Liberal Forum

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 2:33 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 2:33 pm

I can cut and paste as well:

AI OverviewYes, a flagless (stateless) vessel can be disabled, as any state may board, seize, or disable it, particularly if it refuses lawful orders or engages in illicit activities. Under international law, vessels are required to fly the flag of a state to establish national jurisdiction and protection, and a flagless vessel lacks this shield of sovereignty

Law Enforcement Action: Actions taken against a stateless vessel are considered law enforcement, not an act of war. This means standard international humanitarian law regarding armed conflict does not apply in the same way

Disabling a vessel, including the use of lethal force in some circumstances, is legally permitted when a stateless vessel: 

• Refuses lawful commands or inspection by authorities.
• Attempts to flee.
• Poses a threat to the enforcing personnel or other vessels.
• Is engaged in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking

You lose

------------------------

U.S. attacks on alleged narcotics trafficking boats continue unabated with little apparent concern for near-unanimous legal condemnation. The Trump administration justifies these attacks as an exercise of national self-defense against a non-state group engaged in armed conflict against the United States — two inherently defective legal assertions. The result is the targeting of drug cartels like Tren de Aragua with missile strikes. This is not bending the law, it is breaking it.A
 

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 2:33 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 2:33 pm

I can cut and paste as well:

AI OverviewYes, a flagless (stateless) vessel can be disabled, as any state may board, seize, or disable it, particularly if it refuses lawful orders or engages in illicit activities. Under international law, vessels are required to fly the flag of a state to establish national jurisdiction and protection, and a flagless vessel lacks this shield of sovereignty

Law Enforcement Action: Actions taken against a stateless vessel are considered law enforcement, not an act of war. This means standard international humanitarian law regarding armed conflict does not apply in the same way

Disabling a vessel, including the use of lethal force in some circumstances, is legally permitted when a stateless vessel: 

• Refuses lawful commands or inspection by authorities.
• Attempts to flee.
• Poses a threat to the enforcing personnel or other vessels.
• Is engaged in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking

You lose

nd now we know addressing what is inherently a law enforcement threat with wartime authority has led to an emerging scandal over a reported “double tap” strike that killed survivors of an initial attack, allegedly responsive to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s directive to “kill them all.” Further investigation is necessary to establish the ground-truth of what may have been an illegal attack — even in the context of an armed conflict. But it is the invalid assertion of wartime attack authority that set the conditions for this latest scandal. Had this boat been dealt with through the law enforcement framework, there would not have been a first strike, much less the reported double tap.Nonetheless, at least two international law commentators have endorsed this theory of legality, specifically the legitimacy of treating the activities of narco-trafficking groups as an “armed attack” triggering the inherent right of self-defense. Another editorial asserted invocation of “wartime” legal authority represents an arguably logical evolution of international law. 

jerrab » 09 Dec 2025, 2:59 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 2:59 pm

nd now we know addressing what is inherently a law enforcement threat with wartime authority has led to an emerging scandal over a reported “double tap” strike that killed survivors of an initial attack, allegedly responsive to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s directive to “kill them all.” Further investigation is necessary to establish the ground-truth of what may have been an illegal attack — even in the context of an armed conflict. But it is the invalid assertion of wartime attack authority that set the conditions for this latest scandal. Had this boat been dealt with through the law enforcement framework, there would not have been a first strike, much less the reported double tap.Nonetheless, at least two international law commentators have endorsed this theory of legality, specifically the legitimacy of treating the activities of narco-trafficking groups as an “armed attack” triggering the inherent right of self-defense. Another editorial asserted invocation of “wartime” legal authority represents an arguably logical evolution of international law.

