal strike versus a strike intended only to kill allegedly drifting/clinging survivors. Right now, I am more inclined to believe the former than the latter and to give leeway to those directly involved if this falls into the gray areas. BTW Dontdrinkdakoolaid (something like that) gives a link lower on the page) that lends a lot of perspective by lawyer/former JAG.
It's been a long time since I studied international law of the sea, but from memory I believe your thinking is aligned correctly with historical precedent and legal argument. Without being sure I have all names & designations exactly correct, the Cartel de los Soles and Tren de Aragua absolutely are officially designated terrorist groups, by both State and Treasury (not just in a DJT post or EO). They are not random criminals on boats but transnational crime pseudo-organizations specifically targeting the US and its citizens with terrible activities (rape, murder, drugs, slavery, criminal takeovers of entire communities) for fun and profit (theirs not ours). The CS dudes factually are and/or work hand-in-glove with the Venezuelan govt (GoV), i.e. even BBC/PBS progs describe the CS as a corrupt network of Venezuelan military, judicial, intelligence, and other govt officials.
It's pretty messy, but adhering to an illusion that the military is nuking Boston whalers crewed by average gangbangers or gentle hippies with a few square groupers is beyond disengenuous. Unarmed drug dealers haven't been a thing for several generations, friends.
Here is where you have gone off the rails, Taibbi. This is NOT a question of legality. It is an utterly political question. The US, especially the legacy media and now you, has been engaging in a form of "due process masturbation" for about 30 years. And, by the way, lawyers just have opinions. They are nothing but advocates. Judges decide the law and cases. No judges have ruled here so the opinions of lawyers is just opinion.
What about (yes, what about ism!) the "defense of the douche bag Kuwaitis when Saddam invaded? Was that "legal"? Was that even in the US national interest.
How about the invasion of Iraq looking for WMD? Was that legal? Us National interest? Bullshit.
How about Afghanistan? Legal? To find OBL? Seriously?
How about the bombing of Serbia by Bubba? Libya by O'Bummer?
How about Mogadishu action, resulting in the deaths of American Blackhawk warriors?
Americans - ESPECIALLY folks in flyover country (Taibbi, pay attention) are sick of seeing their communities devastated by drugs, by Wall Street, by lawyers diddling their dicks (or clits) over :due process while kids and families are destroyed.
This is a political decision. It is in the US National interest.
Yep-a political decision against the law. and oh BTW there were zero laws defining any of the things you listed as illegal. there are here. Stop feeling and start thinking
How long a list of precedents do you need???? Washington did this same thing. Jefferson did this same thing. Jackson did this same thing. Tyler. Polk. Taylor. Buchanan. Lincoln. Every single president Grant - Wilson did this.
Both Roosevelts. FDR and Truman and Eisenhower and jfk and lbj did this.
Who said they were unarmed for one thing? That’s not been factually proven, and is more than highly, highly unlikely, and a patently absurd assumption.
I gotta agree with MaryHQ - anyone who's not anybody will more than likely (as in greater than 50%) agree with attacking these boats.
However, shooting survivors is akin to shooting bailed out pilots in their parachutes or U-boat commanders machine-gunning survivors in a lifeboat. If that is what we really have, here.
Ask parents of kids who have been trafficked, murdered, or died by overdose, though, if they give a flying fuck about the Geneva Convention rules. Once those bastards become signatories to an international treaty specifying civilized, humane behavior and treatment in conditions that sui generis obviate the rules of any society - that might be a day for this discussion.
Warning us about the danger of opening a Pandora's Box is disingenuous when it's been opened and flung in our face for generations, now.
Let's get real - this isn't about sending a message to the cartels or the dictators. This is about showing China, Iran, North Korea, and anyone else that this is no longer an easy way to wage a backdoor war against America.
Meanwhile, Trump just pardoned the 45-year sentence of the former president of Honduras- a REAL and convicted cocaine trafficker. "Hypocrite" seems to mild a descriptor for this guy.
Hey Matt, how the hell do you know these drug dealers are unarmed ? How many drug dealers ever go around unarmed? Stop calling them "drug dealers", they are members of an international drug cartel responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
Matt, based on comments, many of your bloodthirsty fans are high on something and financially support the terrorists even while wanting them blown up on suspicion alone. Violent minded Carrie Nations who would have approved of fire bombing speakeasies are concerned about drug takers, which they are. Irony where is thy sheath?
The trouble is, historically, we've fought legal "wars" on drug cartels, while they have fought dirty wars against us. Pablo Escobar was a prime example. When he brought down a commercial airliner to get at one person (who turned out not to even have been on the plane), it became apparent even to a dunce like Bush senior that we had to start taking a different approach. I'm starting to think this is similar. That having been said, I don't have the answer. I'll have to invest some time into thinking about what would be a proper approach...
Matt - how do you KNOW they are "unarmed?" Have you EVER spoken to anyone who has fought the drug wars in South America? These are evil, heinous, cruel, and loathsome people. The torture and abuse THEY would inflict on anyone getting in their way is the stuff of nightmares. Skinning people alive, setting them on fire, cutting off arms, legs, fingers, toes... sometimes one at a time while the person screams. These are not Obama's drone raids. These are seriously bad people and I believe the DOW has the goods on them and knows who they are dealing with. And I don't care if people you interviewed are "trump supporters" -- did you interview a legitimate IC guy from South America? I know plenty of them and they are not upset in the least about this. So, the question is, Why are YOU? Who are you protecting? Let the Man Work. We are at war. War is not nice. Our enemies are not fair. You can sit in your cushy office and opine all you want. But you are dead wrong here and, frankly, we in the peanut gallery don't give a shit.
America does what needs to be done because the legal beagles have focused on feelings rather than law. Hill Street Blues in the 1980s predicted where would be 40 years later: "Let 'em go Moe" law has produced a flood of thugs and hoodlums in the US and helped multiply the number of thugs and hoodlums in what were one "almost First World" countries. Shakespeare had the best advice for dealing with lawyers.
Mary-no one, including Matt, made a point about whether or not Trump supporters like these actions or not-whether or not "real" Americans like them or not is irrelevant to the point. The point is, are these actions legal or not? So instead of arguing your emotions, you might argue whether or not they are legal. I'll start-I voted Trump three times, and I like seeing the drug boats blow up, it's satisfying! It's also not legal, and that is a fact. Drug smuggling is a crime and a President can't simply designate it as terrorism at will-the two things are different.
So, you are arguing your emotional feelings about someone else's opinion, and claiming your feelings should count more than (lack of) legal adjudication and also should overrule determinations by State and Treasury that the US is under threat from terrorist organizations doing terrorist things on the open seas. Not terribly convincing but at least now clearer.
I gave zero emotion whatsoever. The law and the facts are as I state. Everything else is an opinion: "I love eliminating these awful people-finally we are stopping the drug trade." THAT is an emotion. The fact and the law state precisely what I said
The State Dept and Treasury Dept have also designated the Cartel de los Soles and the Tren de Aragua as terrorists. It is false to assert that the President has "simply" designated drug smuggling as terrorism. Nutty ranting about emotions and handwaving freakoutery that things are against "the law" (which law? how so? applicable on the open seas?) is the opposite of a fact, in fact.
Really, name calling? How childish. We are here to agree to disagree. Thank God for that. Calling out the article according to my opinion. As you are entitled to yours…
And you sir are a coward who sleeps peacefully in your bed at night because rough men and women do violence on your behalf. Bet you supported defunding the police and think social workers can convince pimps engaged in the modern slave trade to stop trafficking women and kids too. Cuck.
That’s kind of hilarious. Why would I want the police defunded? Why is it that so many Americans have such poor reading comprehension? You’re one of them. Did you read me say anything about defunding police?
No.
And this “rough” men stuff? What’s that? Is that some kind of kink for you? You spelled cuck correctly. So…two points.
The rest?
Listen (which means you need to quiet that brain of yours); what is valuable in this exercise is that it illustrates very effectively how Matt Taibbi literally sold out and to whom he sold out.
The squealing outrage his piece has provoked demonstrates it. His readership is unquestionably MAGA now.
Another hilarious idea. Make America Great Again. By murdering suspected drug smugglers on the high seas. By lowering every standard previously cited as evidence America was great to begin with.
It’s astounding.
Matt has stated clearly in this piece that he’s opposed to these perversions military force. Does that make him a libtard?
You’re truly hopeless my friend. I’m grateful not to have anything to do with you in real life.
I don’t kick it with cowards like you douche bag so no sweat of my brow. You dive into comments talking shit and act surprised at the response. High IQ for sure.
But what about the due process??? Each of these drug dealers/innocent fishermen should have been gently taken into custody, brought to the United States, provided with a team of tax-payer funded lawyers (and a suite at the Roosevelt Hotel) and had their Constitutionally mandated years and years of pre-trial hearings, discovery, grand juries, trials, appeals, motions, and cross-motions.
Better that a 100,000 American kids die of overdoes than 1 Venezuelan sicario meet his maker on the high seas before being afforded his full menu of rights.
The U.S. Dept. of War has rules and procedures that reflect standard conventions of war. These include actions designated "war crimes."
These conventions and rules are in place because otherwise international relations would devolve into chaos. You may feel that international relations are already chaotic. But if you think that the way to fight chaos is with more chaos, then you are courting the Devil.
In any event, as our Founding Fathers were at pains to establish, the United States is a nation of laws, not men. We follow the law in this country and we look to President Trump to uphold the law.
