Another Military Strike on a Speedboat Confirms Trump's Policy of Murdering Suspected Drug Smugglers
The president's new approach to drug law enforcement represents a stark departure from military norms and criminal justice principles.
After President Donald Trump ordered a drone strike that killed 11 alleged drug smugglers on a speedboat in the Caribbean Sea on September 2, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the attack signaled a new approach to drug law enforcement. "Instead of interdicting it, on the president's orders, we blew it up—and it'll happen again," Rubio told reporters.
It happened again on Monday, when U.S. forces blew up another speedboat in the Caribbean, killing three people whom Trump described as "confirmed narcoterrorists from Venezuela." Although Trump frames his unprecedented use of the U.S. military to summarily execute drug suspects as "self-defense," it plainly does not fit that description. By his own account, he has unilaterally decided to impose the death penalty on alleged drug traffickers for the sake of deterrence. That policy represents a stark departure from both military norms and criminal justice principles.
As Georgetown law professor Marty Lederman noted after the September 2 drone strike, the Department of Defense previously adhered to the principle that "the military must not use lethal force against civilians, even if they are alleged, or even known, to be violating the law." Lederman added that "it's difficult to understand how it came to pass that the non-appointed military officials and enlistees involved in the operation assented to such an indefensible breach of the fundamental norm against targeting civilians."
The Trump administration "has not even seriously tried to present a legal argument to justify the premeditated killing of the people aboard these two vessels," former State Department lawyer Brian Finucane told The New York Times. "The U.S. president does not have a license to kill suspected drug smugglers on that basis alone."
Rear Adm. Donald J. Guter, who served as the Navy's top judge advocate general from 2000 to 2002, concurred. "Trump is normalizing what I consider to be an unlawful strike," he said.
In a letter to Congress after the first boat attack, Trump said he was exercising his "constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive" to protect U.S. "national security and foreign policy interests." Drug cartels have "wrought devastating consequences on American communities for decades, causing the deaths of tens of thousands of United States citizens each year and threatening our national security and foreign policy interests both at home and abroad," he wrote. "We have now reached a critical point where we must meet this threat to our citizens and our most vital national interests with United States military force in self-defense."
Despite that framing, Trump does not claim the men whose deaths he ordered were engaged in literal attacks on the United States. The justification in both cases was that the targets were "transporting illegal narcotics," which Trump dubiously equates with violent aggression.
Sebastian Gorka, Trump's top counterterrorism adviser, echoed that conflation in a recent Newsmax interview. "This is a war," he said, and "the cartel started it." Drug traffickers "are an exigent threat to the United States" because they are "killing Americans in mass numbers," he explained, so "we will take the fight" to them.
Anyone who questions the justice of criminalizing consensual transactions among adults will have trouble accepting the premise that selling drugs is morally equivalent to homicide. And critics of prohibition would be quick to note all the ways in which that policy makes drug use more dangerous, contributing to the deaths that Trump claims he is trying to prevent. In any case, drug trafficking is not ordinarily punishable by death, even with the due process that Trump decided these alleged smugglers did not deserve.
"Killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military," Vice President J.D. Vance declared in an X post on September 6. "What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial," Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) responded.
Trump has no patience with such legal niceties because he is intent on sending a message to drug traffickers. "Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America," he said on Truth Social after the first attack. "BEWARE!" He reiterated that rationale on Monday: "BE WARNED — IF YOU ARE TRANSPORTING DRUGS THAT CAN KILL AMERICANS, WE ARE HUNTING YOU!"
Trump's bloodthirstiness is not surprising given his frequently expressed support for executing drug dealers. Now he has taken that policy preference a step further, dispensing with the need for statutes that authorize the death penalty, criminal charges, and trials where the government has to prove its case.
During his first term, Trump repeatedly praised Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, a brutal drug warrior who likened himself to Adolf Hitler while urging the murder of drug offenders. Trump bragged of his "great relationship" with Duterte, who he said was doing "a great job" in tackling substance abuse. Now Trump seems bent on copying his example.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Robert Redford died... but before everyone throws out sympathy... remember, he was Robert Redford after all...
RIP RR
What the hell was he doing on a Venezuelan drug boat?
Trying to get back to US after escaping Bolivia.
Best internet comment of the day!
I LOLed. Would LOL again.
JS;dr
JS;dr
Who needs lawyers and courts when we have a military with an itchy trigger finger? Plus as a libertarian, I trust everything the government says so if Trump said they're terrorists, let God sort 'em out.
And it's totally gonna work this time.
The pentagon has lawyers dumdum. Most strikes go through the military review for legality.
Sorry that your pedophilia stops you from accessing classified information though. I'm sure youre a fountain of knowledge.
The Constitution according to Trumptards: your right to a lawyer really means a Pentagon-employed lawyer that represents the government, not you, and the right to face your accuser really means the right to receive a missile to the face by your accuser. Accused, signed off, and bombed all by the executive branch because the Constitution says nothing about checks and balances.
You speak of a document you seemingly have never read. What is the wording for foreign entanglements shrike?
Were the courts involved in the Barbary pirates?
Your lack of education remains consistent to your arguments.
Everything in your post is proof you dont understand our constitution or requirements especially in regards to those not in the country. A childlike ignorance to reality is the basis of your belief system.
There is a reason Obamas killing of a US citizen is mentioned prior to designated foreign terrorists groups. Youre just too dumb to understand reality.
And you're too tight on Trump's ass to explain anything that would embarrass Trump.
Were the courts involved in the Barbary pirates?
Congress was involved in both Barbiary Wars. Jefferson was under no impression that he could do anything beyond protecting American vessels, and that was after Tripoli had declared war on the USA. Congress passed an AUMF type declaration. And Madison requested and recieved a Declaration of War from Congress for the 2nd. And also smuggling and piracy are two different crimes.
Two more who prefer arguing from what they believe the law is and not what it actually is.