This argument is premised on the theory that the administration’s interpretations of international law merely build upon previous invocations of analogous authority by the United States to engage in hostilities against non-state groups like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.Like the administration’s legal invocation of the right of self-defense and that this situation constitutes an armed conflict, these opinions seek to push a legal square peg into an operational round hole. It is, of course, accurate to focus on an actual or imminent armed attack to justify military action in self-defense. This right is enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and is an important aspect of customary international law. And while the meaning of armed attack — the trigger for self-defense — must be pragmatically responsive to emerging threats, its malleability is not unlimited. Indeed, by invoking the international legal language of self-defense, it is clear the United States has not abandoned the view that its use of military force must “fit” within an international legal framework. It is, however, the Trump administration’s effort to advance its policy agenda by continuing to distort what constitutes an armed attack that lies at the heart of the legal invalidity of this campaign.

jerra » wrote:

02 Feb 1970, 11:23 am

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 2:33 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 2:33 pm

I can cut and paste as well:

AI OverviewYes, a flagless (stateless) vessel can be disabled, as any state may board, seize, or disable it, particularly if it refuses lawful orders or engages in illicit activities. Under international law, vessels are required to fly the flag of a state to establish national jurisdiction and protection, and a flagless vessel lacks this shield of sovereignty

Law Enforcement Action: Actions taken against a stateless vessel are considered law enforcement, not an act of war. This means standard international humanitarian law regarding armed conflict does not apply in the same way

Disabling a vessel, including the use of lethal force in some circumstances, is legally permitted when a stateless vessel: 

• Refuses lawful commands or inspection by authorities.
• Attempts to flee.
• Poses a threat to the enforcing personnel or other vessels.
• Is engaged in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking

You lose

------------------------

U.S. attacks on alleged narcotics trafficking boats continue unabated with little apparent concern for near-unanimous legal condemnation. The Trump administration justifies these attacks as an exercise of national self-defense against a non-state group engaged in armed conflict against the United States — two inherently defective legal assertions. The result is the targeting of drug cartels like Tren de Aragua with missile strikes. This is not bending the law, it is breaking it.A
 

 

You are still here?  Damn, you are one dense individual.

1.  They are a non state group because they do not fly under the flag of any countries.  The significantly reduces their rights.

2.  Disabling drug boats is not against the law as I just posted.

You lose.

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 2:51 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 2:51 pm

The US is still droning terrorists.

Homegrown ones.. With Brainwashing.

MAGA is an illness..  A virulent pandemic  of hatred..  Thank Goodness they are pussies with their  guns.
 

jerra » wrote:

02 Feb 1970, 11:23 am

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 2:33 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 2:33 pm

I can cut and paste as well:

AI OverviewYes, a flagless (stateless) vessel can be disabled, as any state may board, seize, or disable it, particularly if it refuses lawful orders or engages in illicit activities. Under international law, vessels are required to fly the flag of a state to establish national jurisdiction and protection, and a flagless vessel lacks this shield of sovereignty

Law Enforcement Action: Actions taken against a stateless vessel are considered law enforcement, not an act of war. This means standard international humanitarian law regarding armed conflict does not apply in the same way

Disabling a vessel, including the use of lethal force in some circumstances, is legally permitted when a stateless vessel: 

• Refuses lawful commands or inspection by authorities.
• Attempts to flee.
• Poses a threat to the enforcing personnel or other vessels.
• Is engaged in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking

You lose

nd now we know addressing what is inherently a law enforcement threat with wartime authority has led to an emerging scandal over a reported “double tap” strike that killed survivors of an initial attack, allegedly responsive to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s directive to “kill them all.” Further investigation is necessary to establish the ground-truth of what may have been an illegal attack — even in the context of an armed conflict. But it is the invalid assertion of wartime attack authority that set the conditions for this latest scandal. Had this boat been dealt with through the law enforcement framework, there would not have been a first strike, much less the reported double tap.Nonetheless, at least two international law commentators have endorsed this theory of legality, specifically the legitimacy of treating the activities of narco-trafficking groups as an “armed attack” triggering the inherent right of self-defense. Another editorial asserted invocation of “wartime” legal authority represents an arguably logical evolution of international law. 

