Latest / Words & Numbers / Episode 480: The War on Drugs (Continued)

Transcript

Episode 480: The War on Drugs (Continued) · Words & Numbers

0:00
Next on words and numbers Digging through foreigners
0:03
social media accounts. The DC Metro.
0:06
In and out, Burger and a lottery winner and the.
0:09
War Powers act. All this and more coming up next
0:12
on Words and Numbers, a Civil original production.
0:15
Check us out at civil.com. That's civl.com.
0:19
Hi, I'm James and I'm Anthony and.
0:21
This is words and numbers. Let's do an exciting in your
0:28
world this weekend. For years, Joy Kenley drove a
0:33
Metro bus here in Washington, DC, and over the course of her
0:39
years of driving, she befriended a who was at the time 1/5 grader
0:43
Sam Mensmer. Sam would ride the Metro to and
0:48
from school as kids do. Being a curious kid, he'd stand
0:53
at the front of the bus and ask questions.
0:56
You know, what does this button do?
0:58
Where do the buses go at night? You know, things a kid would
1:01
ask. Over the course of a couple of
1:03
years, the two developed some somewhat of a routine that the
1:08
Sam 10 year old Sam would pepper Kenley with questions as she
1:12
drove into school and she would patiently answer each one.
1:16
One day, Kenley offers to take Sam and his family on a tour of
1:21
the bus garage. They accepted and so they all go
1:24
and Sam recalls thinking that this is the coolest thing ever.
1:28
And he gets to push all the buttons and asks about
1:31
everything and gets to put his name up on the, you know, the
1:34
marquee that's on the buses puts the wheelchair ramp up and down.
1:38
You know, kids stuff. This is pretty good.
1:41
As he gets older, Sam began taking Metro Rail instead of the
1:46
Metro bus and ultimately loses touch with Kenley.
1:49
Kenley, for her part, goes on to become a Metro Rail station
1:54
manager. The years go by.
1:57
Sam graduates college and takes a job as a signal engineer on
2:03
the DC Metro Rail. And of course, he looks up Joy.
2:07
Kenley finds her working at a station on the Red Line and
2:11
reintroduces himself. Says Kenley.
2:14
Not much had changed about Sam, only now he was wearing a Metro
2:19
uniform instead of a school backpack.
2:22
Sam says he'd never forgotten the kindness of the bus driver
2:25
who indulged his childlike curiosity and ultimately helped
2:29
him launch his career. I keep waiting for the horrible
2:32
part of the story. There is no horrible part.
2:35
That's a really good story. It is a really good story.
2:40
There's always a horrible part, so you could see where I'd be
2:43
flummoxed right now. Let.
2:44
Let me move on and give you the horrible part of some.
2:49
Others which aren't. And, and I I want to talk about
2:53
people. God, I don't even know what
2:56
words to use any more people who would.
2:59
Like. To come from foreign countries
3:03
to visit the United States? I guess tourists, international
3:07
tourists would be the correct answer, right?
3:11
We'll find a way to call them illegal whatevers at some point
3:15
in the future. But for now, let's stick with
3:18
international tourists. And the US Customs and Border
3:22
Protection agency has suggested that what we really need to do,
3:29
and they have suggested this to become a matter of law.
3:34
They have suggested that what we really need to do with these
3:38
people, the international tourists, is to have access to
3:43
and comb through five years of social media history.
3:49
Oh good God, you're kidding me. Uh oh.
3:53
How could I have made that up? That is so stupid that I
3:58
couldn't have thought of it myself.
4:00
It is. It is one of the rare things,
4:03
rare proposals that is stupid both in theory and in practice.
4:08
Let me make this being You're going to go through five years
4:11
of social media posts. It's going to take you 25 years
4:16
to get through the process just to get into the country.
4:19
Let me make it worse, because of course that's what I'm going to
4:23
do. Allow me to read aloud to you.
4:26
The change would affect visitors eligible for what Ant the visa
4:31
waiver program. So the people who we say don't
4:35
need a visa, those are the people we're going to make do
4:38
this. Right.
4:41
Which allows people from 42 countries to travel to the US
4:44
for up to 90 days without a visa, as long as they first
4:47
obtain electronic travel authorization.
4:52
See, so what's happened here? And we're talking countries.
4:55
Like Britain, France, Germany and South Korea.
4:57
Yeah, but you know, what's happened here is that Americans
5:00
apparently have had it with the security theatre of TSA, have
5:04
put it on steroids and are now applying it to the rest of the
5:08
planet so they can share the joy.
5:10
Yeah, I can. I can predict with 100%
5:15
certainty how this is going to work out, and I'll just leave it
5:18
at that because everybody else can too.
5:21
And Aunt, believe it or not, that's not the foolishness of
5:23
the weak. I say that so often.
5:28
And the reason why that's not the foolishness of the weak is
5:31
because there are two other foolishness.
5:34
Foolishnesses of the weak. Yes.
5:37
Foolishnesses of the weak. That would be foolish.
5:41
The first is that In-n-out Burger.
5:44
You know you don't get to eat there, but I do.
5:46
They now you know how you, you, you.
5:48
We've gone there together. You place your order.
5:51
Like In-n-out Burger. It's lovely they give you a
5:54
ticket. For those of you out there who
5:56
are trying to avoid carbs, don't go with the lettuce wrap, go
6:00
with the tomato wrap. It's to die for instead of a
6:04
instead of a roll, they give you 2 big slabs of tomato.