Nor can understand I haven't made an opinion on the action, but only discussed the actual facts.
Apparently argumentation from ignorance is a growing fad.
If the law exists and you disagree with it, argue against the law.
If you want to be ignorant political shits, argue against the person following current precedence and the law. First rule of sarc.
That doesn't cut it. These two strikes were simple murder.
Exactly. As long as Trump is in charge the government is above criticism. And when Democrats are back in charge, and do the exact same things, it will be evil again. Right and wrong are determined by who, not what.
But they're totally not in a cult.
The two most ignorant motherfuckers on the site cuddle together to condemn their enemies. How quaint.
Talk about cuddling together! You just wish Trump would respond to your liplock.
Go ahead and explain how these two strikes were not murder. You can't, any more than you can explain how tariffs are not taxes, or that trade deficits and foreign investments are the same thing.
And up to the 3 most ignorant.
Just like sarc and shrike you are arguing against a person following current legal and constitutional construction. Instead of arguing against the current legal and constitutional construction. Youre probably too fucking dumb to understand the difference. Retreating to sarc like argumentation.
Now try to argue how the facts above are incorrect. You cant. Your only concern is the who, not reality. Because you rely on ignorance and emotion.
Trump is such a liar, how do you know this even happened?
The narcoterrorist blew up after they ran into a teleprompter.
I'm sorry you just now figured out that the constitution does end at the border.
But this is how real life works.
They cant be bothered with reading the documents or processes they opine about. They have maddow telling them their arguments.
Then you acknowledge that foreign governments can kill Americans anywhere outside US territory.
Such as Lockerbie. Such as Gaza. Such as anywhere.
What a sorry excuse for logic.
Why yes, they can.
Welcome to how the world actually works.
You hold the bigger stick or you're dead.
Too bad there's no consistency in the reality.
He has 4+ posts now centered on someone executing the law and constitution as defined in reality. He has 0 posts arguing against this construction. His only concern is political attacks.
You say this like you're as confused about laws and borders as Reason Magazine or Brittney Griner.
If Ukraine can blow up oil pipelines in NATO territory, blowing up a few narcoterrorists should be a piece of cake.
The hilarious part is, Reason itself already made the case that this isn't your typical "One person bought a dime bag from their neighborhood home grower.", these people are recognized more as extortionists and assassins who just happen to traffic drugs.
Jesse, see my comment below quoting Articles I and VI.
Regarding your earlier comment (again invoking the conduct of conflict with the Barbary Pirates in the very early 1800's), don't you think it's past time to stop trying to analogize those circumstances to the extreme control the president has the people he's causing to kill other people on small boats far from the U.S. today? Just because conflict merely happened on the water and far from the US in about 1801 doesn't make it analogous to today's use of force.
I can disagree with his actions while noting his actions are not illegal nor unconstitutional. That is how our society is structured.
These attacks occurred against a designated terrorist group, using intelligence, in international waters, in route to the US and its protectorates. There is nothing in current construction that makes this illegal, yet murder.
Protection of borders is in fact and article 2 duty. Take care clause.
So I have no rational reason to be against this purely from a construction standpoint.
From a discussion from a moral or intellectual sense, I have to weigh the effects of the action against designated terrorists against the societal harm of anarchy tyranny. I'm not an anarchist. So the weight is close.
But since I do not have all the facts, I offer no judgement in this case. I do know that from all reports this is a typical drug running operation based on the layout of the boat and it's motors.
Long post short. I'm agnostic to this because I just dont care for drug dealers as much as most seem to. The harm they do is a direct violation of the NAP. So I can see the acts against them as a response.
I see this from the perspective of someone in a border state that used to love going south of the border and have seen first hand and talked to victims of cartels. The people in El Salvador are not crying over their lives since the gangs were targeted by their government. I dont believe tbe rights of the majority need to be undermined by the rights of criminals.
Jesse, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. How is designating a terrorist organization even relevant to this issue? How does it justify killing someone under these circumstances? How does the fact that the killings occurred in international waters affect anything? What law and what facts did you consider before deciding these killings were not murder? What facts did you consider before deciding these killings were protecting our borders?
As you admitted, "I do not have all the facts." All you merely think you "know" is merely "from all reports this is a typical drug running operation based on the layout of the boat and it's motors." You represented that you "offer no judgement in this case," but, in fact, your express judgment was that "There is nothing in current construction that makes this illegal, yet murder."
Rest assured nothing anyone says about "discussion from a moral or intellectual sense" concerns me at all. I'm concerned only with supporting and defending our Constitution and the people and principles it protects.
Rest assured also that I have no interest in protecting drug dealers. My interest is in ensuring that the people Trump is killing really are the kind of people he says that they are. Nothing I've learned of Trump since the time he started campaigning for president the first time leads me to believe I should accept anything he says at face value. Trump is, after all, the candidate that boasted that his own supporters were so lacking in common sense that he could murder someone on 5th Avenue and they'd still elect him. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-i-could-shoot-somebody-and-i-wouldnt-lose-any-voters/
Jesse, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. How is designating a terrorist organization even relevant to this issue?
Just say you are ignorant and stop there lol.
Did obamas numerous strikes in Yemen, lybia, Iraq, Iran move to war with those countries. Did his insertion of troops into Pakistan for Biden mean war?
It is clear you have zero understanding of constitutional or legal construction per your first paragraph. Construction that goes back all the way to the Barbary pirates.
Then the fact you try to use a comment not an action as the apex of your defense is extra fucking hilarious. While claiming you aren't making a political argument.
Again. I apologize for thinking you were informed or here for honest debate.
Jesse, just answer the question: How is designating a terrorist organization even relevant to whether Trump and Hegseth committed murder or not?