"everyone I know" ... you appear to be the one in the echo chamber. There are plenty of people who want the results that Trump promised, but not disregard for the law.
Drugs won the War on Drugs decades ago. We need real solutions to raise Americans out of poverty and despair and make our government work for us for a change. We do not ^need another bullshit war to enrich the donors. Fuck off.
"Separating media hypocrisy from the Trump administration’s unaided faceplants requires constant attention"; and this is exactly what I subscribe to Matt for. He's doing great.
If you're going to do a War on Drugs (been going on for years, supposedly), this is the way to do it. Unfortunately it stretches the limits of legality, and sets a precedent (once more!) for the US and any other country to operate that way.
I want to deal with the criminal narco state that is Venezuela. I don’t have much sympathy for them. I am tired of the onslaught of fentanyl into our country and the subsequent deaths.
Isn't it amazing that countries that once had legitimate economies have found drugs more profitable? Venezuela was once almost a first world country. Columbia, Peru, and Mexico were not hell holes. The firs world drug consumers have much to account for.
Venezuela hollowed out its prosperous economy for socialism. I remember arguing with a liberal friend who was so happy when Chavez imposed food price controls to stave off urban revolt er I mean because he loved the poors (around 2003, the innerwebs tell me). I pointed out that farmers won't grow food for nothing; they do it to make a living, which they can't do by selling at a loss, so they'll do Something Else. He couldn't follow the logic, and neither can any socialists, ever. Voilà, Venezuela ran out of other people's money, and The Powers That Be That Were started stealing and killing to keep their scam going, and so forth and so on.
We're not the bad guys in this story, going back to when they nationalized their oil at peak ('75) and 'free money for nothing' corrupted accountability, top and bottom, while petroleum markets crashed around them.
These three countries are larger but are not as deeply corrupt as Venezula. There is at least a remote chance of reducing drug running through conventional means there. Venuzuela has gone over into full Barbary Pirate status.
No but the new no longer almost first world Venezuela is the source of many problems. You're asking a "do i shoot the dog because it's rabid or do I shoot it because it's attacking me" question. It doesn't matter why, the action is required.
you know what, you’re right. So what if this isn’t actually about drugs, they are 3rd world so we should just bomb them. I had forgotten how successful our other regime change wars were both for us and the nations we are bringing democracy to. Kill them all!
Venezuela is about Marijuana, cocaine, heroin, ... (the list is long). But, the post I replied to was about fentanyl. not agricultural drugs.
Maybe Argentina could produce fentanyl. None of the formerly almost first world countries in central south America have the technology to make it. But they do have the technology to grow agricultural drugs and hopefully ship them to the US through Venezuela. Yes, fentanyl precursors come mostly from Chine and fentanyl itself comes mostly from Mexico. However, I have absolutely no trouble believing fentanyl precursors from China are routed through Venezuela but there are absolutely positively NOT shipped on speedboats with crews hoping to make enough to live a good life for a few years. If the precursors go thru Venezuela, they are shipped on big "reputable" freighters. Not something the orange man would to destroy without more than circumstantial data.
The justification for blowing up fast moving speedboat far out in the ocean far from any place a non-narco speedboat owned by rational owner of a speedboat would never be is that he would ever be there. Only a narco would be there.
Try placing a bet in Vegas at hundred to one odds that the orange man will blow up a speedboat NOT carrying a ton of drugs: they will be glad to laugh at you and take your money and be sure he will never see you again (except to lose some more money).
To save a little bit of money, you might rent a speedboat and drive (sail?) two hundred miles away from where you rented it at 50 knots an hour . Please tell me how your kidneys feel after the four hour run. And how you expect your kidneys to feel after another 2000 miles. (If you don't believe the distances, Google it.)
I'm tired of our human wreckage and also tired of hearing about murdered citizens and politicians down south that wouldn't cooperate with the drug lords. I hope Trump keeps going.
The fentynal crisis is the biggest story in the United States at the moment. Almost all our "journalists" are too insulated from the reality that is mass unchecked flow of illegal lethal drugs into the country. I have lost who knows how many friends and acquaintances from the shit and I am pissed off. Enough is enough. No feelings whatsoever for drug smugglers. Blast away.
Wasn't the boogeyman on fentanyl China? Or wait Mexico?
Oh, I get it- now it's Maduro. The same guy we tried to drone strike dead a handful of years ago. The same country Trump 1.0 said 'we can use their iil'. Its oil they are after.
I would not be at all surprised to find out someday that he is going after Venezuela to get at our own deep state running drugs into our country just as they have done in the past to fund all their Black ops shit. I would not be surprised at to find out someday that in 2020 our election was rigged - Biden 81 million votes? C'mon. This goes far deeper and darker than just blowing up a few drug boats.
Find out some day? All critically thinking people in America and abroad, know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 2020 election was stolen. Otherwise I agree with everything you said!
Matt, your sources might think this is "dumb shit" but once again Trump is marching to the beat of the majority of Americans who aren't getting hot and bothered about greasing drug runners. Trump does not march to the beat of "experts" or journalists, which is why you don't get him.
I don't know about "majority." Trump got the majority of votes, which makes him our legitimate leader, but that doesn't translate into a majority condoning this action. Consider that many of us voted for Trump because it was impossible to vote for Harris. I don't know how many, but suspect it was a lot.
Matt Taibbi. It’s about securing the oil for the West (and not China). It’s also about stopping the drug flow north, because that is something that can be more easily sold to the public.
Bingo! The discovery of massive offshore oil reserves in the Essequibo region in 2015 intensified Venezuela's long-standing territorial dispute with Guyana. Maduro has threatened to move in.
Nah. This is just another story in the Great Narrative of whatever the new thing is. I can literally get this information anywhere, for free. I like Matt’s work when it cuts against the grain or digs into the machine. He deserves to write whatever interests him and he has certainly earned that. I’m just not wasting my time on it. I don’t live in an echo chamber and I don’t intend to. Another story on Trump, Venezuela and how bad it is not rejecting the echo chamber. It’s living in it. He won’t miss my money. I suspect he will get a bump in subscriptions from the folks who love whatever the new thing is.
Maybe. And he will still have independents, like me, who may have voted for Trump, but look askance at some of his actions. We don't and won't live in echo chambers of any kind - not the Orange Man Bad echo chamber, and not the Everything Trump Does is Great echo chamber, either. If you want the latter, find one, they're out there - just be honest with yourself that there's only one sort of echo chamber you avoid.
I am also an independent, but spent most of my 46 years either to the far left of center, or less so. It’s not that I have a problem with anything Matt chooses to write. As I stated before, it’s just no different than I can find anywhere else. These aren’t ideas I’m rejecting. I’m not closing myself off to information I don’t like. I can literally find the same information anywhere from the same perspective and it doesn’t cost me $5. Matt has a personal opinion about this that is consistent. I appreciate that and I encourage him to do what he thinks is right.
I might say I feel (and think) Matt Taibbi's voice unique, but you're certainly entitled to spend your money, or not spend it, as you like. At least, that's true again since Trump rescinded fiscal penalties for not buying Obamacare policies (an act I very greatly approve).;
Truly, if spending the $5 meant Matt making it or not making it, I’d spend it. I support him 100%. My issue is not that I think Matt’s wrong. I really door have a strong opinion one way or another regarding these strikes. I don’t like killing people as a general rule. I also believe these folks know what they are doing, they know that their cargo can kill Americans. They know that their cargo can destroy lives. Yet they do it anyways. So I find it hard to feel sympathy for them. We have been interdicting these boats for a long time. Nothing changes. Maybe this will make a change. Reasonable people can differ on that. The real question is, is this legal. Clearly someone thinks it is, and others don’t. The reality is we’ve been giving more and more power to the executive branch for many decades now depending on the emergency at hand. And because of that, the president can do pretty much whatever he or she wants to do. Courts tend to shy away from making decisions about foreign policy. The Supreme Court almost always differs to the executive on issues like this if it’s a power that congress has delegated to the president. So are these strikes really illegal? Probably not. Does that make them moral defensible? Clearly to some, the answer is no. Yet every person Matt has spoken to all have the same view? I expect more out of Matt than that. There must be someone out there in his orbit who has a different view. It seems based on what I’ve read that Matt and the people he’s speaking to all have the same opinion about the same limited facts that every other outlet has. The difference is this is who Matt is going all the way back to Iraq, he has always been skeptical of action like this. But all the other outlets with the same view aren’t as sincere. They just want a narrative to beat Trump over the head with. Again, that doesn’t mean they are wrong. It’s just what they do whether they are right or wrong. That’s who they are at this point. I just want more than the same view. Honestly, I’ve never really been a consumer of right wing foreign policy publications. I couldn’t even name one. Not sure any really exist. But I do crave different opinions and views. Not the same one everywhere. Matt will be fine.
What I think what is all about? Venezuela? It’s pretty obvious what it’s about. It’s many things all woven into one operation. Probably the biggest thing is that Venezuela is the country in our hemisphere more than any other that has let in all our geopolitical opponents into their territory. They are the foothold for China, Russia and Iran in the western hemisphere.
They also have a bunch of oil that our oil companies paid to build the extraction and refining infrastructure and that was essentially stolen by the Venezuelan government. Now that oil goes to our geopolitical foes before it comes to us. Venezuela also has proximity to the Panama Canal, which we need to move our navy ships from one coast to another, that’s why we built it, and China knows this too. So they want to be able to control it or destroy it if hostilities kick off.