6:08
Delicious, absolutely delicious. So in and out people, if you're
6:11
out there listening, why are you not sponsoring this pocket?
6:14
But I digress. They have removed the number 67
6:21
from their ordering queue because every time because young
6:26
people, or as I like to call them, morons show up at in and
6:31
out and wait for the #67 to be called.
6:35
And then jump. Up and down and scream and
6:38
holler and just make a ruckus. This is how stupid the younger
6:44
generation has become and I want to point out it that they make a
6:49
big fuss over 67 but nobody even raises an eyebrow when they call
6:53
order number 69. Yeah, and did 67 have some
6:57
meaning? It does.
6:58
I had my daughter explain it to me, but it's so convoluted and
7:01
stupid that I won't even bother. Here.
7:05
So it does have a meaning, but functionally it has no meaning.
7:09
But here's the the foolishness of the week that you're going to
7:12
love. And this is this is.
7:15
Well, hang on, are you done? You're are you done with?
7:17
This you got to say. I have comment In and out burger
7:24
they should be leveraging this. They should change their entire
7:27
numbering system so the first order is 67 and the second one
7:32
is 167 and the next one is 267 just to invite all of the
7:38
teenagers to come and cheer and order burgers.
7:42
I, I guess in sooner or later they get tired and stop.
7:45
But when 6767 came up, Oh my God, the tornado of foolishness
7:50
that would emerge at that point. And here's my question.
7:54
How many young people are losing their minds right now listening
7:57
to this episode? Well, given that our the median
8:00
age of our listeners is about what, 97?
8:03
Probably none but but, but I digress because I want to talk
8:09
about a a young person and I want to talk about a 20 year old
8:13
woman who lives in Montreal by the name of Brenda Aubann Vega,
8:18
who quite possibly will qualify for the foolishness of forever
8:25
with what she has done. Now Brenda, on a break from
8:29
work, went and bought one of the little scratchy lottery tickets
8:33
and won. And she she had a choice to make
8:37
it. She could have $1 million.
8:42
Now, mind you, these are Canadian dollars.
8:45
They're not real, but there's still a million of them.
8:48
Or don't. Don't tell Dad.
8:50
Tell me. Or she could have 1000 fake
8:54
Canadian dollars every week for the rest of her life and she
8:58
took the thousand a week. She took the thousand a week.
9:02
For every million of her life, poor Brenda is the dumbest
9:06
person I've ever heard of. I thought you were going to say
9:08
they were offered her a million lottery tickets and she took
9:11
that. No, that would that would make
9:14
her even Dumber. How old is she?
9:17
She's 20 and it's going to take 119 years, give or take, to get
9:22
1,000,000 in cash. But if she invested the million
9:28
that she got, it would take 13 years to get a million off the
9:34
first million, which would give her 2,000,000.
9:37
And then it would take another six years to get 3 million, and
9:41
on and on and on. See, and I've been with you so
9:44
long, I know the power of compounding in my sleep.
9:48
Right. Of course there there is,
9:51
there's a family in the ointment, this is Canada.
9:54
So her marginal tax rates probably 70% or something it it
9:59
might take a million. It might well be, but it it's
10:02
also Canada and that $1000 a week isn't going to sound like
10:07
much in 20 years. No.
10:09
Because inflation is going to chip away at at that price year
10:13
after year after year. Who issued the lottery ticket?
10:17
Is it Canadian government? Yeah, Lotto Quebec.
10:20
Because I read an article recently, Do you remember when
10:24
we were kids and they did the publisher clearing house?
10:28
Where? The guy would show up at your
10:30
home with the gargantuan check and you've got whatever, you get
10:33
$1000 a week for life or whatever it is, and Publishers
10:37
Clearing House has gone out of business.
10:39
That and those people that were supposed to get a check, they
10:43
get bupkus, they get nothing now.
10:45
Bupkus. And I think if you're trusting a
10:48
government to pay you for the rest of your life, you've
10:52
probably made a tactical error. They're probably going to come
10:56
up with a way in the future to screw you hard.
11:00
You're always better off getting all your money upfront.
11:03
You're always better off. Yeah.
11:05
Poor Brett do. Agree with that very hard lesson
11:08
with this. And you know, you and I, you and
11:11
I talk about the time value of money a lot, right?
11:14
I have to defend her here a little bit.
11:17
There is an argument, there is an argument that she made the
11:21
right choice, and that argument relies not on finance or
11:25
economics, but on psychology. That give her $1,000,000.
11:31
She'll blow through the thing, but dole it out 1000 a week for
11:35
the rest of her life, and she'll spend it well, more reasonably.
11:40
So your argument is if she got a million fake Canadian dollars
11:45
right now she would have the biggest crackhead party in the
11:49
histories of crackhead parties, but if she takes it $1000 a week
11:54
she could just buy $1000 worth of crack every week?
11:57
Well, this is a phenomenon that we've observed in in this
12:02
country with lotteries that people who people who are at
12:06
some level, let's say they're middle class lifestyle and they
12:11
get inundated with a gargantuan sum of money.
12:14
They don't understand how to deal with it.
12:16
And so they they end up blowing the whole thing.
12:20
Yeah, but you know, look, Brenda could just go put it in the bank
12:23
in a savings account and do better than she's going to do
12:25
with the 1000 a week. She she could, but it comes back
12:28
to the psychology that requires a discipline of I'm going to put
12:32
it there and I'm not going to touch it.