Calling the sanctioned killings “murder” doesn’t make it such. It wasn’t murder because it was justified. Yes, people (narcoterrorists here) were killed. It isn’t killing though thats forbidden by the Ten Commandments- rather it is murder. The Old Testament is chock full of killings, mostly morally justified, and thus not Murder. And, guess what? In our Democratic Republic, it’s not your job to determine whether the killings were justified. That here, is in the hands of the President and maybe Congress. If Congress disagrees, with the President’s determination, they can Impeachment him. And your redress then is to petition Congress for redress. And vote for his opponent in the next election, as, I suspect you did in the last one.
Every single military and quasi-military operation falls into this. Every covert (or not) SEAL team operation, or droning of terrorists in foreign countries does too.
Bruce, what legal authority do you think authorized the killings you claim were justified?
Nobartium, the reach of our Constitution clearly (even expressly) extends beyond our borders. That's the precise point of including "all Treaties" in "the supreme Law of the Land." https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/#article-6-clause-2.
That's also the precise point of emphasizing that only Congress has the power to "declare War." https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/#article-1-section-8-clause-11
That crucial constitutional separation-of-powers precaution is lost on Trump. On March 14, Trump issued a Proclamation that we were at war with Venezuela. Congress didn't declare war, so Trump and Hegseth are actively and openly trying to start a war. As the NY Times piece revealed regarding Trump's latest attack on a Venezuelan boat:
"Trump’s top counterterrorism adviser, Sebastian Gorka, said," “What we are saying is: This is a war, the cartel started it and we’re declaring war on you.”
There cannot be any treaty which overrules the constitution (and inevitably, there must be one). If one does exist, the the US has no sovereignty.
As for separation of powers, Congress delegates this away all the time.
Nobartium, obviously no treaty overrules our Constitution. I thought that went without saying. Our Constitution says all treaties are part of the supreme law of the land, just below our Constitution.
Part of the significance of our Constitution declaring that it is "the supreme Law of the Land" is that it is law that Congress cannot change. Congress cannot delegate a duty that our Constitution emphatically assigned to Congress for good reason.
There is a lot that they can delegate (as evidenced by the existence of the Federal Reserve).
As for war, WPA (which, given it's exceptions, must be unconstitutional under your interpretation) makes clear that it cannot be sustained. And these one-off events are not.
Nobartium, obviously Congress can delegate some things. Equally obviously, our Constitution precludes Congress from delegating some things. That's the point of the Constitution somewhat separating powers.
What about the WPA makes you think it might be unconstitutional?
If you can't start something (these attacks), then all military actions must be covered under that core power.
Therefore, the allowances in the WPA are unconstitutional (unless delegation is much wider than that).
Nobartium, I don't understand what you think you said. Please be more explicit.
We currently only have trade treaties with Venezuela. Maduro is already under grand jury indictment. The US doesn't even recognize Maduro as the proper ruler of Venezuela.
Jesse, how do we know what treaties are relevant? How do we know the citizenship of all the people on the boats Trump attacked? In addition, the relevant treaties aren't limited to bilateral treaties (between the US and Venezuela).
Congress delegates this away all the time.
Delegates away or abdicates. Into our fourth presidency auspiciously across three administrations without immigration reform.
But mail-in voting can be conceptualized and enacted nation-wide in less than 6 mos.
Sounds like grounds for impeachment to me. or at least 25th Amendment grounds for removal. His dementia is getting worse.
And where are the naval brass? They should know this is an illegal order and refused to fire. Take them into custody and examine the boat, then try them if they are indeed smugglers.
Parody.
This has not been held by SCOTUS which had clearly ruled the constitution does not protect foreigners in other countries.
They just did so again a few years ago.
Foreigners in country do recieve some, but not all protections. See upholding of INA.
These people were never in the US.
Jesse, if you read SCOTUS opinions, you might learn that they don't say what people say that they say. Show me an opinion in which you think SCOTUS "clearly ruled the constitution does not protect foreigners in other countries," and I'll show you that it doesn't say what you said.
The Supreme Court has historically held that the U.S. Constitution applies to "persons" within the United States and its territories, but not to individuals outside its territorial jurisdiction. It's quite simple.
1.) The United States has no legitimate means to enforce the Constitution on other nations. For instance, our Constitutional 1A and 2A protections clearly do not apply to mooks in the UK, European Union, or Australia.
2.) Any other reading renders the sovereignty of other nations moot, and elevates the United States to the position of one-world government.
See.more, I appreciate your points. But as I said to Jesse, show me an opinion in which you think SCOTUS "clearly ruled the constitution does not protect foreigners in other countries," and I'll show you that it doesn't say what you said.
You appear to be thinking about a limited context (you cited the First and Second Amendments). Saying that rights enumerated in our Constitution don't protect foreigners abroad is not at all the same as saying our entire Constitution does not protect any foreigner anywhere abroad.
The reach of our Constitution clearly and expressly extends beyond our borders. That's the precise point of including "all Treaties" in "the supreme Law of the Land." https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/#article-6-clause-2.
Your "challenge" here demonstrates a clear bias -- "and I'll show you that it doesn't say what you said" -- that makes answering your challenge a worthless endeavor. Intentional or not, the implication is that you will find a way to read any such decisions so as to confirm your bias.
Let's try the contra challenge. Why don't you provide any SCotUS decisions that afirm that the "constution does protect foreigners in other countries" that are not subject to US jurisdiction.
The best, I think, you will find is the jurisprudence that the Constitution is applicable to the US government any time it exercises its power anywhere.
If the "Constitution clearly and expressly extends beyond our borders" (emphasis added) there would have been no need to include treaties in the Supremacy Clause.
Please link which clause(s) of the Constitution "clearly and expressly" extend its provisions and pretections to foreign nationals on foreign soil beyond the jurisdiction of the United States.
Indeed, this Article, Applying the U.S. Constitution Abroad, from the Era of the U.S. Founding to the Modern Age, demonstrates that there is certainly no clear or expressed extension of the Constitution to foreigners on foreign soil.
