Trump Dares Congress To Take Its War Powers Seriously in Venezuela
The president bet that no one would stop him from land attacks in Venezuela. And Congress hasn’t given him any reason to think otherwise.
The framers of the Constitution had a clear idea of how war should work. Although the President is "commander in chief" of the military, the Constitution states that Congress has the power "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."
During the Cold War, that rule gave way to a new, unwritten principle: Try and stop me. Presidents jumped into foreign conflicts without any public debate, and found that Congress was unwilling to assert itself. Even when the Obama administration asked lawmakers to pass a formal authorization for a war against the Islamic State, a war everyone supported and no one wanted to stop, Congress chose to do nothing.
No wonder President Donald Trump thinks of Congress as a rubber stamp in his undeclared war against alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean Sea, which has reportedly coincided with preparations for a regime change campaign in nearby Venezuela.
"The land is going to be next. We may go to the Senate, we may go to the Congress, and tell them about it, but I can't imagine they'd have any problem with it," Trump told reporters on Thursday. Addressing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, he added, "You go to Congress. You tell them about it. What are they going to do, say, gee we don't want to stop drugs pouring in?"
It's not a bad bet that Congress will let Trump take this military campaign as far as he wants. Earlier this month, Senate Republicans blocked an effort by Democrats and Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) to invoke the War Powers Act over the attacks on Caribbean vessels. Paul and his Democratic counterparts are trying again to force a vote over any potential military action on Venezuelan soil.
After all, Congress also voted down a war powers resolution after Trump struck Iran without permission, something that has threatened to do again. His predecessors, Joe Biden and Barack Obama, also waged undeclared wars of their own with little input from Congress. Lawmakers neither want to vote for war nor vote against it; they have abdicated their power.
The Trump administration has argued internally that it doesn't need Congress' permission for its Caribbean attacks. Early in his administration, Trump declared several Latin American drug cartels to be terrorist organizations. In a memo leaked to the Associated Press, the administration argued that the United States was already in a "non-international armed conflict" against those cartels, meaning that any attacks on alleged drug dealers would be self-defense.
As with the global war on terror, which was also a campaign against underground groups, it's hard to know how many of the targets of this beefed-up war on drugs are actually who the U.S. government says they are. The family of one victim, Chad Joseph, insists that he was an innocent fisherman. The government of Colombia said the same thing about Alejandro Carranza, another victim.
The Trump administration, which insists that everyone killed was a "narcoterrorist," is not keen on showing the evidence in an American court. After two people survived a U.S. attack on an alleged drug submarine, Trump released them to their home countries, Colombia and Ecuador, "for detention and prosecution" there. The Ecuadorian government released its suspect for lack of evidence.
More ominously, Trump has signaled very loudly that he does not intend to stop with criminal suspects. Over the summer, his administration designated Cartel de los Soles as a terrorist organization, then accused Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro of directly running it, and put a $50 million bounty on Maduro's head.
Trump has authorized the CIA to carry out covert action against Maduro's government, which he publicly acknowledged to reporters. The U.S. military has also carried out a massive buildup in the Caribbean, far beyond the forces needed to fight smugglers, including 10,000 troops, heavy bombers, and amphibious landing ships.
Elliott Abrams, who oversaw Venezuela during the first Trump administration, told CNN that the military buildup was meant for a "pressure campaign" short of an "invasion of Venezuela." But given how fast the Caribbean war has escalated, and how little congressional or public input there has been, there's very little stopping Trump if he did want to launch a full-on invasion.
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
During the Cold War, that rule gave way to a new, unwritten principle: Try and stop me.
And all those banana wars during the 1920s and 1930s?
Somehow those all managed to skip Petti’s limited cranial capacity.
Whatabout whatabout whatabout Well, must be okay, then.
This isn’t a “whatabout”, dork, it’s about Petti being ignorant of history.
I’ve really had my fill of woke leftist retardation today. They need to be put down, hard.
Nothing has changed. Washington will continue its interventionism in Latin America just as it continues to do so in the middle east.
The sordid history of America's foreign interventionism only enriches the MIC and the politicians who make it happen.
Jim Bovard lays it out quite well:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/sordid-history-us-aid-colombia
Let me guess……. It’s all the Jew’s fault, right?
Obama II; he'll win his peace prize one way or another.
*yawn*
The president bet that no one would stop him from land attacks in Venezuela. And Congress hasn’t given him any reason to think otherwise.
Hey y'know it's funny, I just slapped Damon hard enough to make his teeth fall out on this very point.
Can I have his job?
https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-cartoon-senior-man-reacting-to-his-set-of-false-teeth-dentures-falling-out-of-his-mouth/159906012
The Constitution requites the president get Congressional authorization for all use of military force.
War Powers Act:
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations"
"he President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances,"
It's never stopped any President before:
Korea, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, oh yes, Bill Clinton's executive interference in Bosnia while he was busily shagging a hooker.
Not to mention other questionable conflicts: The Spanish American war, WW 1 and possibly WW II.
I almost forgot, all those color revolutions with the help of USAID: Ukraine.