12:34
That's right. Anyway, the most interesting
12:37
thing that came up here is when you brought up Publishers
12:39
Clearing House, and I'm going to start a firestorm here.
12:42
When I tell people that I literally remember Ed McMahon
12:46
showing up with giant checks. I remember this.
12:50
That never happened. What?
12:53
Ed McMahon did not work for Publishers Clearing House.
12:57
What? Mm hmm.
12:59
It's the Mandela Effect. Who did he?
13:02
You and I? You and I have a very different
13:05
memory than reality would tell us.
13:07
And I have other Mandela effects as well.
13:10
I remember the Monopoly man with a monocle.
13:13
You never had a. Monocle.
13:13
Hang on. Time out.
13:15
You want you want to talk about Ed McMahon.
13:18
Yes, right. I did he work for some computer
13:22
pub publishers? Clear some competitor.
13:26
He worked for another company that did something like this,
13:30
but I literally remember Ed McMahon at Publishers Clearing
13:34
House with the big giant check on everybody's front door and it
13:40
never happened. So what I suggest, Ant, is that
13:43
you and I do an entire episode on the Mandela Effect, something
13:47
that works behind the surface of reality.
13:51
I I agree. I just, I just googled this.
13:55
He was with American Family Publishers, so that's.
13:59
That's understandable. But Oh no, it's not because I
14:02
remember him saying I'm Ed McMahon for Publishers Clearing
14:08
House. I.
14:09
Remember in my in my case I could easily see getting the two
14:13
confused. They do the same thing in
14:14
similar names. But let's let's let's dig into
14:18
the Mandela Effect. Cause but I agree with you the
14:21
Mandela effect is. Fascinating.
14:22
It is absolutely fascinating. And I've got a personal that I
14:26
want to talk about I need to get off my chest.
14:29
Oh, OK. But we'll do it.
14:31
Is this still the Mandela Effect?
14:34
Yes, clearly. 'Cause I went to, I had a baby
14:39
1015 years ago, a reunion with my 6th grade class.
14:43
We've we were always very tight. And so we get together for this
14:46
reunion and people are telling stories, you know, as you do.
14:51
And, and for each of us, each of us identified some story
14:55
somebody told and, you know, they said, yeah, well, this is
14:59
the way it happened. The memory was very not, not in
15:02
details, but completely different that either this thing
15:06
never happened or it happened in a completely different way.
15:10
And it happened to me. I was retelling a story and
15:12
somebody said that and somebody else was retelling a story and I
15:15
remembered it completely differently.
15:17
Yeah. So I what year was?
15:20
Your risk? What year was your What year was
15:23
your reunion? We were the 30th reunion of our
15:28
6th grade class. Which was what year?
15:32
What year do we graduate? I think 2:00. 1000, yes, it was
15:35
2000 and something. What?
15:37
Year, oh what year was the reunion?
15:41
That's what I keep. Yeah, yeah.
15:43
I would have been around, I want to say 2000, 2005 to 2010
15:49
somewhere in there. All right, that's interesting.
15:50
And we'll lead with that when we dedicate an entire episode to
15:54
the Mandela Effect. All right.
15:56
Ant is taking notes right now, and because James never
16:00
remembers, oh I won't, this is. I'll forget this by the time I
16:03
walk out of this room. James says.
16:06
James frequently says, oh, here's a great idea for next
16:09
week's episode to say all this stuff, blah, blah, blah.
16:12
And I swear, if I do not write it down as he's saying it, what
16:16
will happen is the next day I'll say, OK, James, that idea you
16:20
had for the episode, and he'll say, what idea?
16:23
That is, and I'm not even going to deny that that's exactly how
16:26
it happens. That is exactly how it happens.
16:28
I'm telling you when I pass through the threshold of this
16:32
office, I forget everything that happened.
16:35
It's like none of this is is real at all.
16:38
But I do want to say, and that if if you have a reunion of your
16:45
6th grade class, you're an even bigger dork than I thought you
16:49
were already, well, that's just dorkish.
16:52
It's a good group of people. Unbelievable.
16:55
I've never had a high school reunion, though.
16:58
Not to say I've never gone my class.
17:00
I've never held one. I've never been invited to my
17:03
high school reunion. They have them all the time.
17:06
I see pictures on Facebook later, but they make sure never
17:09
to find me. Actually, this won't confuse any
17:14
of our listeners in any way. I didn't go to a single prom.
17:18
I didn't show up for my graduation.
17:20
Probably not going to show up for a a reunion either, but
17:24
there you go. We're happy to announce that
17:26
Civil members can join me and James for a new lecture series,
17:30
Words and Numbers Live. Words and Numbers Live is a
17:33
members only series in which James and I talk about issues in
17:38
politics, philosophy, and economics.
17:40
We take a deeper dive and then invite listeners for a live Q&A
17:44
session. You can also submit your
17:46
questions for us at wordsandnumberspodcast@gmail.com.
17:50
In the next session, which starts Thursday, December 18th
17:54
at 5:30 PM Eastern Time, we examine inequality.
17:58
To participate in this exclusive series, subscribe to
18:01
civil@civil.com. That's civl.com.
18:06
When you log into civil.com, you'll find an archive of our
18:10
past lecture series, as well as the collection of all our
18:13
episodes of Words and Numbers and announcements about upcoming
18:17
lectures in our new Words and Numbers Live series.
