FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
KaiBear said:
J.R. said:
I don't trust Trump with the Truth, nor lil Petey.
In that case would you have us allow these drug boats to resume bringing their poisons to our shores ?
Over 100,000 Americans have been dying annually from these poisons. Past approach's to the problem haven't worked.
Whats your alternative ?
lol he wants the US Navy to get a US federal judge to issue a warrant allowing them to blow up boats carrying drugs....boats we can see in real time have big bundles of drugs on them....boats we watch get loaded.....while we listen to the comms between known cartel members loading the boats....
The critics should just be honest and say they don't mind how many drugs get smuggled into the country, since it makes Trump look bad.
The first paragraph is good. I agree, we need to find a way to ensure who we are blowing up is who we want to blow up. Having comms data and drone footage, we do that now with other "terror" items. A drone idnetifying a person or a missile is enough for action.
Except it isn't. There's no legal right to simply blow people up even if they are guilty.
I get what he is saying. All the internal framework once designated a "terror" organization is in place. I can't find anything internally restricting them. Only thing I see is if Congress acted and they pretty much don't exist anymore as a legislative body as the founding Fathers imagined and haven't for quite a while.
I agree, from an International Law perspective, they have no legal international footing to do it. But they believe might makes right, who is going to stop them? The UN already said that it is illegal, but how many times has the US let any US service member or citizen be tried at the Hague? None. We do not recognize it. So, illegal? Tough to sell, what court?
By the way, I also agree he should not have this type of power through an EO.
Congress has already restricted it through the War Powers Resolution, among other things. Military force is authorized when there is 1) a declaration of war, 2) specific authorization by Congress, or 3) a national emergency caused by an attack on the US. There is no 4) designation of a group as a foreign terrorist organization.
So far, they have deemed narcotics a National Emergency and an attack. Until we get a ruling on it, that is the justification.
They are playing by the rules. Can't ask them to play by the rules and then make determinations outside of the process. Either Congress passes an action or the Supreme Court says it is not a valid reason. Those are the rules we live by and therefore follow. Even if they don't fit our believes.
Kudos for making an actual argument in the Trump administration's favor. It's the first one I've seen here. They have deemed narcotics trafficking an "armed conflict," which is somewhat different from an armed attack on the US (especially since it doesn't specify who's doing the attacking). There's no credible definition by which the US is under armed attack by a speedboat full of drug mules. But give Trump the benefit of the doubt, and let's assume the terms are synonymous. The worse problem, now that 60 days have passed, is that Trump now claims we aren't involved in hostilities within the meaning of the War Powers Act. Given that "hostilities" was intended as a broader term, this negates his earlier claim that we are in an armed conflict. So he's either been breaking the law all along, or he's breaking it now. He's also violating other domestic laws, as well as international laws that have been ratified and incorporated as part of American law.
As for the courts, it's likely they will consider this a political question. That doesn't mean the law doesn't apply. It just means it's up to us to apply it through the political process.
i would say the armed attack is the product, not the boats. Think chemical warfare. Boats are a transportation mode, not the attack.
The dates and reporting to Congress need to be adhered to. That will be interesting.
Funny, War Power resolution was to give Congress more control, not the Executive more power. But Executive Branch uses it as an excuse for more control.
The WPA was an effort by Congress to prevent the Executive from engaging in military action that might reasonably result in a foreign power declaring war against us. Every POTUS has complied with it, but every POTUS has also thought it was unconstitutional, and at least some parts of it may indeed be. It certainly is at odds with historical precedent. Congress did not formally declare war against the Barbary pirates, actions which lasted for years and involved bombardment and actual raids on the territory of sovereign states. Rather, Congress delegated broad powers to the Executive to interdict piracy. Which, of course, is exactly what Congress has done with statutory delegations of power to the Executive on combatting terrorism.
Ergo, what Trump is doing is squarely within tradition, precedent, and current law.
In fairness, while his critics are badly misreading law, their sentiments are also within tradition and precedent. Americans are not a preternaturally warlike people, and it is therefore no surprise that they would have reservations about shooting drug cartel shipments rather than arresting them. The proper rebuttal to those reservations is practicality. We do not need to spend the enormous sums of money it would take to have the US Navy do a job it is neither trained nor designed to do - stop, search, and seize vessels which may be violating US law, properly handling chain of custody on evidence, due process concerns, etc..... The military is designed to break things, to destroy things, a brutal and blunt force to intimidate our adversaries into adopting better policies. We have used our Navy properly in the actions taken off the Venezuelan coast. We have declared a blockade against cartel drug shipments. If they try to run it, they will be sunk. If they don't want to be sunk, then they should quit trying to run the blockade. Of course, forcing them to stop shipments will cripple cartel finances, which will turn the cartel coalition against itself....in-fighting to consolidate into a much smaller number of cartels.....which of course will eventually work to destabilize the host of said cartels = the Venezuelan regime itself.
It's brilliantly innovative, and completely legal policy by this admin. And it also has the broad support of the American people. Trump has a knack for that.....executing policy with super-majority support of the public.