I don't care. There is no clause in the Constitution that says a part of it becomes null if it is violated enough times.
I never said it did, just that it has been violated so many times with such disastrous results that no one seems to care anymore.
"No disastrous results" is not the test to see if is ok to violate the Constitution.
Funny, you treat the constitution like toilet paper unless you need it to get your way. So really, you have no room to talk.
Well Said Molly.... +100000000
And about that Universal Healthcare "no clause in the Constitution that says"??
That too is probably in the War Powers Act which Molly thinks is part of the Constitution.
Show where you posted your criticism about the Clinton and Obama military adventurism without-Congressional-approval in Bosnia and Libya.
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot: that was (D)ifferent.
You Dems better bone up on your American history or else you'll just continue to make complete jackasses out of yourselves.
It is (D)ifferent because I was not a commenter on websites back then. And very few websites existed in the late 90s.
MAGAs are the dumbest shits on the planet.
So, post your criticism now. This is your big chance to avoid looking like a complete partisan hypocrite.
Oh, and by the way -- tons of social media and comments sections of major publications existed when Obama "led from behind" in Libya back in 2011.
I’m so sorry Obama didn’t send 4500 American soldiers to their deaths in Libya like Bush did in Iraq!?! Do you still hate the military because you were denied for being a closeted homosexual???
Tony, you’re a proven moron. You have no business imouhpgnong the intellect of anyone here.
We are your betters. Don’t ever think (with your tiny little retarded nugget of a brain) otherwise.
Now fuck off, m’kay?
“Bill Clinton's executive interference in Bosnia while he was busily shagging a hooker”
Uh…. can you narrow that down a lot?
The Constitution requites the president get Congressional authorization for all use of military force.
It does not. Quote the exact words from the Constitution that say so. You can't. Quoting the War Powers Act is not enough.
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
All that's in the War Powers Act?
Tony, this is all too confusing to a mental midget, such as yourself. Why don’t you head back to the bath house and let the adults talk?
Emphasis added. No, it does not.
Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates doesn't count.
So you believe in the rule of law Tony? So you accept that ICE is following long established immigration laws when deporting the illegals you let in?
Or do you think the law is a buffet where you pick and choose which ones you feel like following?
Ecuadorians are well known for traveling to Venezuela to do fishing out of multi-engine fast boats with 18in free boards in the middle of the night.
Wonder if the range of those relatively small boats is enough to reach the U.S. 2,800 miles away.
Stupid Republicans. You had a chance to show you cared about the Supreme Law of the Land (the people's law over you) and you blew-it. Big Time.
It appears neither-side in Congress cares one bit about the people's law over them (i.e. US Constitution). Paul & Murkowski were the only [R]'s to support it on a 96% pure-partisan line vote.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00555.htm#position
R's aren't stupid. They knew exactly what they were doing. More importantly - they knew your ilk will never hold them accountable so they will continue to do it.
Wow... But UR sure stupid.
Making up an imaginary 'enemy' in your head RIGHT in the reply of the 'ilk' holding them accountable. You're only battling with your own imagination.
Didn't you know, if you criticize Rs in any way, you're a hackeysack-juggling, birkenstock-wearing (with socks!!!), dread-sporting hippie commie liberal.
Only inside the lefts "[WE] Identify-as partisan-gangsters RULE!" barbaric mind.
A power-point for [OUR] gangsters every-time their opposition gets criticized! /s
I don’t know about that, but you’re definitely a pinko democrat thrall.
Constitutional violations aside (my fellow cultists tell me Trump *is* the Constitution so he should be allowed to do whatever he wants), I'm sure regime change in Latin America will work this time. Because if at first you don't succeed, bomb, bomb again.
And it's a good use of taxpayer dollars just like taxpayers paying Trump $230Mil because his feefees got hurt and constructing a large gilded ballroom for the White House. Fiscal conservatism at its best.
And freeing the shit out of people around the world is what makes America great. I'm sure the next regime will be totally happy and freedom loving and Trump will get the Nobel Peace Prize he so deserves (he's already stopped 500 wars, coincidentally, the same as the number of genders!).
Do you really want to start comparing Trump’s constitutional compliance with his predecessors? You might not want to pull too hard in that thread.
“The Congress shall have Power…
…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
Trump justifies murdering people in boats claiming we are at war with narcoterrorists; then he is admitting he is abusing his power wsince only Congress has the power to declare war.
He should be impeached for this and tried for murder. Also killing drug smugglers is the wrong way to stop drugs, since the Big Guys then get away and live to smuggle another day, another way. Stop boats, inspect, and interrogate: murder is a crime, and Trump should be executed for abusing his power to murder people without any proof: innocent until proven guilty. Pull the switch on this murderer.
"something that has threatened to do again"
I HATE when they leave out those little, two-letter words (like "he").
Why do they leave them out? Are they just too small to type?
Congress is a bunch of spineless cowards that neutered themselves and abdicated their power years, if not decades, ago. If they didn't grow a set of balls after Iraq2 and the aumf, they sure won't now.
That’s one of the few astute things you’ve ever said.