\Petition says Colombia citizen Alejandro Carranza Medina was illegally killed in US airstrike on 15 September

A family in Colombia filed a petition on Tuesday with the Washington DC-based Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, alleging that the Colombian citizen Alejandro Carranza Medina was illegally killed in a US airstrike on 15 September.

The petition marks the first formal complaint over the airstrikes by the Trump administration against suspected drug boats, attacks that the White House says are justified under a novel interpretation of law.

The IACHR, part of the Organization of American States, is designed to “promote and protect human rights in the Western Hemisphere”. The US is a member, and in March the Trump administration’s state department wrote: “The United States is pleased to be a strong supporter of the IACHR and is committed to continuing support for the Commission’s work and its independence. Preserving the IACHR’s autonomy is a pillar of our human rights policy in the region.”

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Buuuuuuuulshit

    There are various “coherent normative frameworks” aka good fucking reasons why a government has the right to restrict access to certain drugs, or any other material.

    What? You think that artificially enriched plutonium should also freely be available, maybe?

    Are you a sovcit or are you severely high?

    • yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      You think that artificially enriched plutonium should also freely be available, maybe?

      “Enriched plutonium” is not a drug. (wtf)

      Again. There is no coherent moral framework that anyone has ever concocted to justify criminalizing your use of drugs, medical or otherwise. No arguments exist in defense of this strange practice (which appears culturally rooted in Puritanism or well-meaning paternalism).

      If you have such an argument, please publish it in one of the philosophy journals. There’s no Nobel prize for philosophy, but a bunch of fusty academics will be very impressed with you.

      EDIT: I imagine if you had a magical “drug” whose ingestion could somehow make you explode and injure others, then its access could be reasonably restricted.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I mean you could make a for the good of society arguments like we do for helmet and seat belt laws. But then you would have to grapple with alcohol which is way more destructive to society than practically all the other drugs combined.

        • yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          All our empirical evidence shows that the criminalization of drugs makes society worse. It creates drug cartels, incites crime, fills up our prisons with victims (whose lives it ruins), and balloons law enforcement budgets.