FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:ScottS said:
Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles
The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.
No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.
The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.
On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.
Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.
Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.
Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.
Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.
If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.
An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.
Results would be immediate
And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.
How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.
Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.
You closed with a false dilemma. There is no law preventing a POTUS from ordering the US Navy in international waters to sink drug cartel watercraft engaged in hostile acts against the USA. In fact, he has cited explicit statutory authority to do so.
Underneath nearly all arguments against what POTUS is doing to the watercraft of drug cartels designated as terror groups is the faulty premise that non-citizens outside of our jurisdiction engaged in illegal activity may ONLY be dealt with via law enforcement measures. Not. So. If Hizballah is running drugs to raise cash (and they've done that forever) are we obligated to reel in military options and instead treat them as a LE problem? No. We should refuse to treat them as a LE problem, because to do so would require us to bring them into the jurisdiction of our courts to do so at enormous risk and cost to the taxpayer. Far cheaper and wiser to dispatch them abroad with military assets.
Small powers avoid direct confrontation of great powers, and instead choose asymmetrical warfare tactics designed to harass those greater powers, to distract and dissuade and ideally destabilize them if possible. A hostile power like Venezuela allowing drug cartels into its ruling coalition affords it the de facto proxies necessary to wage asymmetrical warfare against us, in ways that (ironically) prompt people otherwise inimical to Venezuela and drug cartels to defend the de facto alliance between Venezuela and the Cartels of the Sun from the full force of USG policy response. (as if Venezuela has some right under international law to allow its state institutions to be a safe haven for drug cartels operating against the USA).
Whether or not we created a law in 1973 or in 2003 after 911 doesn't change the concern. Both are modern laws that delegate authority from one branch to the other. Using these powers so close to the US or even in the US itself begs the question of when is Executive Power too much. Opinion polls and laws on the books are not the end all for policy. There are bad laws on the books, there are legal acts that are immoral or just not good ideas, and there are Executives that are more Authoritarian than others that use those laws.
Realize you mean well.
However this is a straight line situation involving the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans each year.
Not just numbers, but real people.
And these drug smugglers are killing them with their poisons.
Don't insist on getting muddled up with the ' what's ifs ' . Decisive action is usually the best.
