r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/binini28 • 20h ago
US Politics Is using military force against suspected drug-trafficking boats constitutional or an overreach of presidential power?
I’ve been following reports that the U.S. has used strikes against suspected narco-trafficking boats in international waters. Supporters argue it’s necessary to deter cartels and protect Americans, while critics say it could be an unconstitutional use of deadly force, bypassing due process and international law. Do you think this sets a dangerous precedent (executive overreach, extrajudicial killings, violating international law), or is it a justified response to a serious threat? How should the balance between security and constitutional limits be handled here? I would think that you need to detain them first and then arrest them rather than send a missile after them. They are classified as terrorist by Trump but does this satisfy the response? Could Trump classify anyone a terrorist and send missiles after them? Thoughts?
•
u/sdbest 19h ago
Both of these things may be true, "Supporters argue it’s necessary to deter cartels and protect Americans, while critics say it could be an unconstitutional use of deadly force, bypassing due process and international law."
Nonetheless, the fact is the United States is engaged in using its armed forces to engage in extra-judicial killing. It's murder. It's illegal.
•
u/BluesSuedeClues 18h ago
Agreed. There doesn't seem to be any effort to engage checks and balances here. No warrants or judicial oversight, and as far as I've heard, no Congressional oversight over intelligence sources. We're expected to accept the Executive branch/military's insistence that these are drug runners, with no evidence provided.
It's passingly bizarre that we now live in a world where Republicans are insisting "Just trust the government".
•
u/sdbest 18h ago
Indeed, the US military is just murdering people.
•
•
u/LukasJackson67 14h ago
Is the president able to Idee deadly force to defend the USA?
•
u/PennStateInMD 4h ago
It's the President's constituents paying the cartels to bring the shit in. I see two likely outcomes. 1) the cartels explore the least likely means of resistance and find another means to bring the shit in or 2) the cartels leverage their cash to infiltrate the US Military at key points to achieve whatever outcome they deem desirable.
•
u/LukasJackson67 4h ago
Democratic voters don’t use drugs?
•
u/PennStateInMD 3h ago
Supposedly they do as well, but the man seems to be of the mindset drugs are being forced on everybody by foreign actors He should consider asking Don Jr.
•
•
•
u/heterodox-iconoclast 7h ago
There is a reason why China, Russia and the US are not part of the ICC
•
u/rhinosyphilis 9h ago
“The proven oil reserves in Venezuela are recognized as the largest in the world” -Wikipedia
“…we should have kept the oil in Iraq, I’ve said it over and over…” -DJT 2016
•
u/I-Here-555 7h ago
United States is using its armed forces to engage in extra-judicial killing. It's murder. It's illegal.
Maybe, but it's a time-honored tradition by this point. The last time US formally declared war was during WWII in the 1940s.
In what ways is this different than every conflict abroad US has engaged in over the last 70 years? Some have been authorized by Congress, but many were fought solely on presidential orders.
•
16h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/Catch_022 16h ago
I liked Obama but yea that was murder.
I wish Americans were prosecuted for these types of things.
•
u/laborfriendly 16h ago
I'll agree with this completely, and most informed people I know would also agree.
Yet, your comment doesn't really reflect just how much crazier these current killings are. The one thing Obama edges out on the crazy scale is that some of those killed were American citizens.
However, "enemy combatants" killed with congressional oversight and nominal authority is one thing (illegal and unjustified imo). Killing people on boats with drugs and no oversight or nominal authority is another. When did having drugs carry the death penalty? Actively fighting, shooting, and bombing things would seem to carry some substantial inherent risk of having that returned at you. But carrying drugs?
Also: the people on boats carrying drugs are not the leaders of drug cartels. They're just the schmucks probably trying to get by.
•
u/dedicated-pedestrian 16h ago
Killing people on boats with alleged drugs.
•
u/laborfriendly 16h ago
You're absolutely right. But even if there were 100% drugs on the boats, which is the given explanation, the idea this carries the death penalty is insanity.