18:20
Subscribe to Civil for $5 a month or $50.00 for an annual
18:24
subscription. This episode, Todd Huntley joins
18:27
us. Todd is the director of the
18:29
National Security Law Program and a lecturer in law at
18:33
Georgetown University Law Center.
18:36
Todd is a retired Navy captain and served as an active duty
18:40
Judge Advocate for more than 23 years.
18:43
Prior to joining Georgetown, he was a professor of national
18:46
security law at the Judge Advocate General's Legal Center
18:49
and School in Charlottesville and director of the Navy's
18:53
National Security Law Division. Todd, welcome to words and
18:57
Numbers. James and I were talking about
19:00
what's been going on with the interdiction of the, of the drug
19:05
boats and we quickly determined that a, it's an interesting
19:09
topic that we want to know more about and be neither one of us
19:12
knows anything about it. So I cast out to, to actually my
19:17
sister-in-law who's a retired Navy Jag captain.
19:22
And I said, oh, why don't you come on, talk about this.
19:24
And she said I'd be very interested too, but I know
19:27
someone who knows even more than I do.
19:29
And that's how we found you. And, and two things if, if I
19:33
may, I'm going to take issue with your use of the word.
19:37
What, what word did you use? Interdiction when we're really
19:41
blowing them up, right? That doesn't that's interdiction
19:44
seems way, way more polite than that.
19:47
And then we also today, as we record the Trump administration
19:52
has seized A Venezuelan oil vessel.
19:55
So that kind of throws a different wrinkle onto things.
19:58
And I, I hope we can get to that too, if, if you're willing.
20:01
It's, you know, I think a, a developing story.
20:05
We don't know much about it yet. And my guess is by the end of
20:10
the by the end of our chat, we'll, they'll be even more out
20:13
there to, to take in. So we'll.
20:17
Start with the, the, the drug boats.
20:19
You know that that's a little more, a little more in the
20:22
public eye for a little longer of a time.
20:24
Yeah, great. So, so as you're probably
20:28
familiar with, you know, the Coast Guard has been
20:30
interdicting boats carrying drugs in the Caribbean and
20:34
Eastern Pacific for 20 plus years.
20:37
Most of those are done without any use of force, but they do
20:41
occasionally have a sniper that takes out the the motors to
20:45
disable the boat so they can then board them.
20:48
But that that all changed on September 2nd when there was
20:52
this first strike on a on a small boat carrying eleven
20:56
people that was coming out of Venezuela.
21:00
And it was struck apparently by a missile fired from a drone.
21:03
And while it was international waters.
21:06
And then just a week or so ago, we found out that after the
21:10
initial strike, there were two survivors that were then killed
21:16
45 minutes later when a second missile was fired.
21:19
And you know, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that at least
21:22
get us into the zip code of war crimes?
21:26
Well, it would possibly if we were at war.
21:29
And so this is the thing that is complicating the entire story or
21:35
really makes it difficult to understand.
21:37
Because while this administration is claiming that
21:42
the United States is in a non international armed conflict
21:45
with drug cartels, including trendy Agua TA and I guess
21:52
apparently 20 plus more that have still not yet been named
21:55
publicly. And that that the US is in a non
22:00
international armed conflict. So deadly force can be used
22:05
against the drugs, the boats and the members of these
22:08
organizations. And I guess the claim is, and I
22:14
think they've said as much, that they view the importation of
22:18
these illegal drugs and the deaths and injuries.
22:22
And, you know, the the devastation that's being, you
22:26
know, felt by families in the United States by these illegal
22:30
drugs, they are viewing that akin to an armed attack against
22:33
the United States. And therefore, our use of force
22:37
is in self-defense against these cartels.
22:41
Again, I don't see the effects of the drugs rising to that
22:44
level. And so I think we're still in a,
22:49
in basically a, you know, a situation where law enforcement
22:55
rules and laws on the use of force and international human
22:59
rights law would apply to the use of force against those
23:02
individuals and boats. This is the thing that that I
23:07
guess I can't get my head around.
23:09
It. If this is not war, then it
23:13
looks much more like AI say police action.
23:17
But I don't mean that in terms of Venezuela, I mean in terms of
23:20
law enforcement. But wouldn't that be confined to
23:24
the territorial waters of the US?
23:26
In other words, yes, we have laws against drugs, but they
23:29
don't apply in international waters, do they?
23:32
We do. We have a a law, the MDLEA, and
23:38
I'm trying to remember what the D stands for, Maritime Law
23:41
Enforcement Act that gives jurisdiction to the Coast Guard
23:46
to intercept seas and then apprehend individuals and drugs
23:53
that are, you know, on the high seas, you know, outside of the
23:57
US territorial seas, but where the drugs are headed to the
24:00
United States. And so those individuals can be
24:05
arrested and brought to the United States and be prosecuted.
24:09
And they had been until just a couple of months ago when the
24:14
Department of Justice put out a memo telling the various US
24:18
attorney's offices across the country that those individuals
24:22
should no longer be prosecuted and instead they should just be
24:25
deported. So that adds another wrinkle,
24:28
right? If these drugs are so dangerous
24:29
and the members of these drug cartels so dangerous, why are we
24:33
just sending some of them back, you know, to probably in many
24:37
cases just re engage in the same type of activity?
24:41
We've got a further problem too. I I think, because I'm pretty
24:46
sure it's demonstrably correct, that the drugs coming out of
24:49
Venezuela are in no way coming to the United States.
24:53
Right. Commonly, the majority of the
24:55
drugs coming out of Venezuela go on to Europe.
