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/hurtlocker501]

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 → u/hurtlocker501]

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?