I love Rand, and I suspect he is doing this partly because it's safe to do so and continue to attract the Constitutional opinions in that direction. He is totally different from an Anyone But Trump faction.
However, the truth of this situation is beyond the talking points of either Rand or JD, and until we have that truth we won't have a Constitutional answer.
Rand's father always supported Constitutional letters of marque and reprisal, which specifically apply to pirates, and always opposed the Law of the Sea Treaty, which is a UN manipulation to protect pirates.
Declaration of someone as a pirate or maritime narcoterrorist is much easier than designating criminals on land, and that factor hasn't been applied. Further, the authorizations against TdA as terrorist make the action colorable as an operation against a declared enemy.
So, while it's disappointing that neither of them are willing and/or able to share with us the details of the combatants and connection to actual justifications for action, the Constitutionist can't embrace either rhetoric outright, as it doesn't follow logically that action against drug ships is either always justifiable or always unjustifiable.
Exactly! Rand, Massie and many more should be in Gitmo right now.
Yet some people here still support both of them. I just don’t get it. Still sleepy I guess.
I love Rand, and I suspect he is doing this partly because it's safe to do so and continue to attract the Constitutional opinions in that direction. He is totally different from an Anyone But Trump faction.
However, the truth of this situation is beyond the talking points of either Rand or JD, and until we have that truth we won't have a Constitutional answer.
Rand's father always supported Constitutional letters of marque and reprisal, which specifically apply to pirates, and always opposed the Law of the Sea Treaty, which is a UN manipulation to protect pirates.
Declaration of someone as a pirate or maritime narcoterrorist is much easier than designating criminals on land, and that factor hasn't been applied. Further, the authorizations against TdA as terrorist make the action colorable as an operation against a declared enemy.
So, while it's disappointing that neither of them are willing and/or able to share with us the details of the combatants and connection to actual justifications for action, the Constitutionist can't embrace either rhetoric outright, as it doesn't follow logically that action against drug ships is either always justifiable or always unjustifiable.