Venezuela also exports a lot of drugs. Not just any drug either, they exporting Fentanyl. Fentanyl is being added to every other drug and it’s deadly. The precursors all come from China. It’s Chinas soft war against the US. They also live under a dictatorship and like every other dictatorship, they have destroyed the economy. Dictatorships don’t value high numbers of citizens, because they don’t need their vote anyways, so they encourage them to leave and when they leave they usually come to the US. And they come illegally most of the time claiming they need asylum, which they almost never get. It’s destabilizing to the US. We have no leverage over Russia anymore so we’ve been slowly picking them off from their “partners”. We’ve done that with Iran, Syria, and soon Venezuela.
We have no carrots with which to get them to stop fighting Ukraine anymore, as Trump has learned to his dismay. We only have the stick left. So losing influence in Venezuela is another stick we use to gain leverage in talks with Russia. We just let them know that we hold all the cards in the world. And we have domestic politics. Less illegal immigration is good for domestic politics. More fuel supply means less pricey gas which is good for domestic politics. Less people dying from overdoses is good for domestic politics. Trump also knows that if he doesn’t placate the Neocon Psychopaths, they will constantly attack him from the right. Or at least his chief of staff knows that. And there’s nothing a neocon loves more than regime change and conflict, so he gets that monkey off his back. Can’t blame him for that even though I don’t agree with it.
The reality is that Congress delegated lots of power to the president because congress is a worthless institution that does nothing but investigate the opposing party depending on who is in power and spending a bunch of money we don’t have. That’s when they aren’t passing legislation that benefits a small group at everyone else’s detriment. They have delegated so much that the president, regardless of who it is, can make a proclamation about this or that and do what they want. The courts aren’t going to start taking power away from the executive when it comes to foreign policy, only congress can do that. If congress delegates it, the courts aren’t going to accept that. They may quibble about terminology but at the end of the day the President has a bunch of power I doubt anyone intended the president to have, and there isn’t much we can do about it. I can’t even say I oppose it. I really don’t care if they blow up drug boats. I don’t care who the president is. I actually think it’s a great thing. I don’t do drugs so it doesn’t affect me. It only affects me when someone I know gets hurt from drugs. People who ship drugs to the US know that they are hurting the country as a whole, or potentially killing citizens and in my mind that’s a clear and present danger. Reasonable people can differ.
But mostly I just am not into the narrative game. I think it’s obvious to any objective person that the Democrats are doing what they always do. Constantly crank everything up to 11 for their political benefit. It’s why I don’t vote democrat anymore. It’s all Trump all the time. There is no nuanced conversation about anything. So while I think there is much we can discuss about all I’ve written above, we aren’t doing it to get to some consensus or be better informed. We are doing it because that’s what the new narrative is and it hurts Trump and helps democrats. I’m sure matt is sincere in his interest, but I’m not interested in playing this game. Everything he is writing can be found anywhere else.
You summed up why I pay for this subscription: Getting out of my party's echo chamber. I pay for another subscription that is "all Trump all the time," cheerleading. It's good for a few things but it's a lot of over the top "yay Trump." I can't trust it much anymore.
You only want to read things that confirm your beliefs. That’s an echo chamber. You’ve supposedly been a fan for such a long time, but one article (that hadn’t even been released yet at the time of your post), and you’re out. Not only is that wanting to live in an echo chamber, that’s embarrassingly soft.
Has Taibbi written about Venezuela, its oil, its oil ambitions of its neighbor, Guyana and Maduro’s cozy relationship with China? If not, why not? To not talk about this aspect of the operation is like sticking your head in the sand. Just concentrating on a ‘possible’ but unproven double-tap is like a focus on a single tree and not the forest.
Or, the other explanation is Matt is knowingly focusing on the single tree because he sees it as pathway to regime change, if left unchecked.
So, is Taibbi just like Trump after all? Meaning, Matt’s not talking about his real fear/motivation which is another regime change — just like Trump is selling public this is only about stopping drugs, but is really about oil and regime change. Matt has been consistently opposed to regime change over the years.
Matt Taibbi not talking about the big picture and just this possible boat event kind of insults my intelligence, given his deep dives into other subjects. Maybe he does talk about this (regime change fear) in private, with all those he ‘consulted’. But not in his public, substack forum? If he does have fear of regime change in case of Venezuela, how about sharing the pros/cons of that?
What makes you think it’s just one article? And what makes you think I only read things I like? I’ve read the same information in Wapo, the Atlantic, heard it from politicians, particularly on the left, but certainly some on the right. Rand Paul and others. No, I’m well aware of what’s going on. This just isn’t bringing anything new to it. At least not for me and that’s why I come here. At least that’s why I pay for it. It’s all the same stuff. I’m certain Matt is sincere in his beliefs and I applaud that. I encourage him to be fearless in his journey. Always have. But I’m not paying for it, that’s silly. You are welcome to do as you please it’s your money. I do disagree that I only want to hear what tickles my bias. I just want a real discussion. Matt is starting from a certain position. Matt is consistent about that and has been for a long time. He questioned pretty much every foreign action for the last 30 years. That’s great. I’ve been right there with him. There’s nothing wrong with that. However, I can get this same perspective anywhere right now because it is the newest Trump Bad narrative. And maybe it’s a fair one. But I’m not going to pay for that which I can get for free elsewhere. That’s not living in an echo chamber. That’s just not wasting $5.
Downing a handful of narco terrorists importing poison into America bears no comparison the decapitation bombing campaign that destroyed a nation. Libya has never recovered. The toll in death and suffering there is incalculable.
You stepped on your own dick this time, Matt. Just as bad as legacy media.
After ‘strong horse’ Gaddafi was disposed, Libya sank into chaos and destabilization. Many people there fled and mass migration out and north.
With Venezuela, the removal of Maduro may also bring chaos, but it will likely be shorter lived because leader in waiting, Juan Guaido is ready to depart Miami for Caracas. And unlike Libya, a ‘safe’ Venezuela will pave the way for deportation of ~600K Venezuela illegals currently in the US, to return home.
Wait, isn’t that what Germany is calling on Syrians illegal immigrants to also do now that stability has returned to Damascus?
Everything about Obama is more infamous than has been covered in any form of news - like Arctic Frost and more. I'm not hearing about the voting machine cartels in Venezuela. Isn't that also of interest.
There is a difference in what Trump is doing from Obama’s actions. Trump is dealing with threats coming directly to our shores. The volume of drugs landing on our shores is killing thousands of Americans every year. I don’t remember Obama’s motivations for his drone strikes but I doubt the threat to Americans was imminent. The president of Venezuela is profiting from the drug cartels. China has a lot of influence in the Western Hemisphere. They were providing the precursors for fentanyl in Mexico. I have no sympathy for drug cartels. Not saying goodbye. Please be fair. I like that Trump fights for Americans. I know it is messy. (I hate that he called Somalis garbage, but they need to leave.)
Trump campaigned on solving the opioid crisis. Clearly one basis for this crisis is geopolitical wars where are enemies are flooding the market with cheap murderous addictive drugs where they profit and use the money to fund global terrorism.
These are narco terrorists and generally they are connected to other terrorists. As such, the President has full decision authority to take them out with military operations.
Sorry Trump haters. The law backs Trump for this.
And you can just put yourself in the presidential conference room discussing how in fact, after all the other stupid government failed attempts (like Nancy Reagan's "don't do drugs" advertising), can you solve the opioid crisis. How exactly to we stop the flow? We tell Canada to get their shit together or get tariffed to smithereens. We tell China the same. But Venezuela isn't tariff-able. And they are a clear commie foe in our backyard. The discussion is these boats and how they have been designed to speed faster than our military can intercept them. There is no way to stop them. But wait... yes, we can spot them with drones and take them out. But are not those piloting the boats just poor Venezuelans without other economic options? No, they are law-breaking terrorists bent on enriching themselves by the addiction and death of Americans getting their product for cheap. They are terrorists and the law authorizes the Commander In Chief to take them out.
And note, this is where I spit on those that criticize the Administration's actions without any acknowledgement or discussion of the actual deadly problem and what other approaches we might take. F*cking armchair quarterbacks. Critics are a dime a dozen. Put your damn neck on the line and tell us what else we should be doing instead. Or maybe you just accept tens of thousands of Opioid deaths every year. F*ck you for that then.
I know this is not really relevant to Matt's post and the drug boats, but it does involve Venezuela:
I remember reading, a few months ago, of Venzeula attempting to annex (and possibly even invade) neighboring Guyana over the Essequibo region. I stopped hearing about that all of a sudden.
Could this gambit be an attempt by Trump to secure the Essequibo region for Guyana and become a favored trade partner for any future oil drilling?
I don’t know how what Trump is doing regarding these obvious drug cartel boats could be construed as well beyond what OBumbler did with so many drone strikes.. especially considering the continuous title wave of drugs, flooding the US…
No I agree with Trump‘s assessment these are terrorists killing hundreds of thousands of Americans with fentanyl and Coke… take those boats out as quick and as continuously as possible…
"Illegal issues over the last ten years" were all generated by the Dems and the deep state.
Outside the color of the law - since when have laws stopped State/CIA revolutions in foreign nations? Trump is operating in full daylight for a reason. I expect his purpose will be understood at some point soon.
