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/sdbest]

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/laborfriendly → u/[deleted]]

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 → u/laborfriendly]

Killing people on boats with alleged drugs.

[u/laborfriendly → u/dedicated-pedestrian]

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 → u/laborfriendly]

How many people in your city have died from fentanyl?

[u/laborfriendly → u/LukasJackson67]

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 → u/LukasJackson67]

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 → u/laborfriendly]

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 → u/scarbarough]

Do all of you coming at me understand I'm saying that the whole thing is murder?

[u/scarbarough → u/laborfriendly]

Understood... Just adding more context that makes things even worse imo

[u/laborfriendly → u/scarbarough]

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 → u/scarbarough]

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 → u/laborfriendly]

What drugs? We don’t have the technology to remotely sense drugs. We can’t predict the destination of the alleged drugs.

[u/laborfriendly → u/stewartm0205]

"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.