25:00
And Admiral Bradley would he went and spoke with, you know,
25:05
members of Congress last week, supposedly told them that this
25:10
boat was actually was in fact not headed to the United States,
25:14
but was heading to rendezvous with another ship that was then
25:19
going to go to Suriname and then from there take the cocaine to
25:23
Europe or Africa. I mean, where does where does
25:27
this batch of realities leave us when we, when we think about
25:32
using drones literally to kill people who are doing things well
25:40
outside of our jurisdiction and they're doing things that will
25:43
never make it to our jurisdiction?
25:46
Yeah, I think what we're seeing is, you know, I don't know the
25:50
best way to describe it, kind of the boomerang effect of 20 plus
25:54
years of using drones against members of al Qaeda and
25:58
affiliated organizations that, you know, the administration has
26:02
decided to label these groups as terrorists.
26:05
And many people are saying, I think including in the
26:09
administration, we killed terrorists with drones for 20
26:12
plus years. This is no different, but you
26:15
know, the the facts are very different to both on the level
26:19
of harm that's being caused, the authorization that's been given
26:24
or in this case not given by Congress and the locations where
26:29
you know, this is taking place from relatively Speaking of of
26:34
the United States. And this is this is something
26:37
James and I wrote a book on this, a number of topics that
26:41
touch on this a couple of years ago.
26:44
And we said when the US would we use the word war as war and
26:49
drug, war on drugs, war on poverty, War on Terror.
26:52
We're we're we're waging war on a noun that the the danger is
26:58
that we'll then actually start to treat it as a war, which is
27:03
what this is looking like, albeit one that Congress hasn't
27:07
declared. You're right.
27:08
And you know, in in this case, when you're, you know, declaring
27:13
war on a noun, it it's pretty convenient when you can then
27:18
define that noun. So it really there's you know,
27:23
what the possibilities are are limitless.
27:26
And again, you know, supposedly there's just A50 plus page memo
27:31
from DO JS Office of Legal Counsel that lays out the legal
27:36
reasoning as to why the president has the authority to
27:40
undertake these actions and why the strikes are legal.
27:45
But of course, we haven't, we haven't seen that.
27:47
And so it's really difficult to to, you know, know the exact
27:52
limitations. But at least what's been said
27:56
publicly, it doesn't appear that this would be limited to boats
28:01
in international waters. I mean, the same reasoning could
28:04
be applied to boats in the territorial sea of the United
28:07
States, or even these members of these drug cartels on land in
28:12
the United States. Or right over the Mexican
28:15
border. Yes, Yep.
28:17
Well, I mean, as long as we're on the topic of of borders.
28:21
I was looking at a map put out by the BBC just half an hour ago
28:26
and if I read it correctly, a number of these boat strikes
28:29
occurred within Venezuelan territorial waters.
28:32
Is that correct? I haven't heard that yet.
28:36
And I think they are intentionally limiting the
28:40
strikes or trying to limit the strikes to boats in
28:43
international waters. Because what that does is it
28:48
gets us away from the problem of the United States using force in
28:53
Venezuelan territory, thereby essentially creating an armed
28:58
attack against Venezuela and then giving them the right to
29:02
use force in self-defense. And so if you're using military
29:07
force against non state actors in international waters, there
29:13
is no armed attack, you know, as kind of covered by the UN
29:17
charter. But we've got the president of
29:20
the United States repeating pretty regularly that there will
29:25
be military action in Venezuela. So I we, we've got to, I think
29:32
take him had his word on that sort of thing.
29:34
So here we are. Yes, yeah.
29:37
And something else I I heard briefly, I wasn't able to get
29:41
much information on it, but supposedly yesterday we had some
29:48
fighter jets or some electronic warfare jets that either crossed
29:52
into Venezuelan airspace or flew right along Venezuelan airspace
29:57
in an area that Venezuela claims but the United States doesn't
30:03
recognize. And so, you know that, you know,
30:07
certainly dials up, you know, the the threat of violence a
30:13
little more. And all of this on a backdrop of
30:18
the president of the United States calling for regime change
30:21
in Venezuela. Yes.
30:24
And related to that, you know, that the opposition leader,
30:28
Venezuelan opposition leader, who you know, I guess allegedly
30:33
won the last election, the popular vote and was awarded the
30:38
Nobel Peace Prize, was not able to go to Sweden today to accept
30:43
the award. Her daughter went instead, I
30:45
believe, or her sister. And so, you know, that created a
30:50
question in my mind is, well, where is she right?
30:54
Why didn't she go accept? Is she somewhere getting ready
30:58
to go in and assume power and authority as the president of
31:02
Venezuela? We live in very interesting
31:04
times. I want to go back to the indeed,
31:07
the the the issue of the boats being in international waters
31:12
and not all of them headed for the US.
31:15
Once we're in this space where where the US is is attacking
31:21
ships that aren't headed to the US, carrying things the US
31:25
doesn't want them to carry, but which are legal in other
31:29
countries, it's only 1/2 step between that and deciding that
31:35
some country is exporting a perfectly reasonable good that
31:39
we don't want them to export and bombing their ships.
31:42
And I I don't it sounds a bit like hyperbole, but I'm I'm very
31:46
afraid that it's not actually hyperbole at all.
31:50
No, I mean, you know, you know, if if we have a change of in
31:54
administration and, you know, we have a new administration that
31:58
decides that some country ships are polluting Reez, killing off
32:03
our natural resources, does that now give us, you know, basically
32:10
the right to use force against those ships?