Thanks for the link. I hope Matt reads it. He and Walter need to keep the alarm bells ringing about outside agitators screaming about bogus war crimes that undermine our military. There are too many actors within the administration who are trying to sabotage Trump’s policies.
This JAG thing smells like more of the same bovine excrement emitted by the O'Biden/Hillary troupe. No names given. Pretending authority based upon supposed titles. Didn't we find out some of those "51 Intelligence people" were clerks, sanitation workers, and floor cleaners who worked at the Pentagon or similar? So tired of this constant war against the citizens of the US by people WE PAY to protect us...
Please interview some “real Americans” on how they feel about these operations vs the echo chamber you have surrounded yourself with. This is exactly wha I voted for…and every one I know. Keep it up POTUS and SecWar. Finally the War on Drugs is actually tangible!
I specifically didn’t restrict myself to the usual panoply of TV lawyers. There are several Trump supporters in there, plus several serious critics of the Democrats. If you can find a legal opinion anywhere that calls shooting unarmed drug dealers legal in any real sense, please send them my way. There is a claimed legal authority, just like there was in Bush/Obama actions, but I think he jumped the shark on this one.
I think there's a question of whether "shooting unarmed drug dealers" is an accurate and complete description of the situation.
These drug dealers are armed with enough poison to kill tens of thousands of Americans. Wish people would get some perspective here. It's not like these criminals are bank robbers or art thieves.
No, not art thieves. But drugs aren't "weapons" the way law enforcement thinks of them.
No drugs are not arms, but they are certainly an effective weapon of mass destruction.
Since when are drug dealers unarmed? The guy in the building across the street from my apartment sold weed. He chased four would be thieves armed with knives out of his apartment one night with a gun. I know because my dog ran over there right afterward and my shocked neighbors told me what had just happened after I ran and got her back. Even low level college weed dealers in the 90s had guns, yet we are expected to believe international fentanyl traffickers are not armed? Besides, what are the implications of shooting spies or soldiers infiltrating a country, if they plan to get weapons provided upon entry? Could that not be a tactic to make this look like low level, ‘nonviolent’ crime? Taibbi’s normally astute and razor sharp insight is resembling that of a dull vegetable peeler in this case.
Wow, please read what you wrote…”unarmed drug dealers”! Says who? Unarmed? A boat full of drugs ready to distribute, harm and kill? Seriously Matt! It’s as though you are defending the “drug dealers”…exactly what the Dems do in defending criminals…drug dealer = criminal. Have this conversation with families who have lost loved ones to the non existent “war on drugs”. Like I said, finally tangible, actionable war on drugs”. Not just talk. More please!
Again, your objection is 100% irrelevant to the point. This seems to be a habit. It does not matter--does NOT matter to the legality- whether or not the dealers are armed-I'm sure they are! Or whether that are awful people-I'm sure they are! The argument is that it is not legal for the military to strike, as it's a matter for police. Instead of making emotional points about how glad you are, please try to defend the legality-that is the ONLY point that matters.
Terrorism within our borders is (primarily) a police matter. Outside, it is the military.
and nowhere, in any law anywhere, does the law define drug dealers as terrorists. That is the issue. If they are terrrists, pass a f-ing law and stop emoting
The primary U.S. law that provides the authority to officially determine and designate foreign organizations as terrorist groups is the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), specifically Section 219 (8 U.S.C. § 1189). This authority is exercised by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, which acts under the direction and authority of the President as head of the executive branch.
Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) Designations: This process, established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), authorizes the Secretary of State to designate an organization as an FTO if it meets specific criteria. Multiple drug cartels have been designated as such.
We passed the f-ing law almost 30 years ago. Educate yourself and stop emoting.
Actually it is the law. Presidential authority
There is a law that allows presidents to claim this is legal. I don’t think it’s valid, but it’s been used previously under some similarly dubious pretexts. At the same time there are general concepts - like that you can’t shoot as a matter of first resort in policing - that conflict more directly with this use of anti-terror law
Most recently, the president defined them as terrorists via Executive Order:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/designating-cartels-and-other-organizations-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations-and-specially-designated-global-terrorists/
Ummm...terrorism inside the US usually receives an international military response.
Has been thus for 24 years at least.
Not quite sure what you mean by this - pretty sure we have not had IDF, SAS, or anything like that within our borders. Not meaning to be snarky - just don't know what you are saying here.
You are clueless as to how the world really works.
I agree with that. When people have had enough they don’t want some private armed guarded cartel payrolled lawyer telling them their kids have to be raped and killed because of the rights of the poor gangster. Recently NYC let violent felons out on the streets.
It’s a tragedy that will not end well and Trump is betting that Americans have had enough.
So, blowing the drug smugglers on the boats is preventing American kids from being raped?
We are on thin ice here, all around here.
A military with the traditional role and training of prevailing in combat against the peer military of our adversaries is tasked with an amorphous law enforcement role.
This is bound to get stinky and might have a bad effect on our ability to defend against China who already has more ships than we do.
The questions that you need to answer are:
1) How much of the flow of cocaine will this interdiction campaign actually stop? What effect will it have other than increasing the value of subsequent cargos? (Remember, Fentanyl, the cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths is coming from Mexico, not across the Caribbean.)
2) How much does the cost of the destruction of each boat compare with the value of the boat's cargo? Who wins this battle of attrition? (The Houthis ran circles around us in the Red Sea as we wasted $100k missiles to ditch $500 drones.)
None of this computes. Take a breath and take a look around.
Yet another person who simply can't address the question. "How the world works" is irrelevant. Pass a f-ing law, it's not hard!
read the Bush passed AUMF
We have a lazy congress and a cowardly group of republican congress members that do make passing bold laws pretty hard.
Sorry, bub but you're dead wrong.
Law's already been passed.
Quit thinking your version of reality is right.
It's not.
Pay attention or go away.
What is the alternative action? And has that action been effective in the past?
Congress passes a law designating them as terrorists committing acts of war. Simple. Right now they are defined specifically as criminals, not terrorists. And criminals are a matter for police
Agree. Can or will Congress do that? How long will that take? Until some body with legal authority stops this type of action by Presidents of both Parties, then I’m OK with continued strikes. By now I’m sure those boat boys know there’s a good chance they won’t make it to US waters.
Wrong - detailed post re: legal authority for Foreign Terrorist Organization is above.
Police? What police are out in the ocean? Your point is pointless.
Goshj, no one ever thought of that! Hilarious
The August 29 Abbey Gate reprisal strike by the Biden Administration killed 10 unarmed civilians. What did Democrats say about that murder?
Blamed Trump
We declared a War on Drugs years ago and after no one having the balls to really combat this issue till Trump everyone is Monday morning quarterbacking. We don’t have the stomach to really conduct war. I guess if we had killed all these scumbag smugglers on the first shot alls good?
Such a good and realistic comment
This conversation is ridiculous given this nation’s history over the last 250 years. For fuck sake we strategically bombed whole cities like Tokyo and Dresden during WW2 ostensibly to hit military relevant targets like government buildings or ball bearing plants, etc. In Vietnam we used Agent Orange and napalm indiscriminately. Multiple recent admins have allowed black site interrogation (torture) and have killed thousands of people with drones most of whom were considered collateral damage. So silly to watch people melt down when the Orange Menace breaks another norm by doing what all the past POTUS have done. It’s quite simple, Congress abdicated its authority to approve military force a long time ago culminating in the often abused AUMF from after 9/11. Last declared war was WW2 but we have been in more wars since then than for the entire 152 years from ratification to Pearl Harbor. What the hell is legality in war? It’s created by the winners to punish the losers and enforced on the weak by the strong. Otherwise it’s just killing. Most have never been on the battlefield so it’s always some pedantic argument about notions of our civility. These silly arguments only occur in Western nations. Do you think the forces fighting in Sudan, Congo, Ukraine, etc care about rules of armed conflict? They do not. Watch the videos. Drone pilots routinely kill unarmed wounded soldiers which is a war crime per the Geneva Convention, which the USA observes but has never formally signed on to IIRC. I find it perplexing how everyone comes at this like our government should be a paragon of lawful conduct given our history. Killing drug runners on the high seas should just be a regular Tuesday at this point but since the Orange Man did it instead of Sleepy Joe, Obama, or Hillary its a code red for the usual suspects. IIRC the USA was suffering about 3000 overdose deaths a year in circa 2018. Consider that by 2023 almost 100k died from fentanyl overdose. Seems like not all weapons shoot projectiles. If the intel (none of us have seen) supports this being an overt act of undermining the USA’s society to weaken it, then it’s arguably a National Security matter. That will often include kinetic targeting.
Bravo!! You said it tons better than I!
I enthusiastically support the death penalty for serious offenses — but, silly me, I always figured there would be a trial first!
Some of the people on those boats may have been relatives or passengers guilty only of trying to enter the US illegally,
Are you admitting they are not innocent fishermen like Hemingway’s. Old Man and the Sea
No doubt practicing the new sport of speedboat fishing!
Trump is bombing Venezuelan boats to interrupt the support and funding for Hezbollah inside Venezuela The saving Americans from drugs pretext is laughable.
Well, actually you can do two things at once.
Counting oil it might be three
Oil companies had a deal with Madura for the oil which is now gone. Apparently they aren’t happy about this either
Yes if they had any interest in curtailing drugs. in which case they wouldn’t be bombing boats off Venezuela. Firstly Venezuela is one but not a major source of drugs into US. Second it won’t make a lick of difference to the amount of drugs entering the U.S. nor in any manner curtail the drug business. This bombing is all about Hezbollah. For several reasons Venezuela is a major target for Israel-Its relationship with Iran etc.
