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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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."
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.