See.more, I think you don't understand the word "bias." I don't have any bias at all regarding this issue. You also misunderstood my offer. I'm not challenging anyone to anything. I don't have time for silly challenges. I offered to help someone learn something, just like I tried to help you learn something in other comments. I'm not here to waste my time merely playing games with you or anyone else.
Article III says that "[t]he judicial Power shall extend" only to certain kinds of "Cases" or "Controversies." Those words limit the power of all federal judges to make any pronouncement construing our Constitution. Judges' power is limited to applying the controlling law to the material facts of the particular case or controversy that is before the judge(s) at that time.
Judges have no power to make a sweeping legally-binding pronouncement about what our Constitution says or does not say in ALL cases or controversies regarding ALL foreigners ANYWHERE outside the US. Even if a judge does actually assert a sweeping pronouncement, it might very well have no legal effect on many other cases.
There's very good reason for that. The only people who are represented in the litigation are the people whose case is being decided. It's egregiously unfair (and unconstitutional) to decide the what protections a person has or does not have when they have no chance to represent themselves in that particular case.
OK, two simple questions dumbass:
1. Which treaty with which nation were these people subject to? No handwaving. Names, IDs, passports, where were their parents born, where was the ship flagged out of. What country is regarding this as an act of *W*ar? I don't know what evidence the Trump administration has but your conflicted and selective/largely baseless assertions about The Constitution don't count as proof of anything one way or the other.
2. Given "We The People..." *if* Congress were, per your own citation, responsible for defending the US and making sure these people were subject to a uniform naturalization *and* the judiciary were similarly opposed to the will of the people, it's your assertion that the only two options The People have are subjugation or violent insurrection?
Even more simply; if Mexico were to declare war on the US and Congress refused to defend US territory, is it your interpretation that the Constitution says that the people of any invaded or attacked state are without recourse? Or, if the POTUS defends them and the Judiciary reins him in, they are entirely without Federal recourse?
Because, as I obliquely mention, your quoting and interpretation of "the supreme *L*aw of *L*and" with regard to a boat at sea seems to be obliviously self-motivated and working backwards from a conclusion rather than forward from any evidence, proof, or facts or in adherence with any sort of libertarian principle.
mad man, there's not a chance I'll waste even a second answering any question for you with the way you started.
mad man, you piqued my curiosity. What do you think our Constitution says or requires "if Mexico were to declare war on the US and Congress refused to defend US territory"? Show us that you have at least an inkling of the relevant language of our Constitution.
Which is it. Are you not going to answer my questions or have I piqued your curiosity?
Because maybe you're more like a cat with a laser pointer, but you still generally seem to be living up to my assessment as a dumbass.
mad man, are you afraid to try to answer my question?
Certainly less than you are to answer mine.
mad man, then answer the question, if you dare to try.
I did. You asked if I was afraid. I said less than you are. Your turn.
I'm even so generous as to let you take your pick:
If it's unconstitutional for a/the POTUS to act on powers delegated to it, is it not also unconstitutional for Congress to perform it's duties under the Constitution?
*or*
Which treaties were which people who were on which boat covered by and what's your evidence or proof?
mad man, you apparently misconstrued my question. I wasn't asking about your willingness to answer my question about whether you were afraid to answer my first question. I was asking about your willingness (or ability) to answer the first question I asked:
What do you think our Constitution says or requires "if Mexico were to declare war on the US and Congress refused to defend US territory"? Show us that you have at least an inkling of the relevant language of our Constitution.
You first. What treaties of what lands were violated?
You can continue to dodge all that you like but my original questions still stand and your insistence that I'm on the hook for something I neither claimed nor owe to anyone doesn't make you look any more knowledgeable, intelligent, honest, or engaged in good faith. It just continues to affirm my assertion that you're a dumbass.
Seriously, this isn't even 5th grade math class hard, simply citing the rules of how to factor polynomial equations doesn't count, you have to solve the specific problem and show your work. Show us all where The Constitution declares military or other violent law enforcement action without Congressional approval to be murder. Show us all which Treaty the US is bound to that covers the alleged murder of these individuals. You're asserting yourself the expert and that I'm too afraid, so go ahead. I've asked for a third time now. Anybody reading this has probably got an uneasy feeling that you don't actually know and deflecting a third time will really start to cement the fact that you don't really know at all and are just bullshitting.
So go ahead, dumbass.
mad man, I'm just going to mute you so that I don't have to look at your foolish ever again. Your writing isn't even worth the time required to read it.
As long as we're clear that you don't have any evidence of anything or even a clue, it's no skin off my back if you mute me. We'd all be better off if you muted and didn't reply to any of us.
Unfortunately, whether it's a threat or a promise, you've proven yourself to be such an utter dumbass that it's almost certainly not going to be upheld.
Harsher language for a designated terrorist group than a murdered citizen on J6 is a choice I guess.
No one was murdered on J6. I have no idea where you even get that from. The heroic actions by the Capital Police stopped the mob from getting to their targets.
Dumbass.
No one was murdered on J6.
What about AOC? Racist.
So murder for drug running. Not murder for trespassing. Got it.
Jesse, the thing is that we have no idea whether those people really were running drugs when they were killed. Even less do we know that they would have done anything that would have affected anyone in the US or crossed any US border.
Regarding J6, we all can watch the videos and see for ourselves what happened. I didn't see anyone killed as punishment for trespassing. Did you? If so, who? I saw one person get shot because she was so foolish as to continue smashing through a door while someone was pointing a gun directly at her a few feet from her (and I believe she was being instructed to stay back or stop what she was doing). Anybody who does that is practically asking to get shot, especially when they actually know their actions are perceived as posing a serious threat to the physical safety of other people.
Trump bragged of his "great relationship" with Duterte, who he said was doing "a great job" in tackling substance abuse. Now Trump seems bent on copying his example.
Methinks Trump will not be arrested and put on trial in the ICC. Nor - unlike the Philippines - is there anyone in the US who will ever hold Trump accountable.
