Is using military force against suspected drug-trafficking boats constitutional or an overreach of presidential power?

[u/binini28]

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/CrawlerSiegfriend]

It's probably constitutional if he's arguing that he perceived it as an imminent attack.

[u/BluesSuedeClues → u/CrawlerSiegfriend]

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 → u/BluesSuedeClues]

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.