Ecuador released survivor of U. S. strike on alleged "narco sub" - did you know that?

[Anonymous]

Looks like the "drugrunner" explanation Trump provided is bullshit as suspected. No surprise there.

Ecuador has released a man who survived a U. S. strike on a suspected drug-trafficking submersible vessel, the attorney general's office said Monday, adding that the authorities had found no evidence that he had committed a crime.

The United States has deployed warships to the Caribbean off the coast of Venezuela since August, attacking mostly boats that U. S authorities alleged were running drugs. The raids have killed at least 32 people and drawn angry reactions from some South American leaders who have said that the Americans are lying.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ecuador-releases-survivor-of-us-strike-on-alleged-narco-sub/ar-AA1OSWUO?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

[ProbablyClueless]

"no report of a crime that has been brought to the attention of this institution" against him, and therefore "he could not be detained." The man had "no pending cases against him," it added."

Is definitely not the same as "this person has not committed a crime."

[ProbablyClueless]

Oh! And apparently another individual found on that boat will be getting prosecuted. At least, according to that news story. "A Colombian citizen also survived and remains hospitalized after being repatriated to Colombia, where Interior Minister Armando Benedetti said he "arrived with brain trauma, sedated, drugged, breathing with a ventilator." Authorities there said he would face prosecution."

[Asker]

No it is not the same, but the lack of evidence suggests that he was punished before he ever could be convicted of anything other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Asker]

Yes, the fellow with that sustained brain injury is in the hospital and is sedated and drugged and on a ventilator. Might one day get prosecuted for something if they can find anything to prosecute him for. I don't think they have any evidence, either. And I also don't think he's going to make it out of the hospital. You are grasping at straws with all due respect.

[boundless]

America has eyes everywhere. We see all...

https://x.com/LuckyMcGee/status/1998628870292161009

[WindAtMyBack]

Only about 2-3% of crimes end in a conviction. So that means the other 97-98% of crimes didn't happen?

That is not exactly rational thinking.

[Asker]

No, it actually means that some people get a fair trial, and in many cases, there is no rush to judgment. In many cases, the police arrest people who did nothing wrong. There are all kinds of things that can get fucked up between the time somebody's arrested and the time that they're convicted or not convicted or found not guilty.

[WindAtMyBack]

I didn't say anything about being arrested. I'm talking about actual crimes. Only about 2-3% end in convictions.

You entirely avoided the point.

[Asker]

No, I didn't I didn't avoid the point. The point is that apparently you're not happy with the process. How would you like to change it?

[WindAtMyBack]

You are really good at not getting the point. It should be obvious.

Just because someone has not been convicted does not mean a crime wasn't committed. Just because a crime isn't proven doesn't mean it didn't happen.

No conviction does not mean not guilty, They are two VERY different things.
No evidence does not mean not guilty either.
Being released does not mean not guilty.

Bottom line is that you are drawing conclusions that can not be drawn.

[Asker]

I'm not necessarily drawing the conclusion that a crime wasn't committed, because you're right about this. In many cases, a crime was committed, but it might be that the wrong person was arrested and tried. Sometimes the wrong person is arrested, tried, and executed, which is kind of a problem.

All the things that you mention indeed don't mean not guilty. The only way that we could say not guilty with any assurance, I think, would be if the person has an airtight alibi. For instance, we could prove that for a crime that happened in Los Angeles, the alleged perpetrator was in Tierra del Fuego with a thousand witnesses or something of that nature.

I think you understand what I am saying. I am not drawing the conclusion that the person didn't do it. I'm drawing the conclusion that there's no conviction that it's going to occur because things were handled in a way that I suspect you don't approve of.

[Asker]

So now try answering my question since you've insulted me multiple times here and I'm getting a little fucking sick of talking to your ass. What do you want to change? That's a fairly simple question. Try answering it.

[WindAtMyBack]

If you are asking if I approve of sinking those boats, damn right I do. I think we should do more of it, a LOT more. I don't care if they've been convicted or not. Just blow the mother fuckers out of the water.

[Asker]

Boy, you have no morals whatsoever, do you?

[WindAtMyBack]

I have very strong morals. That's why I want to destroy these drug cartels.

Do the ends justify the means? In this case, yes. It's a huge net gain.

So is killing one person to save two morally wrong?

[Asker]

Keep thinking that it's not true, but keep thinking of it. It makes you feel more comfortable.

[exitseven]

The evidence is at the bottom of the ocean. He is still guilty.

[Asker]

If you mean that Trump is still guilty, yes of course he is.

[exitseven]

No the drug smuggler is guilty. You would have to be a moron to think that a submarine coming from South America is not smuggling drugs and they are only looking for lobster like they said on CNN.

[Asker]

As I have said multiple times before, and almost everybody else has said, there is no evidence that he's a drug smuggler. You just want him to be one because that absolves Trump. The fact is that Trump is a murderer, and he is the one who committed the crimes here, not the guy who was killed.

[exitseven]

They were on a submarine. They were not tuna fishing.

[Asker]

No, it was not a submarine. I don't know how many times things have to be explained to you over and over again, but this was not a submarine. It was a semi-submersible, which means when it's running, part of it is under water to take advantage of some of the hydrodynamic effects of having part of it underwater. It's not something that can be hidden, obviously. And that was not the point.

[seeyounexttuesday]

We investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong.

[Asker]

Yes, that is part of the problem. You can't exactly say that we really investigated ourselves because all that happened is that Trump decided that nothing wrong had been done and told us all that. He lies a lot.

[Pterodon]

They’re lying

[Asker]

Of course you're saying this. What else can you say and not suffer from cognitive dissonance?