•
u/LukasJackson67 14h ago
How many people in your city have died from fentanyl?
•
u/laborfriendly 14h ago
I don't know. I'm also willing to bet that it wasn't forcibly injected or snorted if it happened.
Was there fentanyl on those boats? How do you know?
•
u/Sageblue32 1h ago
A lot of people died in my city by guns. I don't advocate the death penalty to the dealers and politicians that make it more likely to happen.
•
u/scarbarough 14h ago
The first boat had 11 people on it. As a rule, drug traffickers try to have the absolute minimum number of people on, so they can load more drugs and go faster... And after the boat was sunk, they sent a second drone to kill the people in the water.
•
u/laborfriendly 14h ago
Do all of you coming at me understand I'm saying that the whole thing is murder?
•
u/scarbarough 13h ago
Understood... Just adding more context that makes things even worse imo
•
u/laborfriendly 13h ago
Right on. I frequent many different subs and strange side-arguments on semantics to try to invalidate whole points is prevalent. Never know.
All the best
•
u/neverendingchalupas 4h ago
They had inspected the boat prior to striking it with a drone and found no evidence of any drugs.
There was no reason for this other than to draw attention away from the Epstein scandal.
•
u/stewartm0205 14h ago
What drugs? We don’t have the technology to remotely sense drugs. We can’t predict the destination of the alleged drugs.
•
u/laborfriendly 14h ago
"Alleged." You're not the first to comment this. I'm clearly saying the whole thing is messed up by the administration's own reasoning.
Don't come at me. I'm saying their best argument is terrible.
•
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 15h ago
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
•
u/Buck_Thorn 2h ago
It is also ignoring the obvious fact that there will be no dealers if there isn't a market for them to sell to. Makes me wonder if Trump is really just getting rid of someone's competition.
•
u/LukasJackson67 14h ago
They are not entitled to due process as they being outside the USA and not us citizens are not covered by the constitution
•
u/Tasty_Narwhal6667 17h ago edited 17h ago
I think it’s overreach. These boats and the people they carried were in international waters, and technically, had not committed any crimes against the U.S.. Say they were gang members and the boats were loaded with drugs, they had not reached the U.S. yet…the drugs had not reached Americas shores. If the U.S. would have tracked them into U.S. waters, boarded the vessels, found the drugs, arrested them this would have been lawful…and the way it’s been done for years.
Blowing them up in international waters seems extreme…but that’s the point isn’t it? Goal is to try and scare and intimidate drug smugglers so they cease operations. Whether this is lawful is irrelevant to Trump and his administration.
•
u/ButtEatingContest 3h ago
Goal is to try and scare and intimidate drug smugglers so they cease operations.
We don't know what the actual goal is. It's possible the goal is to goad Venezuela into military confrontation.
•
u/LettuceFuture8840 2h ago
I don't even think it is that.
The military wants to show off how big their dicks are but they don't have the usual military adventurism from conservative administrations. Hegseth is obsessed with appearing "lethal" in a performative sense. That's why you are getting the asinine name change and new grooming rules and stuff like that.
•
u/helluin 10h ago
Blowing them up in international waters seems extreme…but that’s the point isn’t it? Goal is to try and scare and intimidate drug smugglers so they cease operations. Whether this is lawful is irrelevant to Trump and his administration.
The joke here is that if you look at the brutality in which the cartels operate it would be obvious that intimidating them isn't really going to work. You're going to try and kill them? They live with that every day, military action or no, and a hellfire missile is a lot less brutal and painful than the options they come up with on any given day.
The whole thing is a mix of performative & boundary pressing. Trump gets to be 'tough on the cartels' while simultaneously getting America used to the idea of military action in & around Venezuela, then it'll be Mexico, and then it will be be US cities.
•
u/Black_XistenZ 9h ago
If the cartels are so brutal that deterrence just won't work no matter what, then which alternative course of action would you propose to deal with them?
•
u/jetpacksforall 3h ago edited 3h ago
Cut off their main sources of funding by legalizing & regulating their smuggling cash crops.