32:12
I mean, it's, yeah, you know, in law school they always use the
32:17
slippery slope examples and arguments, right?
32:20
But I think we're we're really on that slippery slope right
32:24
now. If I could there's one One thing
32:27
that the the past 30 or 40 years of American politics has shown
32:31
us is that the slopes tend to all be slippery.
32:34
Yeah, I I've got kind of a, a law school exercise for you if
32:39
you'd be willing to do it for our listeners.
32:42
Could you make? Sure.
32:44
Could you make the case on both sides to make the best simple
32:48
case on both sides of the argument over whether we can or
32:54
cannot blow up these boats as we are doing?
32:59
Sure. So on the on the yes, we may
33:03
blow up the boat side, I think that the administration's
33:09
argument is probably the strongest they and if they have
33:16
the intelligence to back it up, they haven't played it.
33:20
And they've also had certain contradictory explanations in
33:24
the past. So the, the argument would be
33:27
that these drug cartels are intentionally importing the
33:31
drugs into the United States, not merely as a, as a business
33:36
to make money, but to undermine American Society, to cause a
33:43
breakdown in social order, to cause a breakdown in, you know,
33:48
basically in society. And that this is being done
33:51
intentionally and that these groups are organized in planning
33:56
this or working together to bring about this effect.
34:00
And that that, you know, that has risen now to the level of,
34:06
of A use of force or armed attack and, you know, giving the
34:11
US the right to use force in self-defense.
34:14
I think that's the best argument.
34:18
They've also stated on a couple of occasions that the government
34:22
of Venezuela, or at least elements of the government, are
34:25
supporting at least TDA and that the government of Venezuela is
34:31
trying to undermine the United States.
34:35
If, you know, if that is true and if that connection is there
34:40
and Venezuela is giving, you know, a certain level of support
34:44
to these organizations, then we would be in an international
34:49
armed conflict. And, you know, you could claim
34:52
that the United States now has the right to use force against
34:55
Venezuela in self-defense. So I've seen some people point
35:01
to certain things, such as I guess Venezuela.
35:05
Venezuela has used some of these drug gangs to assassinate expats
35:11
and, you know, former military officers who opposed the regime
35:14
and then fled. I guess there were one or two in
35:17
Chile. You know, perhaps the Venezuelan
35:21
government's giving weapons to some of these organizations.
35:24
I don't know. But again, if that evidence is
35:27
there, I would think the administration would come in and
35:32
and show it to strengthen their case both, you know, legally and
35:36
politically, domestically, You know, I'm sure the argument why
35:41
they're not is that, well, that's classified.
35:43
And if we revealed that, it would reveal some of our
35:46
classified sources and methods. But then I think back to the
35:50
Cuban missile crisis and, you know, President Kennedy showing
35:53
those, you know, photos, the spy photos of the systems in Cuba
36:01
again, to essentially gain international and domestic
36:04
support for a very risky move they were about to make.
36:07
James and I are delighted to be working with Civil.
36:10
For years we have been pushing people to think about how we can
36:13
make the world a better place. Civil's mission of upgrading
36:17
society fits exactly with what James and I have been talking
36:20
about for years. Civil helps us by allowing us to
36:23
do what we do best, which is researching topics that are
36:27
important and communicating these to our listeners in ways
36:30
that we hope they find enjoyable.
36:32
To see Civil's extensive list of content, including our podcast
36:36
Words and Numbers and our new lecture series, Words and
36:39
Numbers Live, visit civil.com. That's civl.com.
36:44
All right. So the positive case is there.
36:47
It's it's somewhat persuasive. What's the negative case?
36:52
The negative case is that these drug cartels are using violence,
37:00
right, not, you know, they're not selling drugs to fund their
37:05
violence. The violence is being done to
37:08
ensure they can continue selling their drugs.
37:10
And so, you know, any violence that is linked to these
37:15
organizations, you know, can't, you know, it's not directed
37:20
directly at the United States. It's not being done with the
37:22
intent to cause some sort of damage or, or destruction in the
37:27
United States or against the United States itself.
37:30
Rather, it's, you know, violence that's being used at police
37:33
officers, judges, witnesses, members of the media who are
37:38
exposing cartel activities, basically that to strengthen
37:42
their position and make sure they can still continue to make
37:46
money from selling their drugs. I think the other argument
37:50
against is, you know, this, this argument that the effects of the
37:53
drugs are so great, it's an armed attack.
37:57
You know, I don't know how dead customers continue to buy
38:02
cocaine. It had.
38:04
I would think they want to, you know, they want to keep at least
38:07
a fairly large number of their customers alive and addicted to
38:10
continue buying their product. And so, you know, because the
38:15
level of harm and the intent doesn't rise to the appropriate
38:19
level. And these cartels are not
38:22
coordinating between each other. They're, in fact competitors.
38:25
And violence is being used, you know, by cartels against other
38:28
cartels that they don't reach the sufficient level of
38:32
organization that's required under international law to, to
38:36
make this a, not a national armed conflict.
38:39
And so this is a law enforcement issue.
38:41
It's it's purely criminal activity, albeit violent
38:44
criminal activity in many cases. And the appropriate standard to
38:49
use is law enforcement, which, you know, you're still be able
38:54
to use deadly force if the actions of those cartel members
39:00
present an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury
39:04
to the law enforcement officers or other individuals in the
39:07
vicinity. And again, then you know, drug,
39:11
you know, drug dealers, drug runners on a small boat in the
39:17
middle of the Caribbean, to me doesn't look like a very
39:21
imminent threat of death to to other individuals.
