\Petition says Colombia citizen Alejandro Carranza Medina was illegally killed in US airstrike on 15 September
A family in Colombia filed a petition on Tuesday with the Washington DC-based Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, alleging that the Colombian citizen Alejandro Carranza Medina was illegally killed in a US airstrike on 15 September.
The petition marks the first formal complaint over the airstrikes by the Trump administration against suspected drug boats, attacks that the White House says are justified under a novel interpretation of law.
The IACHR, part of the Organization of American States, is designed to “promote and protect human rights in the Western Hemisphere”. The US is a member, and in March the Trump administration’s state department wrote: “The United States is pleased to be a strong supporter of the IACHR and is committed to continuing support for the Commission’s work and its independence. Preserving the IACHR’s autonomy is a pillar of our human rights policy in the region.”
I hate this administration, and I hate this timeline.
The photo of Alejandro and his son… ugh. Even if he was guilty of trafficking (extremely dubious), that in no way warrants a summary execution. Fuck Pete and anyone else that went along with this
that in no way warrants a summary execution
That’s really it. It’s escalated to the point of a war crime. This is drug trafficking, not flying planes into buildings. Can drugs trafficked across a border be dangerous? Yes. Are they being trafficked because we decided that it would be better to addict the populace and then throw them in jail for modern day slavery? Also yes. Trump, Hegseth, and his ilk are creating the crimes they kill for. All under “novel interpretation of the law.” When the vapid blondes they surround themselves with aren’t helping, they’ve found another way to get their tiny cocks hard again, and it’s the same way that every Republican has, killing brown people.
It’s not even drug trafficking, it’s alleged drug trafficking.
We have drones, so can’t we just follow these boats to their dock and then arrest everyone? And pressure them to give evidence against their bosses? WTF is there to gain by murdering the driver of the boss’s vehicle? Mules are a dime-a-dozen.
That’s too complicated and doesn’t make for good entertainment. Blowing people up in a boat on video is a spectacle. It’s a short propaganda bit you can broadcast in the news and on social media showing the people that you are strong and doing something against all the evil attacking the US in a way the target audience understands.
This is not about really solving a problem, it’s for show.
Daily reminder that there is no coherent normative framework according to which a government has the right to criminalize your access to or use of drugs, medical or otherwise.
This isn’t a matter of ideology. It is a matter of moral fact. Not that anyone cares, I’m just saying.
Buuuuuuuulshit
There are various “coherent normative frameworks” aka good fucking reasons why a government has the right to restrict access to certain drugs, or any other material.
What? You think that artificially enriched plutonium should also freely be available, maybe?
Are you a sovcit or are you severely high?
You think that artificially enriched plutonium should also freely be available, maybe?
“Enriched plutonium” is not a drug. (wtf)
Again. There is no coherent moral framework that anyone has ever concocted to justify criminalizing your use of drugs, medical or otherwise. No arguments exist in defense of this strange practice (which appears culturally rooted in Puritanism or maybe well-meaning paternalism). The same goes for abortion bans.
If you have such an argument, please publish it in one of the philosophy journals. There’s no Nobel prize for philosophy, but a bunch of fusty academics will be very impressed with you.
EDIT: I imagine if you had a magical “drug” whose ingestion could somehow make you explode and injure others, then its access could be reasonably restricted.
I mean you could make a for the good of society arguments like we do for helmet and seat belt laws. But then you would have to grapple with alcohol which is way more destructive to society than practically all the other drugs combined.
forgive me, but what does this mean “no coherent normative framework according to which a government has the right to limit your access”? That doesn’t parse for me. Do you mean there is no basis in common law for declaring certain chemicals or molecules as illegal for a civilian to purchase or posses, or what exactly?
He is just saying:
It is YOUR choice to drink too much. To smoke too much, to get high on heroin, to do coke. To eat fatty sugary foods. It is your body, your temple. Not that of the government.
He is not talking about a law framework, he is talking about a moral framework. What right do YOU have to tell me what I can and cannot do when my actions can only hurt myself?
To take this one step further: All narcocrimes come from one simple fact: BECAUSE it’s illegal, the possible profits are so vast that any risk becomes acceptable to the Narcos.
Make it legal. Regulate it. Like we did with smokes and alcohol. Slap a 16/18+ sticker on it, add some tax.
We learned this during the prohibition, the gangster era. But for some reason or another we still use that proven False logic when it comes to narcotics.
Make something which people want illegal and there will be uncontrollable crime. That crime will harden. This (the current path of the us government) is not a solution, it is an escalation. There will be a response.
Justifying something — a law, for example, or the civic organization of a nation state — requires a moral standard. For example, laws against slavery can be justified by pointing to harms or rights violations (or whatever framework you have for making ethical judgements). Most people rely on their intuitions, but ethics is a formal system — a bit like mathematics, actually. Such a system has to be consistent to be meaningful (this is called the principle of explosion).
Anyway, many such normative systems have been proposed. Utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics are broad examples.
None of these contains a mechanism to justify a governing body’s criminalization of drugs.
Specifically,
- You can’t point to harms, since the harm would be a personal one, and governments have no moral standing to prevent you from harming yourself.
- You can’t point to improved social order, since empirical evidence demonstrates that drug prohibitions cause far more social disorder and criminality (for example, by creating cartels).
Etcetera.
Honestly sounds like the stoner version of a sovereign citizen. Lemmy might have a few too many of them.
I don’t do drugs. It’s worse than that. I study metaethics.
Well I will privately admit that I’m way into the idea of a stoner sovcit lol I might be more than half of one of those myself. Cognitive freedom, and my right to add or remove things, including chemicals, to my body, as I see fit, is basic mental and bodily autonomy. But all the being said I still have no f’ing clue what this guy is on about so I’m hoping for some clarity lol.