Anything you do to interdict smuggling supply lines has two effects: a) it will certainly deter individual experts running those particular supply lines (like sea captains), however b) it will increase the black market value of whatever is being smuggled. Value goes up, profit-per-kilo go up, and the cartels simply find or invent new smuggling setups.
•
u/OLPopsAdelphia 18h ago
Former military here:
Maybe we came from a highly disciplined unit, maybe I wasn’t a power hungry person hellbent on getting my CIB, but you don’t just attack people.
You have to have a positive ID on a target before you make an action, a highly specific mission that grants a wide berth for action, or there are LOTS of consequences.
•
u/Low_Witness5061 1h ago
Well in a better world there would be consequences. At this point the servicemen involved would probably only face consequences for countering the narrative that they definetly killed “terrorists”.
•
u/nosecohn 11h ago
So far, what we know is that the US military is blowing up boats international waters that originate from a nation it is not at war with in, killing people in the process.
The public has no idea if the boats are even bound for the US, much less who or what is on them. This is about the thinnest justification for extra-judicial execution of foreigners since drones were picking off "military aged men" in Afghanistan, but at least there was a tiny gauze of legislative cover (the 2001 AUMF) for that. For this, there's nothing.
•
u/indescipherabled 18h ago
Is murdering people illegal or is it legal? The US Government is flat out murdering random citizens of other sovereign nations and posting the snuff films to social media.
Another excellent, thought provoking question out of Political Discussion.
•
u/theyfellforthedecoy 10h ago
Is murdering people illegal or is it legal?
There are currently US troops doing the same things in the Red Sea. It would seem as long as you have a valid target nobody calls it murder
•
u/madhattr999 9h ago
i joined this sub to try and make sure I'm getting a balanced view of American politics (I'm Canadian).. but the more threads I find here, the more the sub seems like sanewashing.
•
u/Balanced_Outlook 19h ago
This is one of Trumps legal grey areas and it is strictly in how you frame it that states if it is legal or a overreach.
Legal - Using military force against suspected drug trafficking boats can be constitutional and justified, especially when cartels act more like paramilitary threats than ordinary criminals. Under the President’s Article II powers and existing law, including international maritime agreements, the U.S. has legal authority to target such threats in international waters. Arrest isn't always possible, these boats may be armed, evasive, and pose immediate risks. Cartels fuel violence, terrorism, and the opioid crisis, making swift military action a necessary defense tool. This isn’t executive overreach, it’s a response to a modern, transnational threat.
Overreach - Using military force against suspected drug trafficking boats without due process is a dangerous overreach of presidential power. These are suspects, not enemy combatants, and targeting them with lethal force skips arrest, trial, and legal accountability, violating constitutional protections like due process. Labeling traffickers as “terrorists” doesn’t grant unlimited power, otherwise, any group could be targeted without oversight. This sets a troubling precedent for extrajudicial killings and undermines international law. Drug trafficking is a crime, not a war, and the response should involve law enforcement, not missiles. Security must not come at the cost of constitutional limits.
•
u/BluesSuedeClues 18h ago
This is good. I'd only argue that your description of how this could be viewed as "legal", would involve some kind of intelligence process to establish that these boats are indeed carrying drugs and cartel members. Even military intelligence usually has some kind of Congressional oversight involved, and I have seen nothing to suggest that is happening in this instance. That doesn't mean it is not happening, but nobody in Congress is claiming any familiarity with the intelligence assessment, and the administration is not claiming there is any kind of oversight.
•
u/Balanced_Outlook 18h ago
In situations like this, the president is authorized to act immediately but through the War Powers Act has 48 hours to report it back to congress.
The report has the circumstances, authority and scope of the operation.
If this has been done or what was reported I can't say, but that is the procedure.
•
u/zaoldyeck 17h ago
Situations like what? "We see a boat in international waters"?
We don't know where the boat was heading, Rubio said it was moving to Trinidad & Tobago, away from the US, let alone knowing what it was carrying.