39:24
So if if I'm hearing you correctly, you're clearly on the
39:28
negative side here. Yes, I, I think, I, I mean, my
39:33
opinion is that this is a law enforcement matter.
39:36
It may be a serious law enforcement matter.
39:39
Perhaps in the past, you know, our, our approach hasn't been as
39:43
effective as it needs to be. But I think that, you know, the
39:47
answer to that is creating more or, you know, getting more
39:52
resources, more capabilities for the Coast Guard to be able to
39:56
continue and step up these interdictions.
39:59
We have Coast Guard law enforcement detachments on board
40:02
Navy ships in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific that are doing
40:06
these drug interdictions. And then the other, the other
40:10
thing I think that's important, that's being overlooked in all
40:12
this is. Cooperation with our
40:14
international partners, we, you know, the Coast Guard works very
40:18
closely with the Coast Guards and the Navy's of many of the
40:21
Caribbean countries to conduct interdictions and to allow their
40:27
Coast Guard and their police forces to, to conduct
40:29
interdictions. So, you know, if, if we continue
40:34
down the road, I think of treating this as a as an armed
40:37
conflict in a military problem, we risk losing the support of
40:43
those international partners and we're actually going to have
40:47
less capacity to to deal with this threat.
40:50
We've already seen the UK, the Netherlands and Colombia stop
40:55
sharing intelligence on drug activities in the Caribbean with
40:59
us. And so you know that that's, I'm
41:03
sure a loss. And if this continues, it would
41:07
not surprise me for for other countries to stop even more
41:10
cooperation in the counter drug area.
41:13
The thus far is the president using only the Coast Guard.
41:18
No, prior to this now. Now the actually military
41:24
strikes are being conducted again, according to media
41:28
reports to members of SEAL Team 6 and the Joint Special
41:32
Operations Command. And, you know, along with aerial
41:38
assets, you know, from the Air Force and probably from the
41:40
Navy. The benefit to using the Coast
41:44
Guard is that they're confined to the coast.
41:48
If the president is now using services other than the Coast
41:54
Guard, ones that are capable of operating on land in the US,
42:00
why? What will it be the case that he
42:04
could then easily start using the military within the borders
42:08
of the US and if and not only go after Venezuelans car the
42:16
foreign cartels that are moving drugs but go after domestic the
42:19
domestic illegal drug industry? You know, that's a great
42:22
question. And we've already seen the
42:24
president, right, use the military for, you know, various
42:30
law enforcement activities or support to law enforcement
42:33
activities here. So, you know, under this
42:37
authority, the president would not be able to use, you know,
42:41
SEAL Team 6 or some of those other military forces to go
42:46
after the military or to go after the drug cartels.
42:51
But he could invoke the Insurrection Act.
42:55
He could, you know, again, if this is an armed conflict and
43:01
those U.S. citizens are now part of a hostile force, possibly.
43:07
But I think that that would be a stretch.
43:09
And I think, you know, the the Coast Guard actually does have
43:13
very capable deep water, deep abilities.
43:17
So they have been operating, you know, offshore, you know, in
43:22
international waters. And one way also they do that is
43:26
again, they put a law enforcement team on board a Navy
43:29
ship so that they can go out further from the coast and, and,
43:33
and conduct interdictions. But the Coast Guard wouldn't
43:36
have any authority on land necessarily to go, you know, to,
43:40
to be used to go after domestic cartels.
43:43
Going back to the the argument, the argument you gave on behalf
43:47
of the administration that that this is a threat that's
43:51
undermining society, it seems to me the the harder one would lean
43:59
on that argument, the more also one would implicitly be
44:05
required, implicitly require an official declaration of war.
44:11
Now Congress is really absent. They're the ones that need to
44:13
step in and step up and actually exercise their oversight
44:17
responsibilities. You know, one of the
44:21
contradictory things that the administration is claiming when
44:25
they're claiming the president has authority to use military
44:29
force against the cartels pursuant to Article 2 of the
44:32
Constitution and its commander in chief authority, is that this
44:36
is not a war in a constitutional sense.
44:40
So internationally we're saying this is a not in the national
44:43
armed conflict, IEA war. Domestically, what we're saying
44:48
it's that the level of violence in force being used doesn't rise
44:54
to the level that would require congressional authorization.
44:58
You know, that is at least it's been reported that that logic or
45:02
that theory is in this Office of Legal Counsel opinion.
45:06
And it's been used in the past April 2011, when President Obama
45:12
was bombing sites in Libya, the Office of Legal Counsel issued a
45:16
pin, an opinion that said that that the president has the
45:25
authority to use military force without congressional
45:28
authorization if it's in furtherance of an important U.S.
45:32
National interest and it's of limited duration, time and
45:38
scope. And if it meets those criteria,
45:42
the president doesn't need to go to Congress.
45:46
And, you know, I think the problem with that argument is if
45:49
you're saying, though we're in an armed conflict with the
45:52
cartels, to me, an armed conflict is not limited in
45:57
duration, right? I mean, we don't, well, we just
46:01
saw, you know, the last war against terrorism lasted 20 plus
46:05
years and the authorities are still there, you know, being
46:08
used actually. So yeah.