"Nobody will hold Trump accountable".
Hmmm.
I don't see demands from you about any accountability on a vegetable holding an office he was incredibly incapable of actually holding.
I don't see demands from you about any accountability on a vegetable holding an office he
wasis incredibly incapable of actually holding.FIFY
The question is, were warning shots fired in front of the speedboat?
Doubt it. Drones typically carry missiles, not guns.
Blowing up a boat last week was the warning shot.
fundamental norm against targeting civilians
War has no such norm, nor should it. Victory or death.
Oh so Congress declared war? Or is this another illegal executive-declared nebulous war that allows the President to kill anyone anywhere under the guise of terrorism?
They declared it when the re-approve the defense appropriations, AUMFs all tucked in.
They are, in fact, worthless.
Nobartium, if defense appropriations are the same as a declaration of war, why does our Constitution (Article I) expressly identify them as two different powers?
We aren't at war. It is an action against a declared terrorist group.
We currently do not recognize Maduro as even leading Venezuela.
Jesse, what words in any legal authority authorized killing the people on either of the boats Trump attacked this month?
Our Constitution (Article VI) emphasized that "the supreme Law of the Land" is limited to our "Constitution" and federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution and "all Treaties." It doesn't include the president, presidential proclamations or executive orders.
Article VI further emphasized that all legislators and "all executive and judicial Officers" (state and federal) are "bound" to "support [our] Constitution." How were the actions of Trump or Hegseth supporting our Constitution or complying with the supreme law of the land?
Everything Trump does must be to fulfill his oath to "preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution" to "the best of [his] Ability." Trump does not have (and he cannot have) any power to do anything that does not "preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution" to "the best of [his] Ability." That is part of the point of Article VI emphasizing that "the supreme Law of the Land" is limited to our "Constitution" and federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution and "all Treaties" and "all executive and judicial Officers" (state and federal) are "bound" to "support [our] Constitution."
“Preserve, protect, and defend” our Constitution has long been held to include protecting us from foreign enemies.
Bruce: exactly right. The president's constant duty is to “Preserve, protect, and defend” our "Constitution."
Amendment V expressly and specifically states a command that clearly is controlling here: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”
Article III states another command that is controlling: a “Trial of all Crimes” of which Trump accused the people he killed “shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed.”
Amendment VI states another command that is controlling: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to” a “public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”
They passed the law allowing the designation of foreign terrorist groups. Yes.
Next retarded question shrike.
Show us the statute that allows a president to kill anyone he alone deems to be a terrorist.
You can't because there is none.
Lying MAGA trash.
We are used to his hatred of the law and the Constitution and his preference for a totalitarian dictatorship.
Jesse, what makes you think that a "designation of foreign terrorist groups" is tantamount to a declaration of war? If such a designation is effectively the same as declaring war, what's the point of having a separate list of designees?
The Trump administration doesn't even say that such a designation is the same as a declaration of war: https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/
You keep begging the question. Thought you were trying to have an honest conversation.
There is no war. There is no declaration of war.
Sorry for mistaking your intent.
Jesse, I'm not begging the question, I'm expressly asking the question. You implied that designating a foreign terrorist organization somehow equates with the power to wage war, didn't you? Don't you think that designating a foreign terrorist organization somehow means Trump and Hegseth can kill people in that organization? If that's what you think, please help me understand why?
Please help me understand what legal authority applies to what material facts to warrant the conclusion that Trump and Hegseth didn't merely commit summary executions (murders) of people on a boat out in the ocean far from anyone they could have endangered in the US.
Sadly, hawks will (unjustifiably and un-Constitutionally) cite the "war on terror." Kinda like Obama drone striking Americans somewhere in sanddickistan.
Since we have "declared war on terror," all terrorists are subject to warlike actions, or so the "justification" goes.
See.more, here's my point. For hours Jesse has been ranting at (and insulting) people while Jesse merely assumes (or merely pretends) that the FTO designation somehow authorizes Trump and Hegseth to kill people. Why did Jesse do that? Because Trump and his sycophants merely pretend that the designation does so, and Jesse swallows whatever they spit out (or he expects the rest of us to swallow it). So I've asked Jesse many times how the designation is relevant. His first response to me today was "Just say you are ignorant and stop there lol."
But I didn't only ask Jesse how the designation was relevant. Hours ago, I even gave Jesse a link (below) showing that his many allusions to an FTO were illusory as justification for killing. Nothing anywhere said anything about an FTO designation even having the potential to authorize anyone to kill anyone anywhere. Maybe Jesse looked at the information in the link and he knew that. Maybe Jesse didn't even bother to look. He just kept on going for hours.
The Trump administration doesn't even say that such a designation authorizes killing anyone: https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/
That link prominently provides information (under a big, bold caption) about the "Legal Ramifications of Designation" as an FTO. No one could even think that authorization to kill people is included in the Legal Ramifications of Designation as an FTO.
Perhaps not, but people certainly do believe that, under the "War on Terror" umbrella, designation as an FTO justifies warlike conduct (including murder by drone) against said FTO.
see.more, how is it relevant that "people certainly do believe that, under the "War on Terror" umbrella, designation as an FTO justifies warlike conduct (including murder by drone) against said FTO"?
It also goes without saying. I just explained to you that Jesse was saying that same thing for hours. Why would you think I need you to explain it to me?
Jesse, how is designating a terrorist organization even relevant to this issue? How does it justify killing someone under these circumstances?
Huh?
Jesse, five hours ago, I asked you a question related to the following: What makes you think that a "designation of foreign terrorist groups" authorized Trump and Hegseth to kill anyone?
I even gave you a link (below) showing that your many allusions to an FTO as mere illusory as justification for killing. Nothing said anything about an FTO designation even having the potential to authorize anyone to kill anyone anywhere.