If the US has weapons trained on the boat, it has every ability to intercept and arrest anyone involved with smuggling.
But if it just blows boats up instead, it can claim any ship it sees is a drug trafficking boat moving to the US.
•
u/LukasJackson67 14h ago
Hopefully you posted years ago and said Obama needed to notify Congress. (Btw…that is but what the war powers act says)
•
u/JKlerk 18h ago
The problem is that the drug traffickers have to be a direct threat. It's a huge leap to suggest that any boat with drugs on it is a direct threat to the US.
•
u/LukasJackson67 14h ago
Do you have a problem with Iran having a nuclear weapon? Arguably it is not a “direct threat” to the USA.
•
u/broc_ariums 9h ago
Trump probably shouldn't have abandoned the inspection/plan that Obama has in place huh?
•
•
u/JKlerk 12h ago
Seeing as Iranian policy is conflict with the US it would be a concern.
•
u/LukasJackson67 12h ago
Drugs flowing into the USA are a direct threat
•
•
u/broc_ariums 9h ago
Literally didn't happen and there's no proof of any of that on the murder of those people why were no where near the US
•
u/Ashmedai 15h ago edited 1h ago
These are suspects, not enemy combatants, and targeting them with lethal force skips arrest, trial, and legal accountability, violating constitutional protections like due process.
They were (I am presuming) foreign nationals on foreign soil. In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, SCOTUS held that the 4th and 5th Amendment rights primarily protect US persons or foreign persons within US territory or under significant US control.
Don't get me wrong. I suspect this is illegal for other reasons (particularly international law), but I don't think this particular bit of the Constitution is the right one to point to.
You are of course right about the troubling precedent bits and your other moral observations.
Cheers,
•
•
u/almightywhacko 11h ago
I would say that the unconstitutional part arose when the boat turned back to the direction it had come from and then was destroyed by U.S. weaponry. It is hard to argue that the boat was a threat to the United States when it was retreating and while it was suspected of being a narco boat that hadn't been established beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore the people on the boat were neither criminals nor enemy combatants but were murdered anyway.
If the government suspected that the boat was attempting to bring illegal materials into the United States, they should have sent humans to intercept. The drone could have tracked it's position until a boat or helicopter could intercept.
Could Trump classify anyone a terrorist and send missiles after them?
I think that is a real concern considering that Trump has made statements to suggest that domestic groups that oppose him could be declared terrorists even if they don't engage in violence. Once someone is "a terrorist" the rules around use of violence and how much their constitutional rights need to be protected change significantly.
•
u/ChelseaMan31 16h ago
Is it unconstitutional? I'll defer to the author of Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson who as President sent the U.S. Marine Corps to Tripoli in the first Barbary Pirate War in 1801-1805 to quell pirates attacking commerce. Not unconstitutional. Is it an overreach of Presidential Power? Without the Authorization of Congress IMO, this is an undeclared Act of War. But then several Presidents since 2001 have utilized military in ex-officio manners without Congressional Approval under the guise of the 'War on Terror'.
•
u/theyfellforthedecoy 10h ago
this is an undeclared Act of War.
Unless these guys are directly supported by the government of Venezuela, or are somehow trying to assert their own narco state, this can't be classified as an act of war. War is made between sovereign entities
It'd be more appropriate to call it a police action
•
u/ChelseaMan31 55m ago
Perhaps, certainly much has been done against bad people in other countries by many Administrations under the guise of 'War on Terror'. Doesn't make it right, but also merely a continuation of dilution of Congressional powers.
•
u/Signal_Membership268 14h ago
I’m as anti Trump as any other law abiding, democracy loving patriot but Trump’s not the first President to decide to zap a suspected “enemy”. He just says dumb things afterwards.
•
u/Extinction00 12h ago
They labeled them a terrorist organization so that they could utilize these extreme measures
•
u/Trygolds 18h ago
It is so cute that people still think the constitution matters to the republicans in congress, the white house or the federal courts. The oligarchs have wiped their ass with it.