46:12
I mean, I think that, you know, Congress needs to step in and,
46:18
you know, do something. I.
46:20
Mean by by the logic you just laid out, definitionally every
46:26
drone strike would be acceptable because it's by definition
46:31
limited in scope and limited in time.
46:34
Now the overall pattern, we just going to ignore that, right?
46:39
The interesting question here is OK Congress, only Congress can
46:44
declare war constitutionally. OK, Can Congress undeclare war?
46:52
Can Congress say to the president, no, these are acts of
46:56
war and you may not do that. I I know that Congress could,
46:59
could in fact do it by defunding the things that the president
47:04
uses. And they they can in fact do
47:07
that. But boy, we're far off that
47:10
shore. Could they just by words alone,
47:13
get the administration to stop what it's doing?
47:16
Or is that just a lost cause at this point?
47:18
I think that it's an unsettled issue, but they could, you know,
47:26
they could take measures that would certainly show they they
47:31
and they think the conflict should end.
47:34
And, you know, you think back to Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin
47:37
resolution that, you know, authorized the use of force in
47:41
the president that's in troops. And then the answer to that
47:45
right was the they rescinded that and they passed the war
47:48
powers. Over Nixon was veto.
47:52
Exactly. And right now at least, right,
47:56
we're well past the 60 days of the war from September 2nd.
48:02
The War Powers Act is fascinating, right?
48:04
The whole it gets passed, Nixon vetoes it, it gets passed over
48:08
his veto, and then neither the executive nor the legislative
48:12
branches ever return to it. It just sits out there.
48:18
They nobody wants a case to be heard at the level of the
48:21
Supreme Court about the War Powers Act.
48:24
No, you're, you're exactly right.
48:26
And you know, the every president that has used force,
48:31
including in this instance, has sent a letter to Congress
48:36
stating that they are informing Congress consistent with the War
48:41
Powers Act, right, Because they don't want to acknowledge that
48:46
it applies to the president's authority.
48:49
And so they're both doing this little dance.
48:51
Exactly. You know why you said nobody
48:54
wants a set decision that might limit their authority going?
48:59
Forward. That's probably the saddest way
49:02
to end this interview. Is there?
49:05
Is there a happier way that you know that I don't?
49:08
No. And I, I would like, well, I
49:12
would like to say things could only get better, but I don't
49:17
think that's the case either. That's not true.
49:20
That's never true. It's a it's a strange set of
49:23
circumstances, right? It is.
49:25
And what I am hoping is that, you know, since that Washington
49:29
Post article came out, I think, you know, the Friday after
49:32
Thanksgiving and since or CNN came out with an article, I
49:36
think the same day, NBC, The Atlantic, New York Times, you
49:40
know, several media outlets are now reporting on this and, and
49:43
every day getting more and more information.
49:47
I'm hoping that Congress is now energized to hold some hearings
49:54
to demand records from the administration and then, you
50:01
know, actually provide that oversight.
50:03
Amen. Amen.
50:06
Thank you for very much for for coming on and talking about
50:09
this. This is something it has been
50:11
great and it's something that Ant and I really didn't have the
50:14
expertise to talk about. We're very glad that you were
50:17
willing to come and share yours with us.
50:19
Well, you're welcome. Thank you for having me on.
50:21
I I really appreciate it and enjoy talking with both of you.
50:24
Anything you want to plug on your way out?
50:28
So I, you know, I'm the director of the National Security Law
50:31
Program at Georgetown Law School.
50:34
If you are a lawyer and want to learn more about national
50:37
security law, if these types of conversations are interesting to
50:42
you, we have a Master of Law program.
50:45
So come and join us and you we can talk about this for an
50:48
entire academic year. Outstander, how can they find
50:51
you personally? So they can go on to the website
50:54
at, if they Google Georgetown Center for National Security,
50:59
they can, they'll find my contact information and also
51:02
more information about our programs.
51:04
Fantastic. Thank you so much again for
51:06
coming on with us today. Thank you, Todd.
51:09
You're very welcome. So remember and be nice to other
51:12
people, especially me. And I'm going to remember to be
51:16
nice to other people, especially you.
51:19
But everybody should remember to just be nice to everybody
51:22
because. That's going to succeed.
51:24
Go yourself. See you next time, man.
51:33
See you next time, Gibbs. At Words and Numbers we spend a
51:36
lot of time talking about what's going on in the economy and the
51:39
government, but fundamentally, all of this boils down to one
51:43
thing. The greatest threat facing
51:45
modern society is a lack of respect, that people who
51:49
disagree somehow find it difficult, if not impossible, to
51:53
discuss their differences in a civil manner.
51:55
We at Civil are interested in upgrading civilization by by
51:59
encouraging people to engage with new ideas and ultimately
52:03
engage civilly with each other. If you share this idea, please
52:07
join us by subscribing at civil.com.
52:10
That's civl.com. You are the first person from
52:15
Pittsburgh who I have ever had anything to do with who didn't
52:20
take the opportunity to use the word Jag.
52:25
I said Jag during the episode. You did.
52:28
But you know, look, I have even heard your wife, in brutal
52:33
anger, yell at somebody in Vegas and call him a Jag.
52:38
Jag off. It's a Jag.
52:39
Off, Jag. Off.
52:41
So maybe we can put this at the very end of our episode to amuse
52:45
the people, because there's nothing, there's nothing funnier
52:49
than an angry Western Pennsylvanian saying Jag.
52:54
It's hilarious, yeah.