The Trump administration doesn't even say that such a designation authorizes killing anyone: https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/
That link prominently provided the following information specifically addressing the
"Legal Ramifications of Designation" as an FTO:
It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide “material support or resources” to a designated FTO. (The term “material support or resources” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(1) as ” any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who maybe or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(2) provides that for these purposes “the term ‘training’ means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(3) further provides that for these purposes the term ‘expert advice or assistance’ means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.’’
Representatives and members of a designated FTO, if they are aliens, are inadmissible to and, in certain circumstances, removable from the United States (see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182 (a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)-(V), 1227 (a)(1)(A)).
Any U.S. financial institution that becomes aware that it has possession of or control over funds in which a designated FTO or its agent has an interest must retain possession of or control over the funds and report the funds to the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Nobartium, why should we take your word that "War has no such norm" as not "targeting civilians"? Until about a minute ago (see my comment above re: Articles I and VI) you didn't even realize our Constitution reach extended beyond our borders.
You cannot fight a war without accepting (or even inflicting) deaths. Failure to do so guarantees failure.
Nobartium, it seems like you continue to say things that are so obvious that they should go without saying. Nobody said anything about expecting to "fight a war without accepting (or even inflicting) deaths."
Yet, you continue to call it Murder, and insist that the President doesn’t have the power or moral duty to order foreigners killed who attacking our country.
Bruce: show me any legal authority that authorizes the president to kill people outside U.S. jurisdiction because the president merely contends (or even if he can prove) that such people are preparing to commit a crime in the future inside U.S. jurisdiction. You can't because it doesn't exist.
So anti-war president Rump is going to start a war with Venezuela ? Are we at least getting oil out of this ?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/26/nicolas-maduro-us-indictment-venezuela-drug-trafficking-leaders
What war? You have claimed Maduro has no connection to TdA when screaming about the AEA declaration. Are you now claiming they are linked?
The war Rump is about to start.
No, I'm claiming that we are killing ppl in an area we don't have an AUMF for , with no clear identification of involvement in a group we have an AUMF against, that isn't within our borders that AEA would cover. On the word of Rump, of which whom I trust even less than I normally trust a politician.
Were the situation reversed, we'd be at war by now. So I can only guess that war is the point of this farce of executive overreach.
So we aren't at war. Got it.
Jesee, on March 14, Trump issued a Proclamation that we were at war with Venezuela. Congress didn't declare war, so Trump and Hegseth are actively and openly trying to start a war. As the NY Times piece revealed regarding Trump's latest attack on a Venezuelan boat:
"Trump’s top counterterrorism adviser, Sebastian Gorka, said," “What we are saying is: This is a war, the cartel started it and we’re declaring war on you.”
This is just false.
He declared an invasion under AEA as the law requires for use. This is not a declaration of war nor does it require such declaration.
What Gorka states is not what is formally declared. Nice attempt at redirection though.
This also has nothing to do with declaring TdA a foreign terrorist organization. Same issue as when they went after ISIS in multiple countries we were not at war with.
Sorry for thinking you were trying to argue honestly.
Jesse, specifically what was false that I wrote? Did you read Trump's March 14 Proclamation?
You contended "This is not a declaration of war" as if that weren't obvious. A president's mere proclamation cannot be a declaration of war by Congress. Two different documents, two different departments of government, two different sections of our Constitution.
Jesse, you keep dodging the question: Again, you invoked Trump's "declaring TdA a foreign terrorist organization," but what about that do you think authorizes Trump and Hegseth to kill people?
Jesse, obviously "What Gorka states is not what is formally declared" and obviously war hasn't been formally declared by Congress. None of your objections refute my contention that Trump and Hegseth are trying to start a war--unconstitutionally BECAUSE Congress hasn't declared war. Gorka just said it out loud. That's exactly what I said I quoted Gorka to show.
Jesse, you seem to fail to grasp a crucial point. Wars historically haven't been (and even today they aren't) started exclusively by someone declaring war. That's the reason for the expression "act of war." https://legalclarity.org/what-is-considered-an-act-of-war-under-international-law/
Jesse, in short, "declaring TdA a foreign terrorist organization" clearly is not the "Same issue as when they went after ISIS in multiple countries." The two situations are not even remotely close.
from where do you low IQ brainwashed far left Democrat cultists get your stupidity?
What is a little murder among fascists?
Read your idiotic post above.
Anwar al-Awlaki was extra-judiciously droned by Obama even though he was a US citizen. These industrious Venezuelans aren't blessed by that distinction but Sullum will shed more ink and tears for them.
Children are ok. Practically just a late term abortion.
FIFY
that was (D)ifferent
Extrajudicial killings for non capital crimes.
Trump says they're bad guys so as a libertarian, I'm fine with it.
Argumentum ad retardum.
Continuing to make more retarded arguments thinking it helps your case.
When the far left Democrat cultists did it, it was okay. But when normal American Republicans do it, it is bad.
Killings are in self-defense. They are transporting weapons of mass destruction or mass terror.
Right, Trump said 300 million (90% of the US population) died of drugs so it must be true. Better kill the traffickers before they get the last 10% of us!
vaadu, what facts caused you to conclude that "They are transporting weapons of mass destruction or mass terror."
I think that was snark. It might have been legal to stop the ships, board them, and search them, but it was definitely an act of war to have simply sunk them.
Would you, based on the same reasoning, approve of drone strikes on Budweiser delivery trucks?
First, it is interesting that it is bad that Charlie Kirk was murdered but good that Donald Trump can order a murder -- at least according to MAGA.