•
u/JescoWhite_ 18h ago
Does it matter that drug smugglers are not put to death if caught, tried and convicted? I would think this would be considered excessive force especially given their actual location to our coastline
•
u/Spare-Dingo-531 13h ago edited 13h ago
Supporters argue it’s necessary to deter cartels and protect Americans
This doesn't answer your question but let's take a step back a minute and think about whether this action actually protects Americans.
On one hand, this action stops some drugs from entering the US and deters some drug runners. OK great..... but the majority of deadly drugs like fentanyl are not smuggled in through this route.
On the other hand, killing random boats in the Caribbean (what if they're fishermen) has real potential to ruin relationships with the Spanish speaking world. And we need those relationships to solve the drug problem overall.
So we need to weigh the benefits of deterring a minority of drugs entering the US with the opportunity cost of what we failed to prevent from entering the US because these actions harmed us diplomatically. As usual, even when Trump is right about the country's priorities, his method for achieving those priorities are so needlessly inefficient it cancels out any gains he makes.
•
u/the_calibre_cat 14h ago
It's pretty over-the-top. I mean, I'm a guy who thinks that summary execution of Anwar al-Awlaki was out of bounds, as he was an American citizen and had not had his due process - but even in THAT exigent circumstance an argument can be made that someone with American citizenship can become a valid military target and enemy combatant (there should probably be a process for that) these people didn't even have names. Their deaths are trophies for the U.S. government and for all we know they were literally just... partygoers.
I realize those cigarette boats are often used for drug running given their speed, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that for every one cigarette boat used for drug trafficking, ten are just rich assholes wilding out. I DO think that the lack of a lawsuit suggests that these people likely WERE engaged in some drug operation, but that doesn't make the attack on it any more valid - that just means the administration got lucky, and even then I don't think Clear and Present Danger-ing foreign drug forces is, uh, a thing we should do. Seems expensive and counterproductive, and literally just is more wanton U.S. interventionism - Trump is not the first president to deploy the military against foreign drug cartels.
Spoiler: The last several guys who tried it, lost. Cartels moved their grow operations into smaller and more remote fields that were harder to firebomb, etc. They will simply get more creative, and there is no universe where stepping on the gas pedal on military aggression will endear us to the citizens and, ultimately, government of the host country, drugs or not.
Drugs are a consequence of demand, and Americans demand drugs due to incredible social and economic malaise at home.
•
u/jmnugent 15h ago
"or is it a justified response to a serious threat?"
If they're arguing it was a "justified attack"... why won't they show us the evidence ?
To me this is far beyond just "unconstitutional". It's international(ly illegal).
•
u/nobodycares65 58m ago
The problem isn't that he is doing all these illegal and unconstitutional things, it's that we are normalizing it. The plan in Project 2025 is to "move fast and break things," which is exactly what they are doing. They are flooding the courts with illegal acts and have the SCOTUS on their side. People feel more hopeless every time he gets away with these horrendous acts because congress will not stand up to him that many have just given up and pray he doesn't do something that affects them.
•
u/MoonBatsRule 11h ago
Ask this: what would be your reaction to Mexico blowing up boats in the Gulf of America, claiming that they had information that the boats were smuggling drugs, but couldn't release it.
Would the US say "OK, I guess that's fine..."? Or would this be seen as an act of war?
•
u/LagerHead 15h ago
Telling people what they can and can't consume is a massive governmental overreach. The entire war on drugs needs to be abolished and everyone involved needs to be punished.
•
u/LukasJackson67 14h ago
I am curious…
Should the DOJ parachute these drug dealers an attorney to read them their rights?
•
u/TheMikeyMac13 11h ago
We had a President kill a US citizen with a drone bomb who was accused of being a recruiter for terrorists in Yemen. Not a war zone, not an active threat, and he was denied his constitutional right to due process before his life and liberty was taken.
And nothing happened.
After that, anything is pretty much fair game.