 

Disabling a vessel, including the use of lethal force in some circumstances, is legally permitted when a stateless vessel: 

• Refuses lawful commands or inspection by authorities.
• Attempts to flee.
• Poses a threat to the enforcing personnel or other vessels.
• Is engaged in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking

They were. simply ensuring the boat was disable.  I am starting to feel sorry for you now concerning the embarrassment you undergoing.

Oh, you can have the last word if it includes what nation's flag thy terrorists are sailing under
 

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 3:01 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 3:01 pm

You are still here?  Damn, you are one dense individual.


You lose.

Burp Debate Game, Circle Jerkus Maximus..

Double fisted stroke dance chopper..
 

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 3:03 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 3:03 pm

Disabling a vessel, including the use of lethal force in some circumstances, is legally permitted when a stateless vessel: 

• Refuses lawful commands or inspection by authorities.
• Attempts to flee.
• Poses a threat to the enforcing personnel or other vessels.
• Is engaged in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking

They were. simply ensuring the boat was disable.  I am starting to feel sorry for you now concerning the embarrassment you undergoing.

Oh, you can have the last word if it includes what nation's flag thy terrorists are sailing under

Remind us to not throw you a lifesaver when you are clinging to flotsam for dear life, happiness, and the pursuit of cocaine sales like the Honduras POTUS  Trump Pardoned Did
 

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 1:49 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 1:49 pm

So you have no evidence that Pete ordered the 2nd strike.

====================WASHINGTON —

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation ... rcna247767

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the U.S. military on Sept. 2 to kill all 11 people on a suspected drug-smuggling boat in the Caribbean Sea because they were on an internal list of narco-terrorists who U.S. intelligence and military officials determined could be lethally targeted, the commander overseeing the operation told lawmakers in briefings this past week, according to two U.S. officials and one person familiar with the congressional briefings.Such a list includes individuals who are eligible for being targeted, including with lethal action, if given the opportunity. The commander who oversaw the Sept. 2 strikes, Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley, told lawmakers that U.S. intelligence officials had confirmed the identities of the 11 people on the boat and validated them as legitimate targets, then the military launched airstrikes as part of President Donald Trump’s military campaign against alleged drug-smuggling vessels, the U.S. officials and person familiar with the congressional briefings said.The detail that the 11 people on the boat were on an internal U.S. military target list has not previously been made public. It adds another dimension to the Sept. 2 operation that has been mired in controversy over the military’s decision to launch a second strike after the first left two survivors in the water.Lawmakers have raised questions about whether the second strike violated international law. Whether Hegseth directed Bradley, who is the commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, to kill everyone on the boat has been key question in the controversy over the second strike.An administration official said Bradley made clear in his briefings with lawmakers that he acted in complete compliance with the law throughout the operation. “As with all such actions, a uniformed JAG provided advice and counsel every step of the way,” the official said in a written statement, adding that the boat was targeted because it was “carrying cocaine” and was “affiliated with a cartel designated by the president as a terrorist organization.”“The cumulative impact of these narcoterrorist shipments directly threaten Americans and the national security interests of the United States,” the official said.on familiar with the briefing said.
 

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 1:49 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 1:49 pm

So you have no evidence that Pete ordered the 2nd strike.