Second, sinking two civilian ships is actually an act of war. Hitler had his U boats sink two Mexican tankers in the Gulf of Mexico in early 1942. Mexico responded by declaring war on Germany, Italy, and Japan. Mexico made a huge contribution to America's war effort. First, it sent huge amounts of raw materials to the US. Second, it sent huge numbers of agricultural workers to the US, replacing those who had been drafted into the army. Most stayed after the war and brought family members, as the returning veterans mostly didn't want to return to farm work. The US would have faced serious food shortages without those workers (and it will today if Trump deports them). Third, Mexican military units fought outside Mexico for the only time in history; Mexico sent an air squadron to fight the Japanese in the Philippines. The US brass figured that because many adult Filipinos still spoke Spanish, having Spanish speaking military personnel would help the war effort. Mexico was the only Spanish speaking country to actually fight the Axis.
Maduro would be justified in declaring war on the US and invoking the Rio Treaty. Maybe he isn't as bad an actor as we thought.
Venezuela is free to try.
Do you think it will go well for them?
damikesc, did you learn nothing from our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan or Russia's experience in Ukraine? Do you really think we would face fighting Venezuela, alone? I hope somebody reminds Trump and Hegseth about lessons learned.
You seem really desperate to this becoming a war instead of just being a kinetic action against a declared FTO.
Jesse, you use words and expressions and express ideas without having any idea what their significance really is.
What do you think "kinetic" means? Do you know how a bullet causes a fatal injury? It's kinetic. Did you think "kinetic action" was some kind of military operation?
Again you invoke the fact that you're talking about a "declared FTO" (foreign terrorist organization. Again, I ask what about that designation do you think equates to authorization to kill people.
I'm hardly desperate to make this a war. I truly want to avoid war. I don't want to see us make the same costly mistake that Russia made with Ukraine. A massive number of Russians died needlessly because of Putin's foolish war.
Trump and Hegseth obviously are desperate to make this a war. Right now, they're committing murder. I think they think that if they can start a war, maybe people will forget that they started it by murdering people on boats.
As a matter of fact, "kinetic action" is a term that refers to military operations that involve any actual shooting.
see.more, my point precisely. It means just a plain old shooting, not some special kind of an operation. Everybody who shoots anybody did so in an action that involved kinetic force.
You already have biased your position by including the word “military”. LEOs, the Coast Guard, etc, all engage in “kinetic” operations that aren’t military.
Bruce, children engage in operations that are kinetic but aren't military. It's commonly called playing baseball, soccer, tennis, ping pong, badminton, etc. Trump has to be a simpleton or think his supporters are simpletons to presume or pretend that "kinetic" has some special military significance.
"damikesc, did you learn nothing from our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan or Russia's experience in Ukraine? Do you really think we would face fighting Venezuela, alone? I hope somebody reminds Trump and Hegseth about lessons learned."
Oh no, Brazil might join them. Whatever shall we do against both of their planes?
damikesc, that's where your head's at? Brazil? You think Brazil might help Venezuela?
Brazil is a shithole, so possibly.
I'd have to give more of a shit than I do to worry.
Fuck Maduro. Anything that makes him mad is a positive.
LOLWUT? Look, we all know you low IQ brainwashed far left Democrat cultists are pathetically stupid, no need to confirm it....repeatedly
That's interesting. Thank you.
But even one ship might suffice. Remember the Maine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/remember-the-maine-56071873/
Up next: drone strikes on Budweiser delivery trucks.
No it doesn't.
1. The military kills who it's ordered to kill. Period. No 'due process'.
2. Stopping people on the high seas is not a criminal justice process - it's straight up nihilistic use of force. That we used to do this nicely - and you can make an argument that that approach is what we should continue to use - and now we're not. There are no criminal laws that American ships can enforce against foreign flagged vessels outside of American waters and the insistence that America does is . . . well, it violated due process doesn't it?
Incunabulum, I think you (and Trump and Hegseth) learned your "law" of war from watching movies. That's a bad way to learn law as complicated as the law governing international relations and war. Movies typically aren't made to teach the fine points of law. Have you ever even read anything that our Constitution calls a "Treaty" and includes in "the supreme Law of the Land"?
How do you know about any process involved in waging war or managing a conflict? What makes you say there's no "due process"? Due process means the process that is due. There's a lot of process that goes into conflict management these days, especially, when it's not part of a war declared by Congress. The fact that you say there is none shows you know nothing about this issue.
What would make you think that stopping people on the high seas is not a criminal justice process? Our Constitution expressly says otherwise. That's why Article I says Congress can and must "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" and "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations." That's also why Article VI says "all Treaties" are included in "the supreme Law of the Land."
And more of the dishonest argument continuing to beg the question that this is war.
You won't have the ability to argue honestly until you fix your false premises.
Jesse, I've said many times, this is not war, but Trump and Hegseth obviously are trying to start a war. And Gorka just said so out loud. As the NY Times piece revealed regarding Trump's latest attack on a Venezuelan boat:
"Trump’s top counterterrorism adviser, Sebastian Gorka, said," “What we are saying is: This is a war, the cartel started it and we’re declaring war on you.”
Jesse, stop trying to distract people with arguments about your assertion that there's no war. Answer the question: what words in any legal authority do you think authorize Trump and Hegseth to kill the people they killed on the two boats this month?
They were friggen foreign invaders. Preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution is sufficient. Always has been. When someone is invading our country (and are caught before they cross into our sovereign territory), killing them has always been justified. Were the (few) Japanese killed December 7, 1941, murdered? Of course not. But there was not, yet, at that point, a Declaration of War. The President doesn’t need a Declaration of War or an AUMF to defend our country from foreign invaders. It’s his duty to do so.
Bruce, prove they were invading the US. State any facts that establish what made you think they were all invading the US. You can't because they obviously weren't. They were far from the US. All you have are mere contentions by Trump and Hegseth that one or more of the people they killed were preparing to smuggle drugs into the US at some time in the future.
Incunabulum, you might want to consider something insightful such the following from https://legalclarity.org/what-is-considered-an-act-of-war-under-international-law/
Modern international law altered the right of states to resort to force. The creation of the United Nations in 1945 established a legal order intended to prevent the aggression that led to two world wars. This framework does not eliminate the concept of an act of war but places strict legal constraints on how states can respond.