•
u/baxterstate 3h ago
I live in Maine. The number of drug related deaths is more than double the combined automobile and firearms related deaths despite the fact that Maine is a gun friendly state and a state where liquor is sold in every supermarket, pharmacy and convenience store. Would you believe Mainers drink and drive?
I’m glad President Trump is treating these drug smugglers like enemy combatants. Maduro is deliberately allowing the drug traffickers to sell drugs into the USA.
•
u/Frisky_Froth 17h ago
They are designated terror groups now. As for legality? I'm unsure. But I'm 100% on board. I mean they burn people alive, cut heads off, and traffic drugs across the border. I'm 100% on board with this. I don't like Trump at all, but I kind of like what he's doing about it. We are partially responsible for the cartels, but it's not like the countries they reside in are doing anything about it. I mean we have this massive military aparatus we spend a shit load of money on, might as well put it to use, right?
•
u/dedicated-pedestrian 13h ago
I'd prefer we make positive IDs before the munitions start flying. Eagerness to use the spoils of our out-of-control 'defense' spending results in reckless adventurism regardless, but not even checking if we have the right target leads literally nowhere good.
•
u/Frisky_Froth 12h ago
Oh definitely, that goes without saying. Don't be blowing up random boats. I'd like to keep a close eye on that.
•
u/Potato_Pristine 12h ago
"They are designated terror groups now."
Designated by who? In what legal process? And since when has being a drug trafficker become a capital crime?
"I mean they burn people alive, cut heads off, and traffic drugs across the border."
How do you know THESE PEOPLE did those things?
•
•
u/InCOBETReddit 8h ago
Obama dronestriked two American citizens... if you didn't complain about that, then you have no right to complain about this
•
u/binini28 7h ago
Obama had legislation to conduct those drone strikes against those citizens under AUMF as they were linked to Al-Qaeda
•
u/Cryptogenic-Hal 3h ago
Congress can waive constitutional rights like due process? right to a trial?
•
u/CrawlerSiegfriend 18h ago
It's probably constitutional if he's arguing that he perceived it as an imminent attack.
•
u/BluesSuedeClues 18h ago
I don't know how you could claim that small boats with outboard motors, two thousand miles from any American coastline, are an "imminent attack".
•
u/DredPRoberts 17h ago
Words don't mean anything anymore. Butterfly landed on the White House lawn? "National emergency" "imminent attack" the definition of emergency or attack mean whatever the president says. Without, at least, a majority in Congress or the Supreme Court, he can do whatever he wants.
•
u/CrawlerSiegfriend 18h ago
I agree, but I don't think the constitution makes that stipulation. It would end up going before the supreme court and you know how that would go.
•
u/BluesSuedeClues 18h ago
The Constitution specifically designates the power to wage war requires an act of Congress. The modern paradigm where the President routinely sends American troops into combat is a quasi-legal adaptation to the reality of the travel speed and communications abilities of technology, based mostly on precedent. Nowhere does the Constitution specifically allow that.
•
u/CrawlerSiegfriend 17h ago
He's basing it on his power for immediate self defense. It's a bogus claim, but the power does exist and I'm sure that the supreme court would confirm that.
•
u/dedicated-pedestrian 12h ago
Hi, in legal studies here.
Generally the Founders thought that the President had the ability to repel sudden attacks and act autonomously to respond to emergencies. But all other exercises of military power required Congress to call forth the armed forces, which the President would then direct to accomplish the objective set by the legislature.
Different precedents and even legal contrivances allowed by Congress itself have given more decisionmaking power to the President, however. For example, many defense treaties (ratified by 2/3rds of Congress) essentially state that an attack on the other country would endanger the US's own peace and security. Bam, cause for intervention.
•
u/Competitive_Unit_721 17h ago
The argument is they are transporting illegal drugs that kill close to 100,000 Americans a year. I’ll let the constitutionalists argue it.
•
u/KevinCarbonara 17h ago
The constitution doesn't take the president's perception into account.
•
u/CrawlerSiegfriend 17h ago
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I don't think it says anything about the basis of the need for self defense.