The issue as I understand it is that the second strike was at two survivors of the attack clinging to the side of the boat. Professional military forces are under no lack of clarity as to the rules of engagement here.
As I understand it, the 2 "survivors" climbed back in the boat and were observed using the radio. JAG advisors deemed them "still in the fight" and possibly communicating info to the enemy. Declared legal targets and blow to bits.
Not a legal issue.
Period.
Yeah, a lot of “…as I understand it…” floating around. I’m fine with Congress checking things out, the AUMF has been exactly what its critics predicted, every president since does whatever they want anyway.
FWIW
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/new-details-emerge-controversial-sept-2-strike-alleged/story?id=128090044
As I understand it, the direct order was “to destroy the boat and its drug cargo”. The boat required a second strike to sink it. The second strike was to destroy the boat and cargo. The men were collateral damage.
Well sure. Calley was to take My Lai and all those casualties among the villagers were collateral damage.
Matt it is not "legal" but the Empire and its citizens are deeming it necessary. The US has put up with Mexico\Columbia etc dealing poison for 60 years-and yes demand is hard to police in a free society, but citizens dying, not just being incapacitated is too much. Drugs are bombs launched by terrorists.
But he hasn't closed the airspace over Mexico.
Although he got Mexico to guard their southern border. Regardless, there are still riots in Mexico demanding an end to cartel violence.
Sheinbaum just delivered a bunch of cartel leaders, which I am sure was not her first choice. So, the extra-legality may be having an effect on Mexico.
Of course, if Russia does some extra-legality, it's a bad thing; we do it, it's a good thing.
I want them to leave Russia alone too. Russia hasn't done half as much to us as our "Allies" have.
Russia delenda est: it's been that way even before the Bolsheviks with us. It's crazy.
I was with Aaron Burr regarding Mexico. Maybe too late, but with Trump, who knows?
At long last, final victory in the War on Drugs. We are so close! Just a few more drug transporter killings and drug-taking Americans will finally be safe and our kids will be drug free forevermore. Can we put aside the legality thing please?
LOL!
then pass a law defining them as terrorists. Easy
Broken record
Sadly, I have to repeat the law, because people keep not addressing it
Like passing a law making all the illegal immigrants legal solves everything. The law is an ass!
AUMF is an acronym that most commonly refers to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, a type of U.S. congressional resolution that grants the President authority to deploy military force under specific circumstances. Passed during Bush II
Passed during a climate of fear, hysteria and confusion. It's been used continually since then, and I'm not giving any administration a pass. But it should be repealed.
I am not a lawyer but I am pretty good with history. I see a pretty strong parallel to the situation with the Barbary pirates. The Barbary Pirate Wars were legally justified by the United States primarily on the basis of self-defense against ongoing acts of state-sponsored criminal activity and the internationally recognized right to use force to protect its commerce and citizens.
Venezuela has devolved from a republic to a dictatorship with its top leader, apparently, essentially a cartel boss. So, I am not terribly concerned about the fundamental concept of bombing drug boats.
The assumption you make about this just being a case of "shooting unarmed drug dealers" is where I think you veer to far from facts in evidence. The distinction we are dealing with here is unavoidable loss of life in a legal strike versus a strike intended only to kill allegedly drifting/clinging survivors. Right now, I am more inclined to believe the former than the latter and to give leeway to those directly involved if this falls into the gray areas. BTW Dontdrinkdakoolaid (something like that) gives a link lower on the page) that lends a lot of perspective by lawyer/former JAG.
It's been a long time since I studied international law of the sea, but from memory I believe your thinking is aligned correctly with historical precedent and legal argument. Without being sure I have all names & designations exactly correct, the Cartel de los Soles and Tren de Aragua absolutely are officially designated terrorist groups, by both State and Treasury (not just in a DJT post or EO). They are not random criminals on boats but transnational crime pseudo-organizations specifically targeting the US and its citizens with terrible activities (rape, murder, drugs, slavery, criminal takeovers of entire communities) for fun and profit (theirs not ours). The CS dudes factually are and/or work hand-in-glove with the Venezuelan govt (GoV), i.e. even BBC/PBS progs describe the CS as a corrupt network of Venezuelan military, judicial, intelligence, and other govt officials.
It's pretty messy, but adhering to an illusion that the military is nuking Boston whalers crewed by average gangbangers or gentle hippies with a few square groupers is beyond disengenuous. Unarmed drug dealers haven't been a thing for several generations, friends.
Here is where you have gone off the rails, Taibbi. This is NOT a question of legality. It is an utterly political question. The US, especially the legacy media and now you, has been engaging in a form of "due process masturbation" for about 30 years. And, by the way, lawyers just have opinions. They are nothing but advocates. Judges decide the law and cases. No judges have ruled here so the opinions of lawyers is just opinion.
What about (yes, what about ism!) the "defense of the douche bag Kuwaitis when Saddam invaded? Was that "legal"? Was that even in the US national interest.
How about the invasion of Iraq looking for WMD? Was that legal? Us National interest? Bullshit.
How about Afghanistan? Legal? To find OBL? Seriously?
How about the bombing of Serbia by Bubba? Libya by O'Bummer?
How about Mogadishu action, resulting in the deaths of American Blackhawk warriors?
Americans - ESPECIALLY folks in flyover country (Taibbi, pay attention) are sick of seeing their communities devastated by drugs, by Wall Street, by lawyers diddling their dicks (or clits) over :due process while kids and families are destroyed.
This is a political decision. It is in the US National interest.
Yep-a political decision against the law. and oh BTW there were zero laws defining any of the things you listed as illegal. there are here. Stop feeling and start thinking
What law? Dont make it up. Cite chapter, verse, section b
Don’t provide the trolls with nourishment
I violated my own counsel! Shame on me v
How long a list of precedents do you need???? Washington did this same thing. Jefferson did this same thing. Jackson did this same thing. Tyler. Polk. Taylor. Buchanan. Lincoln. Every single president Grant - Wilson did this.
Both Roosevelts. FDR and Truman and Eisenhower and jfk and lbj did this.
Who said they were unarmed for one thing? That’s not been factually proven, and is more than highly, highly unlikely, and a patently absurd assumption.
This is the first time I've seen this bizarre assertion and, like you, I do not believe it for a nanosecond.
I gotta agree with MaryHQ - anyone who's not anybody will more than likely (as in greater than 50%) agree with attacking these boats.
However, shooting survivors is akin to shooting bailed out pilots in their parachutes or U-boat commanders machine-gunning survivors in a lifeboat. If that is what we really have, here.
Ask parents of kids who have been trafficked, murdered, or died by overdose, though, if they give a flying fuck about the Geneva Convention rules. Once those bastards become signatories to an international treaty specifying civilized, humane behavior and treatment in conditions that sui generis obviate the rules of any society - that might be a day for this discussion.
Warning us about the danger of opening a Pandora's Box is disingenuous when it's been opened and flung in our face for generations, now.
Let's get real - this isn't about sending a message to the cartels or the dictators. This is about showing China, Iran, North Korea, and anyone else that this is no longer an easy way to wage a backdoor war against America.
You need a lecture by Colonel Jessup on how the world treats us.
As Trump supporter, I agree.. When he closes the airspace over Mexico, I might believe this is about drugs.
What does closing airspace over Mexico have to do with taking out drug runners in the Gulf of America?
(Last part for laughs!)
He closed the airspace over Venuzuela. Most of our drugs come here through Mexico..
Maybe there’s more going on in Venezuela than drug running? Maybe there’s a message being delivered?
Indeed. It's "We are about to attack you because we want to plunder your natural resources for the benefit of our corporations."
Are the drugs fro Mexico by air?
But thinking about it, I feel sure there have been many drugs flown into our country from Mexico..
I'm not against getting rid of drug dealers..I am against War..So far they haven't shot down any drug planes from Venezuela. That we know of.
He warned that there may be ordinance flying. Different
Meanwhile, Trump just pardoned the 45-year sentence of the former president of Honduras- a REAL and convicted cocaine trafficker. "Hypocrite" seems to mild a descriptor for this guy.
Hey Matt, how the hell do you know these drug dealers are unarmed ? How many drug dealers ever go around unarmed? Stop calling them "drug dealers", they are members of an international drug cartel responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
Matt, based on comments, many of your bloodthirsty fans are high on something and financially support the terrorists even while wanting them blown up on suspicion alone. Violent minded Carrie Nations who would have approved of fire bombing speakeasies are concerned about drug takers, which they are. Irony where is thy sheath?
Are they unarmed? Maybe I watch too much TV but that seems very strange.
The trouble is, historically, we've fought legal "wars" on drug cartels, while they have fought dirty wars against us. Pablo Escobar was a prime example. When he brought down a commercial airliner to get at one person (who turned out not to even have been on the plane), it became apparent even to a dunce like Bush senior that we had to start taking a different approach. I'm starting to think this is similar. That having been said, I don't have the answer. I'll have to invest some time into thinking about what would be a proper approach...