The core of this legal structure is the United Nations Charter. Article 2(4) of the Charter prohibits the threat or use of force by one state against the “territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” This provision makes most unilateral decisions to go to war illegal, shifting the paradigm from a system where war was a legitimate tool to one where peace is the default.
The primary exception is detailed in Article 51 of the UN Charter, which preserves the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs.” An “armed attack” is interpreted as a significant act of aggression, such as an invasion. A victim state may legally respond with necessary and proportionate force to defend itself until the UN Security Council can take measures to restore peace.
This legal framework means that even if a state is the victim of an act of war, its right to respond with force is not unlimited. The response must qualify as self-defense against an ongoing armed attack. Any other use of force requires authorization from the UN Security Council. . . .
State-sponsored terrorism presents another challenge. When a state uses a proxy group to carry out attacks, it complicates the legal framework. International law holds that if a state exercises “effective control” over the proxy group, its actions can be attributed to the state, potentially constituting an armed attack. This allows the victim state to justify a self-defense response against the sponsoring state.
And, we aren’t going to get your Security Council approval, since at least the most deadly drugs (Fentanyl so far) being smuggled into this country are, essentially, controlled by China, which has a veto on the Security Council. The precursors for Fentanyl are manufactured by the Chinese, then shipped to countries like Venezuela for manufacture. They maintain control over the production and sale of those precursors through selling them well below cost.
If you actually understand the military culture, then it isn't so difficult to understand how enlistees "assented." They are trained to obey orders. Period.
Yeah. Yeah. There is the caveat of "lawful orders," but, when faced with with the possibility of imprisonment, extra duty (i.e. punishment labor), reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, and etcetera, there is a distinct incentive to assume the legality of an order unless it is clearly known and obvious to the enlistee to be illegal (such as an order to rape someone).
The DOD principle that, "the military must not use lethal force against civilians, even if they are alleged, or even known, to be violating the law," may not be widely known by enlistees. I did not know it when I served ('92 - '95, USN Disabled).
While I don't agree with the CIC's characterization of illegal narcotics as violent aggression, I could weave a fairly cogent argument for it. It could certainly be a vector for unconventional chemical warfare.
What is missing, however, is any evidence that it is a concerted stratagem to eliminate or incapacitate a large enough percentage of Americans to disrupt society enough to soften us up prior to landing troops on the ground.
Fentanyl, at least, is killing at least hundreds of thousands. And, as noted above, that trade I that drug is controlled by China, through control of its precursors.
the military must not use lethal force against civilians
Agreed. Doesn't apply here. Narcoterrorists aren't civilians.
Specifically not terrorists, largely citizens, not specifically harming nor trying to harm anyone actively or passively, on American soil:
[Colonel Cavan] Craddock explains that the military base [Area 51] is guarded by people referred to as "our defenders." He says they are "very very good at their jobs" and are authorized to protect the area against "all enemies, foreign and domestic," even if it requires the use of force.
"So, when I heard a bunch of tinfoil-hat–wearing conspiracy theorists are going to Naruto-run across the desert to come see aliens, my initial reaction was ‘You have got to be kidding me.’ I have got enough going on and I don’t need this," he continues.
"We just don’t have the capacity and capability to root out every single one of those individuals to figure out who is a threat and who is not,” Craddock says, adding that he consulted a higher-up about the event and was directed to "keep this thing under control and stop it from escalating."
"We decided to go very aggressive against it. Get a message out there to let folks know that it’s not a good idea," he says.
Prior to the event, the military released a message warning people not to attempt to enter the base and emphasized that officials would protect the facility against trespassers.
In the second episode, Craddock says that the military's plan was "to treat all attendees as hostile until proven otherwise."
Fuck your "these migrants were murdered" dishonesty. There are dozens upon dozens of news organizations who would chew their own mothers' heads off in order to get a recording of a single Reality Winner or Bradly Manning who wanted to expose a "corrupt and broken administration" killing peaceful, law-abiding civilians and legions of deep state operatives that have already proven that they'll lie about anyone and everyone from Russians to Ukrainians to Kyle Rittenhouse in order to start and involve the US in a war and all you've got is arm chair, "We're pretty sure these were unConstitutional killings."?
After Maryland Man? After mostly peaceful protests? After 10 yr. old
rape victimabortion seeker? After Chinese wet market? After superficially credible accusations? After whipping people at the border? After kids in cages? Fuck you.When did Ellen Page become a Marine helicopter pilot?
Trump is killing people for obviously political purposes based on his ipse dixit that they're narco-terrorists (because he merely designated a mere organization as a "foreign terrorist organization"). Nothing about that designation could authorize the use of deadly force against anyone for anything. See "Legal Ramifications of Designation" in https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/
By Trump's own public admissions, Trump and Hegseth are killing people outside U.S. jurisdiction for no better reason than that Trump is merely pretending to predict a future crime in a U.S. jurisdiction (mere purported drug smuggling). Nothing in our Constitution vested power in Trump or Hegseth to merely pretend to predict a future crime in a U.S. jurisdiction and summarily execute everyone they merely contend is guilty of such crime while they are far outside U.S. jurisdiction.
Our Constitution (Amendment V) expressly and specifically commands that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."
Article III commands that "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed."
Amendment VI clearly commands that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to" a "public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."
The primary problem with the presumption or pretense that Article II somehow put all the powers of government into the hands of Trump is that it makes legislators, judges, grand juries and trial juries entirely irrelevant. That is exactly what all the founders expressly opposed vehemently. In The Federalist No. 47, for example, James Madison emphasized even more than the following:
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many” is “the very definition of tyranny.” “[T]he preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.”
The real "problem" is that a lot of people want to use drugs. The drug war is turning victimless crimes into a hot war. Soon, will we invade other countries because of it? How wonderful. Btw, I noticed no one is smuggling rum anymore. I wonder why.