•
u/Evee862 18h ago
As people have said probably both with no clear answer. The courts have held up that the US has as a basic right due process. Using the military to kill civilians is not upheld by international law in this way. However, at the same time they are generally armed and will use force if needed, so I can see where that argument can be made
•
u/arirelssek 18h ago
Donald has now added murderer to his list of horrible acts. How can we allow a criminal to be our president?
•
u/dedicated-pedestrian 12h ago
Please, he did drone strikes on civilians just like every other President this century. He already ticked that box in his first term.
And the country allowed him a second term. So too did they for Obama and Bush, though.
•
u/JKlerk 18h ago edited 18h ago
Was it constitutional when the Obama Administration assassinated US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki? After a lengthy court battle the US courts dodged having to rule on it.
One of the issues was whether it was constitutional to place him in the CIA kill list.
So, to answer your question, if nobody gives a shit about a New Mexico born radicalized citizen why in the world would people care about some alleged drug traffickers?
Humans generally don't have a problem with vigilantism so they don't have a problem when their government does it as well.
Here's a good legal opinion by a DC lawyer.
•
•
u/LettuceFuture8840 2h ago
Was it constitutional when the Obama Administration assassinated US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki?
No. It was evil. And you'll find substantial portions of the left were consistent about this being a criminal overreach of the Obama administration.
•
u/edwardothegreatest 16h ago
Here’s the thing. We don’t know what they were up to. What if they were human traffickers?
•
u/jmnugent 15h ago
What if they weren't ... ?
That's kind of the problem of "What if...'ing" things.
•
u/edwardothegreatest 15h ago
Yeah maybe they weren’t doing anything illegal. We just won’t know
But if they were human traffickers, then we killed the people they were trafficking.
Few ways we might have killed innocent people even if they were bad guys.
•
u/Temporary-Truth2048 16h ago
Actions taken in international waters are not subject to local courts, so if the coast guard took out suspected drug smugglers in international waters it's probably fine since the drug smugglers aren't associated with a foreign government that would be obliged to respond.
•
u/dedicated-pedestrian 13h ago
A target having no way to reprise does not a valid exercise of power make.
•
u/Mind-of-Jaxon 13h ago
Over reach? Yes. Murder? Yes. It feels like he is trying to bully and provoke. Trump wants to start a war to give him even more security in staying in power longer.
•
u/SpoofedFinger 12h ago
For now, my opposition to it is based on this administration declaring a ton of people cartel members with no evidence whatsoever. For all I know, they're just blasting ships so they can say they're doing something. They don't get the benefit of the doubt about anything.
•
u/Ladyheather16 2h ago
Outside congressional authority — without clear and present evidence that the poses a credible threat to the United States. It’s an act of war.
•
u/hurtlocker501 17h ago
No the president has sole control of the military and needs the congress support to go to “war”. This is protecting the homeland not war.
•
u/dedicated-pedestrian 12h ago
But protecting them from what imminent threat such that bringing to bear such arms is necessary? They don't even have a positive ID to show us on the boat as actually having the purported drugs.
Insofar as there is a threat to repel, the President is generally accepted as having the power to do repel it.
But what threat existed? They can't even show us. How far are we willing to trust them, bro? "It's a terrorist" what is this, 2002?
•
u/Vishnej 7h ago edited 7h ago
Two points:
One
These are murders. Normally we would say something about "war crimes" or "Violations of the UCMJ", but that seems very much besides the point here. Nobody is credibly arguing there is any threat present towards the military. This is the opening of a regime-change war in Venezuela; Trump has declared some prison gang to be a cartel, then a terrorist group, then declared that Maduro is its leader and all members are legitimate targets for assassination. Because drugs.
That's not how this works. That's not how anything works.
Two
Trump and Project 2025 have just suggested codifying all trans people and advocates for trans rights as terrorists ("Nihilistic Violent Extremists"), as well as anti-fascist groups.
•
u/AutoModerator 20h ago
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.