-----------------------------------The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment. U.S. Special Operations Command declined to comment.The Pentagon has said 22 strikes on alleged drug boats have killed 86 people — 11 strikes have been in the Caribbean Sea and 11 in the eastern Pacific. The administration has produced no evidence supporting its allegations about the vessels or the people on board.On Thursday, Bradley spent more than eight hours on Capitol Hill briefing a dozen members of Congress and their staff about what happened during the operation. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dan Caine, also attended the briefings.This account of Bradley’s detailed timeline and explanation of events throughout the Sept. 2 operation as told to lawmakers in the private briefings is based on interviews with the two U.S. officials and person familiar with the congressional briefings.Bradley told lawmakers that the orders he received from Hegseth were to kill the individuals on the approved target list, which included everyone on the boat, then destroy the drugs and sink the boat, those sources said.White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday that “Secretary Hegseth authorized Adm. Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes.” She added that Bradley “worked well within his authority and the law directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.”Bradley told lawmakers the second strike killed the two survivors, but did not sink the boat, so he ordered a third and a fourth strike to complete the mission, the officials and person familiar with the congressional briefings said.Hegseth has said he observed the operation on Sept. 2 but “did not personally see survivors.” During a Cabinet meeting at the White House this past week, he defended the second strike, saying Bradley “made the right call.”“This is called the fog of war,” Hegseth said.During Bradley’s joint briefing Thursday with leaders of the House and Senate armed services committees, he was pressed about whether Hegseth gave an order to kill everybody on board, according to one of the U.S. officials and the person familiar with the briefing. Bradley, referencing the approved list of targets, said Hegseth told him to kill everyone on board and to destroy the vessel, the official and pers

JohnnyYou » 09 Dec 2025, 3:02 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 3:02 pm

Homegrown ones.. With Brainwashing.

MAGA is an illness..  A virulent pandemic  of hatred..  Thank Goodness they are pussies with their  guns.

You leftists can show everyone how to kill someone....shooting people in back walking down the street or ambushing someone speaking into a microphone....yep, natural born killers
 

jerrab » 09 Dec 2025, 1:04 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 1:04 pm

your soul is doomed not saved. children did not attack on 10/7.  who knows this? Christ knows this. you have no right to tell me not to say what Christ said. people like you want Christ to be ignored.

I've never told you what not to say, nor do I give a **** what kind of hypocrisy you post on a daily basis!
Suppose you worry about YOUR soul and let ME worry about mine, huh asshole?
You think YOU'VE got a pipeline to the Almighty?

Just because YOU refuse to accept the facts regarding the Oct. 7th massacre by Hamas doesn't mean that I can't or won't!  If you find grace in the slaughtering of the 1200 Jews they murdered then it's YOUR soul that needs to receive pity for where you'll end up.
And since you don't believe it, here again is the proof of the Hamas massacre that you no doubt will orgasm over:

14 kids under 10, 25 people over 80: Up-to-date breakdown of Oct 7 victims we know about
Age, gender data for most civilian victims of Hamas onslaught, based on media tally, provides a picture authorities aim to complete as they continue efforts to identify bodies
By ToI Staff 4 Dec 2023
 
A soldier mans the makeshift mass casualty morgue at the Shura military base near Ramle, October 24, 2023.
 Almost two months after the unprecedented Hamas onslaught on southern Israel, which left some 1,200 people dead, the exact data on those killed in the biggest terror attack in Israeli history is still shrouded in uncertainty.There have been efforts to compile the available data, particularly the number of babies, children, and elderly people murdered on October 7, even as several members of emergency organizations have been quoted giving imprecise information.Authorities have identified a total of 274 soldiers and 859 non-soldiers killed during the brutal assault. The latter figure includes 57 Israel Police officers and 38 local security officers. It is unclear which of these individuals were on duty when killed. Removing those victims leaves a figure of 764 civilians.

 

Dozens of Children Died in Hamas’ Oct. 7 Attack on Israel, Contrary to Online Claim
By Saranac Hale Spencer November 16, 2023
https://www.factcheck.org/2023/11/dozen ... ine-claim/

At least 29 children have been identified by international authorities as having died in the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by Hamas. But a video, citing a post deleted by the World Jewish Congress, has been circulating online falsely suggesting that children didn’t die in the attack in Israel.

 

Israeli report: 38 children killed on October 7, thousands traumatized
The data reveals that on October 7, 38 children lost their lives, with three of them aged between 0 and 3 years old, and four between 3 and 6 years old

i24NEWS  Mar. 03, 2024
The data reveals that on October 7, 38 children lost their lives, with three of them aged between 0 and 3 years old, and four between 3 and 6 years old. Additionally, 42 children were abducted in the Gaza Strip, including Kfir Bibas, who was kidnapped at 9 months old and celebrated his first birthday in captivity, along with his four-year-old brother Ariel.

