Murder on the High Seas

[Holy Holliday !]

Yes, a formal human rights petition has been filed by the family of one victim, and several human rights organizations have initiated domestic legal action in the U.S. to challenge the legality of the strikes. No state has sued the U.S. in an international court, but many countries and international bodies have condemned the actions.

Formal Legal Actions

• Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) Petition: The family of Alejandro Carranza, a Colombian man killed in a U.S. strike in September 2025, has filed a petition with the IACHR, a premier human rights watchdog in the Americas. The petition argues his death was an extrajudicial killing in violation of human rights conventions.
• Domestic Lawsuit by Rights Groups: Civil rights groups, including the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, have filed a lawsuit in U.S. federal court seeking the public release of a classified Justice Department memo that provides the legal justification for the strikes. The groups argue the public deserves to know the legal basis for actions they contend are unlawful.
• Justice Department Internal Probe Request: Legal experts and former government officials have called for an internal investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility into the legal opinion that authorized the strikes.

International Condemnation and Reactions
While no nation has initiated a state-vs-state legal action, several have voiced strong objections and expressed concern about potential complicity:

• United Nations: UN experts and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights have condemned the strikes as extrajudicial killings and a violation of international human rights law.
• Countries:
  • France and the Netherlands have limited intelligence sharing with the U.S. related to counternarcotics efforts to avoid potential complicity in unlawful killings.
  • Barbados, Belize, and Colombia have openly criticized the actions, with the President of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, labeling them a "crime against humanity" if civilian murders are systematic.
  • A group of Latin American and Caribbean nations (including Venezuela and Cuba) issued a joint declaration calling the killings a "flagrant violation of fundamental human rights".

The Core Legal Dispute
The central issue is the legal framework applied to the operations.

• U.S. Administration Position: The U.S. administration asserts the country is in an "armed conflict" with "narco-terrorist" organizations and that the strikes are lawful acts under the laws of war, which permit the use of lethal force against combatants. The Justice Department has reportedly drafted a legal opinion granting immunity to personnel involved.
• Critics' Position: International law experts and human rights advocates argue that drug interdiction is a peacetime law enforcement mission, governed by international human rights law, not the law of armed conflict. Under a law enforcement framework, lethal force is only permissible as a last resort against an imminent threat to life, a condition they argue was not met. Critics, including some U.S. lawmakers, argue that killing suspected drug smugglers who pose no imminent threat constitutes murder.

 

[Holy Holliday !]

Murder is not lawful in international waters.
. The End

Prowler is having difficulty understanding what murder is.
Is murder ever legal?
No, "murder" is legally defined as an unlawful killing with malice, so by definition, murder itself is never legal; however, a killing may be considered legally justified or excusable (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

) under specific circumstances, like self-defense, which removes the criminal culpability, making it not murder, but rather a lawful act. Legal exceptions where taking a life isn't murder include

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, defense of others, capital punishment (in some places), and certain euthanasia laws (in specific jurisdictions).
Why "Murder" is Never Legal

• Definition: Murder inherently means the unlawful killing of another with "malice aforethought" (evil intent).
• Distinction from Homicide: Homicide (the killing of one person by another) isn't always murder; some homicides are lawful (justifiable/excusable), while murder is always criminal.

When a Killing Can Be Legal (Justifiable Homicide)

• Self-Defense: Using deadly force to prevent imminent death or serious harm to yourself or others.
• Defense of Others: Protecting another person from serious harm.
• Law Enforcement: Police officers using deadly force in the line of duty under strict legal guidelines.
• Capital Punishment: Legal execution in jurisdictions where it's permitted.
• Euthanasia: Legal under specific laws in countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, and certain US states (Oregon, Washington).

Key Takeaway: If a killing is legally permitted, it's classified as justified or excusable homicide, not murder. The moment a killing becomes legally justified, the act ceases to be murder.

 

[Reggie_Essent]

Fishing boats!

BwaHaHaHaHa!

Are *fishing boats* the new talking point, er I mean "key takeaway" now?

 

[The Prowler]

Yes, it is a fundamental principle of international law that it is unlawful to intentionally kill people on the high seas without legal justification. The only narrow exceptions generally involve legitimate self-defense against an imminent threat to life or explicit authorization from the UN Security Council.