Matt - how do you KNOW they are "unarmed?" Have you EVER spoken to anyone who has fought the drug wars in South America? These are evil, heinous, cruel, and loathsome people. The torture and abuse THEY would inflict on anyone getting in their way is the stuff of nightmares. Skinning people alive, setting them on fire, cutting off arms, legs, fingers, toes... sometimes one at a time while the person screams. These are not Obama's drone raids. These are seriously bad people and I believe the DOW has the goods on them and knows who they are dealing with. And I don't care if people you interviewed are "trump supporters" -- did you interview a legitimate IC guy from South America? I know plenty of them and they are not upset in the least about this. So, the question is, Why are YOU? Who are you protecting? Let the Man Work. We are at war. War is not nice. Our enemies are not fair. You can sit in your cushy office and opine all you want. But you are dead wrong here and, frankly, we in the peanut gallery don't give a shit.
Legalities don't apply outside our legal system,, essentially our borders.
America does what needs to be done because the legal beagles have focused on feelings rather than law. Hill Street Blues in the 1980s predicted where would be 40 years later: "Let 'em go Moe" law has produced a flood of thugs and hoodlums in the US and helped multiply the number of thugs and hoodlums in what were one "almost First World" countries. Shakespeare had the best advice for dealing with lawyers.
Maybe the religious types are right to want to ban sodomy. That should get rid of the lawyers over time?
😂😂😂
Mary-no one, including Matt, made a point about whether or not Trump supporters like these actions or not-whether or not "real" Americans like them or not is irrelevant to the point. The point is, are these actions legal or not? So instead of arguing your emotions, you might argue whether or not they are legal. I'll start-I voted Trump three times, and I like seeing the drug boats blow up, it's satisfying! It's also not legal, and that is a fact. Drug smuggling is a crime and a President can't simply designate it as terrorism at will-the two things are different.
Not a fact.
Correct, it is a legal opinion, a legal opinion of almost every legal scholar, and not just on the left, on the right as well
So, you are arguing your emotional feelings about someone else's opinion, and claiming your feelings should count more than (lack of) legal adjudication and also should overrule determinations by State and Treasury that the US is under threat from terrorist organizations doing terrorist things on the open seas. Not terribly convincing but at least now clearer.
I gave zero emotion whatsoever. The law and the facts are as I state. Everything else is an opinion: "I love eliminating these awful people-finally we are stopping the drug trade." THAT is an emotion. The fact and the law state precisely what I said
Why not. His order I believe made it legal as the Commander in Chief.
The State Dept and Treasury Dept have also designated the Cartel de los Soles and the Tren de Aragua as terrorists. It is false to assert that the President has "simply" designated drug smuggling as terrorism. Nutty ranting about emotions and handwaving freakoutery that things are against "the law" (which law? how so? applicable on the open seas?) is the opposite of a fact, in fact.
Where's the evidence that the people on those boats were members of those drug cartels?
By “real Americans” Mary of course means the ones who share her point of view. Twat.
Really, name calling? How childish. We are here to agree to disagree. Thank God for that. Calling out the article according to my opinion. As you are entitled to yours…
Quite right Mary. Let me rephrase what I’ve written. Mary; it is my considered opinion that you are a twat. Better?
And you, Johnny, are a cunt.
Take off, hoser.
And you sir are an ass of of the largest variety.
Do you feel better now? Of course you do…
And you sir are a coward who sleeps peacefully in your bed at night because rough men and women do violence on your behalf. Bet you supported defunding the police and think social workers can convince pimps engaged in the modern slave trade to stop trafficking women and kids too. Cuck.
That’s kind of hilarious. Why would I want the police defunded? Why is it that so many Americans have such poor reading comprehension? You’re one of them. Did you read me say anything about defunding police?
No.
And this “rough” men stuff? What’s that? Is that some kind of kink for you? You spelled cuck correctly. So…two points.
The rest?
Listen (which means you need to quiet that brain of yours); what is valuable in this exercise is that it illustrates very effectively how Matt Taibbi literally sold out and to whom he sold out.
The squealing outrage his piece has provoked demonstrates it. His readership is unquestionably MAGA now.
Another hilarious idea. Make America Great Again. By murdering suspected drug smugglers on the high seas. By lowering every standard previously cited as evidence America was great to begin with.
It’s astounding.
Matt has stated clearly in this piece that he’s opposed to these perversions military force. Does that make him a libtard?
You’re truly hopeless my friend. I’m grateful not to have anything to do with you in real life.
I don’t kick it with cowards like you douche bag so no sweat of my brow. You dive into comments talking shit and act surprised at the response. High IQ for sure.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
🎯🎯🎯
Folks, ignore this douche. He reads Sam Harris and Garrison Keillor. What a dork of midwit (at best) intellect.
You got “midwit” from Kirn? That’s adorable.
real Americans are good neighbors. Don't find too many of those in blue cities.
Real Americans. Blue cities. 😂😂😂😂
Charming.
But what about the due process??? Each of these drug dealers/innocent fishermen should have been gently taken into custody, brought to the United States, provided with a team of tax-payer funded lawyers (and a suite at the Roosevelt Hotel) and had their Constitutionally mandated years and years of pre-trial hearings, discovery, grand juries, trials, appeals, motions, and cross-motions.
Better that a 100,000 American kids die of overdoes than 1 Venezuelan sicario meet his maker on the high seas before being afforded his full menu of rights.
The U.S. Dept. of War has rules and procedures that reflect standard conventions of war. These include actions designated "war crimes."
These conventions and rules are in place because otherwise international relations would devolve into chaos. You may feel that international relations are already chaotic. But if you think that the way to fight chaos is with more chaos, then you are courting the Devil.
In any event, as our Founding Fathers were at pains to establish, the United States is a nation of laws, not men. We follow the law in this country and we look to President Trump to uphold the law.
"everyone I know" ... you appear to be the one in the echo chamber. There are plenty of people who want the results that Trump promised, but not disregard for the law.
Presidential Powers.
“Real Americans” follow the Constitution and respect the rule of law.
We need some of those in our federal government, it appears.
Drugs won the War on Drugs decades ago. We need real solutions to raise Americans out of poverty and despair and make our government work for us for a change. We do not ^need another bullshit war to enrich the donors. Fuck off.
"Separating media hypocrisy from the Trump administration’s unaided faceplants requires constant attention"; and this is exactly what I subscribe to Matt for. He's doing great.
Trump Cultist Alert. You are ridiculous and a ideologic moron.
Educate yourselves on Presidential Powers in defending the nation from foreign threats. Lawyers need not apply!
You're offering o hang at Nuremberg with them?
What happened to "America First." Did you vote for that as well?
Mary HQ, pls define “real Americans”.
https://open.substack.com/pub/taibbi/p/note-on-twin-outrages?utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=184329416
If you're going to do a War on Drugs (been going on for years, supposedly), this is the way to do it. Unfortunately it stretches the limits of legality, and sets a precedent (once more!) for the US and any other country to operate that way.
I want to deal with the criminal narco state that is Venezuela. I don’t have much sympathy for them. I am tired of the onslaught of fentanyl into our country and the subsequent deaths.
Colombia, Peru, Mexico are all narco states larger in scale than Venezuela.
My guess, this is about oil and gas.
Isn't it amazing that countries that once had legitimate economies have found drugs more profitable? Venezuela was once almost a first world country. Columbia, Peru, and Mexico were not hell holes. The firs world drug consumers have much to account for.
Marxist Leftist policies is what they all have in common. in other words equal outcomes of crime and misery. While the U.S. calls it EQUITY
(except for the Marxist officials and their apparatchiks living in luxury)
Some are more equal than others.
I employ only locally-grown cannabis, so I am innocent.
Venezuela hollowed out its prosperous economy for socialism. I remember arguing with a liberal friend who was so happy when Chavez imposed food price controls to stave off urban revolt er I mean because he loved the poors (around 2003, the innerwebs tell me). I pointed out that farmers won't grow food for nothing; they do it to make a living, which they can't do by selling at a loss, so they'll do Something Else. He couldn't follow the logic, and neither can any socialists, ever. Voilà, Venezuela ran out of other people's money, and The Powers That Be That Were started stealing and killing to keep their scam going, and so forth and so on.
We're not the bad guys in this story, going back to when they nationalized their oil at peak ('75) and 'free money for nothing' corrupted accountability, top and bottom, while petroleum markets crashed around them.
Astonishingly straightforward, from the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/16/world/americas/venezuela-shortages.html
And their involvement in the stolen 2020 election
That’s the “Fact That Dare Not Speak It’s Name” in these parts!
These three countries are larger but are not as deeply corrupt as Venezula. There is at least a remote chance of reducing drug running through conventional means there. Venuzuela has gone over into full Barbary Pirate status.
Guyana has bunch of it (next to Venezuela), as does Venezuela. So I think you're right.
Fentanyl does not come from Venezuela
But Venezuela is a close ally of the main source of the precursors for fentanyl and to the primary source of fentanyl. Google it.
That is not the war justification that is being argued
No but the new no longer almost first world Venezuela is the source of many problems. You're asking a "do i shoot the dog because it's rabid or do I shoot it because it's attacking me" question. It doesn't matter why, the action is required.
you know what, you’re right. So what if this isn’t actually about drugs, they are 3rd world so we should just bomb them. I had forgotten how successful our other regime change wars were both for us and the nations we are bringing democracy to. Kill them all!
Venezuela is about Marijuana, cocaine, heroin, ... (the list is long). But, the post I replied to was about fentanyl. not agricultural drugs.