 
 

Zeets2 » 09 Dec 2025, 3:12 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 3:12 pm

I've never told you what not to say, nor do I give a **** what kind of hypocrisy you post on a daily basis!
Suppose you worry about YOUR soul and let ME worry about mine, huh asshole?
You think YOU'VE got a pipeline to the Almighty?

Just because YOU refuse to accept the facts regarding the Oct. 7th massacre by Hamas doesn't mean that I can't or won't!  If you find grace in the slaughtering of the 1200 Jews they murdered then it's YOUR soul that needs to receive pity for where you'll end up.
And since you don't believe it, here again is the proof of the Hamas massacre that you no doubt will orgasm over:

**** **** you hate Christ and what he said,

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 3:03 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 3:03 pm

Disabling a vessel, including the use of lethal force in some circumstances, is legally permitted when a stateless vessel: 

• Refuses lawful commands or inspection by authorities.
• Attempts to flee.
• Poses a threat to the enforcing personnel or other vessels.
• Is engaged in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking

They were. simply ensuring the boat was disable.  I am starting to feel sorry for you now concerning the embarrassment you undergoing.

Oh, you can have the last word if it includes what nation's flag thy terrorists are sailing under

---------------------------------------------

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/0 ... s-00680679

Congress is using its marquee defense bill to force the Pentagon into turning over videos of strikes against suspected drug-smuggling boats off the coast of Latin America.Lawmakers plan to withhold a quarter of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s travel budget until the Pentagon provides them with the videos. The demand, quietly tucked into the final draft of the annual defense policy bill, calls for “unedited video of strikes conducted against designated terrorist organizations in the area of responsibility of the United States Southern Command” to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.Congressional leaders released their final draft of the defense bill Sunday, which is expected to be approved — without changes — by the House later this week and then the Senate.The provision appeared as lawmakers look into a controversial follow-up strike on Sept. 2 that killed two survivors of an initial attack, an action some experts warn amounts to a war crime.Hegseth on Saturday wouldn’t say whether he would release the video, citing potential safety concerns for troops. But President Donald Trump has said he would have “no problem” doing so. The Pentagon chief has publicly backed the decision to kill the survivors, although said that Adm. Frank Bradley — head of U.S. Special Operations Command — made the final call on the second strike.Bradley and Joint Chiefs Chair Dan Caine last week briefed top lawmakers on national security committees and showed the unedited footage of the operation. But lawmakers disagreed about what the video revealed. Some top Republicans who viewed the unedited footage contend it vindicates the administration’s position. Democrats have called on the Pentagon to release it more broadly.Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), following the briefing, also said he wants rank-and-file committee members to see the footage.
 

 ///////////////////Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), following the briefing, also said he wants rank-and-file committee members to see the footage.

The provision creates a new wrinkle in how Congress will proceed with an investigation. House Armed Services ranking member Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said the footage contradicts how Hegseth and other Republicans have described it.

“If they release the video, then everything that the Republicans are saying will clearly be portrayed to be completely false,” he said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

Smith, in an interview at the Reagan National Defense Forum on Saturday, said the House Armed Services Committee is attempting to secure a viewing for panel members this week.

“We should do a full-scale investigation,” he said. “I think we should have … up and down the chain of command, any written documents … and then a public hearing where Secretary Hegseth explains, while being questioned by the committee, what did you do here and why.”

The military has killed at least 87 people in the anti-smuggling operation since September. The administration has said the actions are justified because the people are “narco-terrorists” who bring drugs into the U.S. Experts and some lawmakers have said the administration is on legally questionable grounds.

The NDAA language also requires the Pentagon to deliver all overdue reports — including lessons learned from the war in Ukraine — before releasing the full travel budget.
 

