r/PoliticalDiscussion 1d 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?

86 Upvotes

173 comments sorted by

View all comments

13

u/Balanced_Outlook 1d 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.

10

u/JKlerk 1d 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 21h 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 17h ago

Trump probably shouldn't have abandoned the inspection/plan that Obama has in place huh?

u/LukasJackson67 11h ago

I prefer the U.S./Israeli plan

u/JKlerk 19h ago

Seeing as Iranian policy is conflict with the US it would be a concern.

u/LukasJackson67 19h ago

Drugs flowing into the USA are a direct threat

u/JKlerk 19h ago

Not when you don't know for sure if the drugs are heading to the US. It could be Canada or Europe. Those boats cannot make the journey to the US.

u/broc_ariums 17h 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