Maybe Argentina could produce fentanyl. None of the formerly almost first world countries in central south America have the technology to make it. But they do have the technology to grow agricultural drugs and hopefully ship them to the US through Venezuela. Yes, fentanyl precursors come mostly from Chine and fentanyl itself comes mostly from Mexico. However, I have absolutely no trouble believing fentanyl precursors from China are routed through Venezuela but there are absolutely positively NOT shipped on speedboats with crews hoping to make enough to live a good life for a few years. If the precursors go thru Venezuela, they are shipped on big "reputable" freighters. Not something the orange man would to destroy without more than circumstantial data.
The justification for blowing up fast moving speedboat far out in the ocean far from any place a non-narco speedboat owned by rational owner of a speedboat would never be is that he would ever be there. Only a narco would be there.
Try placing a bet in Vegas at hundred to one odds that the orange man will blow up a speedboat NOT carrying a ton of drugs: they will be glad to laugh at you and take your money and be sure he will never see you again (except to lose some more money).
To save a little bit of money, you might rent a speedboat and drive (sail?) two hundred miles away from where you rented it at 50 knots an hour . Please tell me how your kidneys feel after the four hour run. And how you expect your kidneys to feel after another 2000 miles. (If you don't believe the distances, Google it.)
And you know this how?
Literally every single source including the DEA and 2025 Drug Threat Assessment from this same government
Not from but through.
any source for this claim? Because this is not true
I'm tired of our human wreckage and also tired of hearing about murdered citizens and politicians down south that wouldn't cooperate with the drug lords. I hope Trump keeps going.
The fentynal crisis is the biggest story in the United States at the moment. Almost all our "journalists" are too insulated from the reality that is mass unchecked flow of illegal lethal drugs into the country. I have lost who knows how many friends and acquaintances from the shit and I am pissed off. Enough is enough. No feelings whatsoever for drug smugglers. Blast away.
Wasn't the boogeyman on fentanyl China? Or wait Mexico?
Oh, I get it- now it's Maduro. The same guy we tried to drone strike dead a handful of years ago. The same country Trump 1.0 said 'we can use their iil'. Its oil they are after.
And, as the US puppet Maria Machado has stated, opening up all of Venezuela's natural resources to the highest corporate bidders.
fentanyl does not come from Venezuela
I would not be at all surprised to find out someday that he is going after Venezuela to get at our own deep state running drugs into our country just as they have done in the past to fund all their Black ops shit. I would not be surprised at to find out someday that in 2020 our election was rigged - Biden 81 million votes? C'mon. This goes far deeper and darker than just blowing up a few drug boats.
Find out some day? All critically thinking people in America and abroad, know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 2020 election was stolen. Otherwise I agree with everything you said!
Bingo.
Matt, your sources might think this is "dumb shit" but once again Trump is marching to the beat of the majority of Americans who aren't getting hot and bothered about greasing drug runners. Trump does not march to the beat of "experts" or journalists, which is why you don't get him.
I don't know about "majority." Trump got the majority of votes, which makes him our legitimate leader, but that doesn't translate into a majority condoning this action. Consider that many of us voted for Trump because it was impossible to vote for Harris. I don't know how many, but suspect it was a lot.
Sorry Matt. The time has come to part ways. I have appreciated your work for a long time and I wish you all the best moving forward.
Matt Taibbi. It’s about securing the oil for the West (and not China). It’s also about stopping the drug flow north, because that is something that can be more easily sold to the public.
Bingo! The discovery of massive offshore oil reserves in the Essequibo region in 2015 intensified Venezuela's long-standing territorial dispute with Guyana. Maduro has threatened to move in.
Yes, Maduro has been sabotaging rattling about it, and it’s FAFO time.
Staying the loop. You have an opportunity to influence his coverage if you stay engaged. Also, Racket News gets me out of my own echo chamber.
Nah. This is just another story in the Great Narrative of whatever the new thing is. I can literally get this information anywhere, for free. I like Matt’s work when it cuts against the grain or digs into the machine. He deserves to write whatever interests him and he has certainly earned that. I’m just not wasting my time on it. I don’t live in an echo chamber and I don’t intend to. Another story on Trump, Venezuela and how bad it is not rejecting the echo chamber. It’s living in it. He won’t miss my money. I suspect he will get a bump in subscriptions from the folks who love whatever the new thing is.
Maybe. And he will still have independents, like me, who may have voted for Trump, but look askance at some of his actions. We don't and won't live in echo chambers of any kind - not the Orange Man Bad echo chamber, and not the Everything Trump Does is Great echo chamber, either. If you want the latter, find one, they're out there - just be honest with yourself that there's only one sort of echo chamber you avoid.
I am also an independent, but spent most of my 46 years either to the far left of center, or less so. It’s not that I have a problem with anything Matt chooses to write. As I stated before, it’s just no different than I can find anywhere else. These aren’t ideas I’m rejecting. I’m not closing myself off to information I don’t like. I can literally find the same information anywhere from the same perspective and it doesn’t cost me $5. Matt has a personal opinion about this that is consistent. I appreciate that and I encourage him to do what he thinks is right.
I might say I feel (and think) Matt Taibbi's voice unique, but you're certainly entitled to spend your money, or not spend it, as you like. At least, that's true again since Trump rescinded fiscal penalties for not buying Obamacare policies (an act I very greatly approve).;
Truly, if spending the $5 meant Matt making it or not making it, I’d spend it. I support him 100%. My issue is not that I think Matt’s wrong. I really door have a strong opinion one way or another regarding these strikes. I don’t like killing people as a general rule. I also believe these folks know what they are doing, they know that their cargo can kill Americans. They know that their cargo can destroy lives. Yet they do it anyways. So I find it hard to feel sympathy for them. We have been interdicting these boats for a long time. Nothing changes. Maybe this will make a change. Reasonable people can differ on that. The real question is, is this legal. Clearly someone thinks it is, and others don’t. The reality is we’ve been giving more and more power to the executive branch for many decades now depending on the emergency at hand. And because of that, the president can do pretty much whatever he or she wants to do. Courts tend to shy away from making decisions about foreign policy. The Supreme Court almost always differs to the executive on issues like this if it’s a power that congress has delegated to the president. So are these strikes really illegal? Probably not. Does that make them moral defensible? Clearly to some, the answer is no. Yet every person Matt has spoken to all have the same view? I expect more out of Matt than that. There must be someone out there in his orbit who has a different view. It seems based on what I’ve read that Matt and the people he’s speaking to all have the same opinion about the same limited facts that every other outlet has. The difference is this is who Matt is going all the way back to Iraq, he has always been skeptical of action like this. But all the other outlets with the same view aren’t as sincere. They just want a narrative to beat Trump over the head with. Again, that doesn’t mean they are wrong. It’s just what they do whether they are right or wrong. That’s who they are at this point. I just want more than the same view. Honestly, I’ve never really been a consumer of right wing foreign policy publications. I couldn’t even name one. Not sure any really exist. But I do crave different opinions and views. Not the same one everywhere. Matt will be fine.
I appreciate that you are coherent & graceful in your response. It is a breath of fresh air in this Comments section.
Hmmmm, you are making a good point on intro.
Before you go?
What I think what is all about? Venezuela? It’s pretty obvious what it’s about. It’s many things all woven into one operation. Probably the biggest thing is that Venezuela is the country in our hemisphere more than any other that has let in all our geopolitical opponents into their territory. They are the foothold for China, Russia and Iran in the western hemisphere.
They also have a bunch of oil that our oil companies paid to build the extraction and refining infrastructure and that was essentially stolen by the Venezuelan government. Now that oil goes to our geopolitical foes before it comes to us. Venezuela also has proximity to the Panama Canal, which we need to move our navy ships from one coast to another, that’s why we built it, and China knows this too. So they want to be able to control it or destroy it if hostilities kick off.
Venezuela also exports a lot of drugs. Not just any drug either, they exporting Fentanyl. Fentanyl is being added to every other drug and it’s deadly. The precursors all come from China. It’s Chinas soft war against the US. They also live under a dictatorship and like every other dictatorship, they have destroyed the economy. Dictatorships don’t value high numbers of citizens, because they don’t need their vote anyways, so they encourage them to leave and when they leave they usually come to the US. And they come illegally most of the time claiming they need asylum, which they almost never get. It’s destabilizing to the US. We have no leverage over Russia anymore so we’ve been slowly picking them off from their “partners”. We’ve done that with Iran, Syria, and soon Venezuela.
We have no carrots with which to get them to stop fighting Ukraine anymore, as Trump has learned to his dismay. We only have the stick left. So losing influence in Venezuela is another stick we use to gain leverage in talks with Russia. We just let them know that we hold all the cards in the world. And we have domestic politics. Less illegal immigration is good for domestic politics. More fuel supply means less pricey gas which is good for domestic politics. Less people dying from overdoses is good for domestic politics. Trump also knows that if he doesn’t placate the Neocon Psychopaths, they will constantly attack him from the right. Or at least his chief of staff knows that. And there’s nothing a neocon loves more than regime change and conflict, so he gets that monkey off his back. Can’t blame him for that even though I don’t agree with it.
The reality is that Congress delegated lots of power to the president because congress is a worthless institution that does nothing but investigate the opposing party depending on who is in power and spending a bunch of money we don’t have. That’s when they aren’t passing legislation that benefits a small group at everyone else’s detriment. They have delegated so much that the president, regardless of who it is, can make a proclamation about this or that and do what they want. The courts aren’t going to start taking power away from the executive when it comes to foreign policy, only congress can do that. If congress delegates it, the courts aren’t going to accept that. They may quibble about terminology but at the end of the day the President has a bunch of power I doubt anyone intended the president to have, and there isn’t much we can do about it. I can’t even say I oppose it. I really don’t care if they blow up drug boats. I don’t care who the president is. I actually think it’s a great thing. I don’t do drugs so it doesn’t affect me. It only affects me when someone I know gets hurt from drugs. People who ship drugs to the US know that they are hurting the country as a whole, or potentially killing citizens and in my mind that’s a clear and present danger. Reasonable people can differ.