JohnnyYou » 09 Dec 2025, 3:06 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 3:06 pm

Remind us to not throw you a lifesaver when you are clinging to flotsam for dear life, happiness, and the pursuit of cocaine sales like the Honduras POTUS  Trump Pardoned Did

Not something I need to worry about, moron.  I will not be a terrorist running drugs on a stateless boat.  You?

jerra » wrote:

02 Feb 1970, 11:23 am

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 3:03 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 3:03 pm

Disabling a vessel, including the use of lethal force in some circumstances, is legally permitted when a stateless vessel: 

• Refuses lawful commands or inspection by authorities.
• Attempts to flee.
• Poses a threat to the enforcing personnel or other vessels.
• Is engaged in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking

They were. simply ensuring the boat was disable.  I am starting to feel sorry for you now concerning the embarrassment you undergoing.

Oh, you can have the last word if it includes what nation's flag thy terrorists are sailing under

 

---------------------------------------------

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/0 ... s-00680679

Congress is using its marquee defense bill to force the Pentagon into turning over videos of strikes against suspected drug-smuggling boats off the coast of Latin America.Lawmakers plan to withhold a quarter of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s travel budget until the Pentagon provides them with the videos. The demand, quietly tucked into the final draft of the annual defense policy bill, calls for “unedited video of strikes conducted against designated terrorist organizations in the area of responsibility of the United States Southern Command” to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.Congressional leaders released their final draft of the defense bill Sunday, which is expected to be approved — without changes — by the House later this week and then the Senate.The provision appeared as lawmakers look into a controversial follow-up strike on Sept. 2 that killed two survivors of an initial attack, an action some experts warn amounts to a war crime.Hegseth on Saturday wouldn’t say whether he would release the video, citing potential safety concerns for troops. But President Donald Trump has said he would have “no problem” doing so. The Pentagon chief has publicly backed the decision to kill the survivors, although said that Adm. Frank Bradley — head of U.S. Special Operations Command — made the final call on the second strike.Bradley and Joint Chiefs Chair Dan Caine last week briefed top lawmakers on national security committees and showed the unedited footage of the operation. But lawmakers disagreed about what the video revealed. Some top Republicans who viewed the unedited footage contend it vindicates the administration’s position. Democrats have called on the Pentagon to release it more broadly.Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), following the briefing, also said he wants rank-and-file committee members to see the footage.
 

 

Now you are just spamming.

Oh, you can have the last word if it includes what nation's flag thy terrorists are sailing under
 

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 2:35 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 2:35 pm

When you have proof of the order let me know.  And under international law they were just ensuring the boat was disabled.  Which is legal to do it the crew is engaged in illicit or illegal activities while sailing without a flag.

======================
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdjzw3gplv7o


What does international law say?The US is not a signatory to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but the US military's legal advisors have previously said that the US should "act in a manner consistent with its provisions".Under the convention, countries agree not to interfere with vessels operating in international waters. There are limited exceptions to this which allow a state to seize a ship, such as a "hot pursuit" where a vessel is chased from a country's waters into the high seas."Force can be used to stop a boat but generally this should be non-lethal measures," Prof Luke Moffett of Queens University Belfast said.Prof Moffett added that the use of aggressive tactics must be "reasonable and necessary in self-defence where there is immediate threat of serious injury or loss of life to enforcement officials", noting that the US moves were likely "unlawful under the law of the sea".
 
 
 

https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-drug-boat

Huey » 09 Dec 2025, 3:42 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2025, 3:42 pm

Not something I need to worry about, moron.  I will not be a terrorist running drugs on a stateless boat.  You?

Who knows in a facist dictatorship?  I could have a fishing pole and Hegseth would command "Death to the Libbie in the Kayak" In the middle of the Chesapeake Bay.  

A Kayak can carry enough fentanyl to kill everyone in DC.. There is a derivative 100 times stronger supposedly.  Blow a bag of that at an entrance to the airport and you got a body bag crisis.

I can tell you if any one investigated afterwards there would be no proof of a weapon of mass drugstruction on my boat. It's such a bullshyt argument when we don't even think about the people that fry their brain like an egg in a pan on illegitimate pharmacueticals.