Key Principles of International Law

• Sovereignty and Jurisdiction: Vessels on the high seas are under the exclusive jurisdiction of their flag state (the country where they are registered). Other nations cannot interfere without specific legal justification, such as well-founded suspicions of piracy or slave trafficking, or if the vessel is stateless.
• Use of Force: International law, particularly international human rights law (IHRL), strictly governs the use of lethal force in law enforcement operations. Lethal force is only permissible when it is strictly unavoidable to protect life from an imminent threat of death or serious injury.
• Absence of Armed Conflict: In the absence of an international or non-international armed conflict, actions are considered law enforcement matters, not acts of war. Premeditated killing outside of an armed conflict is considered murder and subject to prosecution under national and international laws.
• Due Process: Suspected criminals have a right to due process and should be apprehended and prosecuted through legal channels, rather than being subject to summary execution.

Unlawful Actions
Actions such as destroying a vessel or killing its crew based solely on suspicion of illicit activities (e.g., drug trafficking) without evidence of an imminent threat are considered violations of international law, potentially amounting to extrajudicial killings. Even within an armed conflict, killing survivors or those who are no longer actively participating in hostilities (hors de combat) is a war crime.
Any nation whose citizen is a victim or perpetrator, or the flag state of the vessel, can assert jurisdiction and prosecute the individuals involved in an unlawful killing on the high seas.


...and here for the second time I ask that the poster of this quote define those very narrow, specific circumstance are (and show the specific and narrow link with the quote in context), and also once again if he understands the distinction between murder and to kill.
What I very narrowly, specifically wrote was that murder was illegal.
Prowler won't answer the question again. Prowler never answers direct questions because he is too unintelligent to do so.

• Yesterday at 2:36 PM
• Add bookmark
• #69

Murder is not lawful in international waters.
. The End

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Holy fuck!!

Hahaha!!!

Holliday, you need to focus on this: "without showing proof of unlawful activity"

 

[Holy Holliday !]

you need to focus

You need to focus on connecting the dots. Why can't you connect the dots, Prowler?
. I wrote that Murder on the High Seas is illegal, and you say you found a link which states that murder is legal under very narrow and specific circumstance (though you won't say where so it can be shown in context).
So I'm asking you a very simple question - get yer crayons out soz yee ken connect the dots?
Ya ready - here's the question (and this is the only thing you are to answer - no Alex "Bonzo" Jones Jr routine):
How can there be any circumstance, no matter how narrow and specific, making an act which by definition is "always illegal/unlawful", legal and lawful?
Let's see if Prowler can connect the dots and get the picture.

Murder is not lawful in international waters.

 

[The Prowler]

you say you found a link which states

It was your link, you dope!!

Are you hammered?

Hahahahahaha!!!!!

 

[Holy Holliday !]

It was your link, you dope!!

Oh noooo noooo, that was not the correct answer. I did not provide a link but a google search which returned hundreds of thousands of links (none of which said that murder is ever lawful).
...but thanks for playing and even though you lost (again) you will not be going home empty handed. You will be receiving the home version of Kenz Yous Conek Duh Datz soz you ken practice your dot connecting on your own time.
. Nice round of applauds for Miss Prowler. Wasn't she a wonderful guest contestant?
. Bedder luck nextime.

 

[Reggie_Essent]

Oh noooo noooo, that was not the correct answer. I did not provide a link but a google search which returned hundreds of thousands of links (none of which said that murder is ever lawful).
...but thanks for playing and even though you lost (again) you will not be going home empty handed. You will be receiving the home version of Kenz Yous Conek Duh Datz soz you ken practice your dot connecting on your own time.
. Nice round of applauds for Miss Prowler. Wasn't she a wonderful guest contestant?
. Bedder luck nextime.

So "Fishing Boats" with no fishing gear but with multiple high horsepower outboard engines that can push said boat across the surface of the sea in excess of 60 mph, or however many "knots" that might be, are exempt from any kind of interdiction because of Trump.

Have I got that right?

 

[The Prowler]

I did provide a link to a google search

Fixed.

 

[The Prowler]

For anyone looking for a recap, Holliday has failed to cite any actual law that USA is breaking by smoking the narco-terrorists at sea.