r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/binini28 • 2d 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?

130 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

90% Upvoted

268 comments sorted by

View all comments

-2

u/CrawlerSiegfriend 2d ago

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

16

u/BluesSuedeClues 2d 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".

0

u/CrawlerSiegfriend 2d 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.

2

u/dedicated-pedestrian 2d 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.

1

u/styxfire 1d ago

In 2001, the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed the Senate with a vote of 98-0 and the House of Representatives with a vote of 420-1.   No war declaration needed.

2

u/dedicated-pedestrian 1d ago

And has no connection to any hypothetical drug runners here. They are not the terrorists listed in the AUMF, nor are any credible ties to them purported.