But mostly I just am not into the narrative game. I think it’s obvious to any objective person that the Democrats are doing what they always do. Constantly crank everything up to 11 for their political benefit. It’s why I don’t vote democrat anymore. It’s all Trump all the time. There is no nuanced conversation about anything. So while I think there is much we can discuss about all I’ve written above, we aren’t doing it to get to some consensus or be better informed. We are doing it because that’s what the new narrative is and it hurts Trump and helps democrats. I’m sure matt is sincere in his interest, but I’m not interested in playing this game. Everything he is writing can be found anywhere else.
Well said about Democrats. Their behavior gives no alternative except Trump, unfortunately.
Bravo, well articulated, lest I offend, AMEN AND HALLELUJAH!
^^^^^^^^^
This should be a stickied comment. Excellent Analysis. Cogent, clear, and straight forward. Thank you sir.
Please tell us what you think it’s all about?
You summed up why I pay for this subscription: Getting out of my party's echo chamber. I pay for another subscription that is "all Trump all the time," cheerleading. It's good for a few things but it's a lot of over the top "yay Trump." I can't trust it much anymore.
He wants to be in an echo chamber. Let him be.
It seems to me the echo chamber is this, no? Is this not the same story that can be found everywhere else? Do you know what an echo chamber is?
You only want to read things that confirm your beliefs. That’s an echo chamber. You’ve supposedly been a fan for such a long time, but one article (that hadn’t even been released yet at the time of your post), and you’re out. Not only is that wanting to live in an echo chamber, that’s embarrassingly soft.
Has Taibbi written about Venezuela, its oil, its oil ambitions of its neighbor, Guyana and Maduro’s cozy relationship with China? If not, why not? To not talk about this aspect of the operation is like sticking your head in the sand. Just concentrating on a ‘possible’ but unproven double-tap is like a focus on a single tree and not the forest.
Or, the other explanation is Matt is knowingly focusing on the single tree because he sees it as pathway to regime change, if left unchecked.
So, is Taibbi just like Trump after all? Meaning, Matt’s not talking about his real fear/motivation which is another regime change — just like Trump is selling public this is only about stopping drugs, but is really about oil and regime change. Matt has been consistently opposed to regime change over the years.
Matt Taibbi not talking about the big picture and just this possible boat event kind of insults my intelligence, given his deep dives into other subjects. Maybe he does talk about this (regime change fear) in private, with all those he ‘consulted’. But not in his public, substack forum? If he does have fear of regime change in case of Venezuela, how about sharing the pros/cons of that?
The oil aspect is extremely important, I don't know why Matt T. doesn't include it, if even in passing.
What makes you think it’s just one article? And what makes you think I only read things I like? I’ve read the same information in Wapo, the Atlantic, heard it from politicians, particularly on the left, but certainly some on the right. Rand Paul and others. No, I’m well aware of what’s going on. This just isn’t bringing anything new to it. At least not for me and that’s why I come here. At least that’s why I pay for it. It’s all the same stuff. I’m certain Matt is sincere in his beliefs and I applaud that. I encourage him to be fearless in his journey. Always have. But I’m not paying for it, that’s silly. You are welcome to do as you please it’s your money. I do disagree that I only want to hear what tickles my bias. I just want a real discussion. Matt is starting from a certain position. Matt is consistent about that and has been for a long time. He questioned pretty much every foreign action for the last 30 years. That’s great. I’ve been right there with him. There’s nothing wrong with that. However, I can get this same perspective anywhere right now because it is the newest Trump Bad narrative. And maybe it’s a fair one. But I’m not going to pay for that which I can get for free elsewhere. That’s not living in an echo chamber. That’s just not wasting $5.
Downing a handful of narco terrorists importing poison into America bears no comparison the decapitation bombing campaign that destroyed a nation. Libya has never recovered. The toll in death and suffering there is incalculable.
You stepped on your own dick this time, Matt. Just as bad as legacy media.
After ‘strong horse’ Gaddafi was disposed, Libya sank into chaos and destabilization. Many people there fled and mass migration out and north.
With Venezuela, the removal of Maduro may also bring chaos, but it will likely be shorter lived because leader in waiting, Juan Guaido is ready to depart Miami for Caracas. And unlike Libya, a ‘safe’ Venezuela will pave the way for deportation of ~600K Venezuela illegals currently in the US, to return home.
Wait, isn’t that what Germany is calling on Syrians illegal immigrants to also do now that stability has returned to Damascus?
Ever notice that nobody seems to ever ask about what happened to Ghadaffi’s billions in physical gold? Funny that..
The upcoming piece title: “Insane Clown Pentagon.” doesnt' exactly inspire confidence in its fairness or accuracy.
Everything about Obama is more infamous than has been covered in any form of news - like Arctic Frost and more. I'm not hearing about the voting machine cartels in Venezuela. Isn't that also of interest.
It should be front page news! Most Americans are still clueless!
There is a difference in what Trump is doing from Obama’s actions. Trump is dealing with threats coming directly to our shores. The volume of drugs landing on our shores is killing thousands of Americans every year. I don’t remember Obama’s motivations for his drone strikes but I doubt the threat to Americans was imminent. The president of Venezuela is profiting from the drug cartels. China has a lot of influence in the Western Hemisphere. They were providing the precursors for fentanyl in Mexico. I have no sympathy for drug cartels. Not saying goodbye. Please be fair. I like that Trump fights for Americans. I know it is messy. (I hate that he called Somalis garbage, but they need to leave.)
Trump campaigned on solving the opioid crisis. Clearly one basis for this crisis is geopolitical wars where are enemies are flooding the market with cheap murderous addictive drugs where they profit and use the money to fund global terrorism.
These are narco terrorists and generally they are connected to other terrorists. As such, the President has full decision authority to take them out with military operations.
Sorry Trump haters. The law backs Trump for this.
And you can just put yourself in the presidential conference room discussing how in fact, after all the other stupid government failed attempts (like Nancy Reagan's "don't do drugs" advertising), can you solve the opioid crisis. How exactly to we stop the flow? We tell Canada to get their shit together or get tariffed to smithereens. We tell China the same. But Venezuela isn't tariff-able. And they are a clear commie foe in our backyard. The discussion is these boats and how they have been designed to speed faster than our military can intercept them. There is no way to stop them. But wait... yes, we can spot them with drones and take them out. But are not those piloting the boats just poor Venezuelans without other economic options? No, they are law-breaking terrorists bent on enriching themselves by the addiction and death of Americans getting their product for cheap. They are terrorists and the law authorizes the Commander In Chief to take them out.
And note, this is where I spit on those that criticize the Administration's actions without any acknowledgement or discussion of the actual deadly problem and what other approaches we might take. F*cking armchair quarterbacks. Critics are a dime a dozen. Put your damn neck on the line and tell us what else we should be doing instead. Or maybe you just accept tens of thousands of Opioid deaths every year. F*ck you for that then.
Note I have two dead relatives from opioids.
Amen. I have a similar experience.
Well said.
But But, according to some Democrats , no such thing as Narcoterrorists.
Stellar work Matt. One day journalists will be like you again.
I know this is not really relevant to Matt's post and the drug boats, but it does involve Venezuela:
I remember reading, a few months ago, of Venzeula attempting to annex (and possibly even invade) neighboring Guyana over the Essequibo region. I stopped hearing about that all of a sudden.
Could this gambit be an attempt by Trump to secure the Essequibo region for Guyana and become a favored trade partner for any future oil drilling?
???? Chess, not checkers🤞🏻
I don’t know how what Trump is doing regarding these obvious drug cartel boats could be construed as well beyond what OBumbler did with so many drone strikes.. especially considering the continuous title wave of drugs, flooding the US…
No I agree with Trump‘s assessment these are terrorists killing hundreds of thousands of Americans with fentanyl and Coke… take those boats out as quick and as continuously as possible…
"Illegal issues over the last ten years" were all generated by the Dems and the deep state.
Outside the color of the law - since when have laws stopped State/CIA revolutions in foreign nations? Trump is operating in full daylight for a reason. I expect his purpose will be understood at some point soon.
🤞🏻🤞🏻🤞🏻
A different perspective from one who knows: https://www.dailywire.com/news/cornell-law-professor-shreds-entirely-unconvincing-war-crime-accusation-against-hegseth?utm_content=15920025&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=iterable
Thanks for the link. I hope Matt reads it. He and Walter need to keep the alarm bells ringing about outside agitators screaming about bogus war crimes that undermine our military. There are too many actors within the administration who are trying to sabotage Trump’s policies.
That article needs to be much more broadly viewed. Anyone know how to get to Tom Bevan?
This JAG thing smells like more of the same bovine excrement emitted by the O'Biden/Hillary troupe. No names given. Pretending authority based upon supposed titles. Didn't we find out some of those "51 Intelligence people" were clerks, sanitation workers, and floor cleaners who worked at the Pentagon or similar? So tired of this constant war against the citizens of the US by people WE PAY to protect us...
Keep up the great work.