President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Northwestcoug]

Maybe.. JUST maybe.. There is a reason they are not providing the full details for a reason. But knowing this guy is not one to shy from things he does not agree with, I tend to believe this interview says a lot that he is OK with it.

As for the law. This isn’t American law. It is against a state labels a certain way which makes it legal. Even if you do not like this, you need to stop sayin it is illegal. Different rules apply in this situation.

OK dabrockster, you are on legal side of the 'extrajudicial killing of suspected drug runners in international waters' argument. Where are you at on the morality of it? You OK with it? And if so, do you agree with Trump that we should institute the death penalty for drug dealers inside the country?

[Shaka]

Maybe.. JUST maybe.. There is a reason they are not providing the full details for a reason. But knowing this guy is not one to shy from things he does not agree with, I tend to believe this interview says a lot that he is OK with it.

As for the law. This isn’t American law. It is against a state labels a certain way which makes it legal. Even if you do not like this, you need to stop sayin it is illegal. Different rules apply in this situation.

It's not convenient for him to admit that a lot of congressional oversite happens in private.

[Copelius]

Okay I watched it.

Fetterman's comments can be summed as

• "we're just bombing every random boat" (I don't think anyone has claimed that)
• "we know what is on the boats" (ok so tell us)
• "we have intelligence about what's on the boats" (ok so TELL US!)

Did I miss anything? I don't think I did.

Fetterman is no better than the administration. Essentially, the government, including Fetterman, are telling us "we know what we are doing". Fine. But you work for the people tell the PEOPLE you work for what you are doing. At this point, I can't believe there are any Americans who thing "I'll bet this government is following the law and everything is above board.

Again, if it is legal, provide the justification. Stop hiding behind this classification nonsense. If were so classified, why do you keep posting it all over twitter? Because you want to brag about blowing up a defenseless boat from 30,000 feet.

I wonder what the cost to the taxpayers each strike represents. Is this the most cost-effective way to do this? Or is it just cool to blow up pleasure boats in the ocean with million dollar missles?

One of the things I learned as an S2 (Bn Intel Officer) was that many times the intel was not classified because of what it was but because of how we knew that information, in other words, the source. If we were to stop hiding behind classification nonsense, there is a high likelihood that some or many of our HUMINT sources would be compromised and put in danger. I would not be surprised if we had infiltrated at least one of the cartels at a level that makes the boat strikes non-random. I am not in favor of putting our HUMINT sources in danger.

All that said, I do think that the AUMF was too broadly granted and any such authorization should have had an automatic sunset clause that required congressional approval to extend. I also think that the executive extension of the definition of terroists to cartels is tenuous at best, but since congress is too feckless to have put any guardrails on the AUMF in the first place, it will probably stand.

[dabrockster]

It's illegal.

Show me. I have asked this before and you never given me the exact law. He has designated the state a terrorist organization and it is not any different than the drone-pounding Obama did in various countries. No matter how grey it may be it is not outright illegal.

Whether you or I believe congress needs to be involved does not negate nor say it is illegal. The hypocrisy of one President doing such actions without congress approval to another is an invalid partisan argument.

[chrisrenrut]

Maybe.. JUST maybe.. There is a reason they are not providing the full details for a reason. But knowing this guy is not one to shy from things he does not agree with, I tend to believe this interview says a lot that he is OK with it.

As for the law. This isn’t American law. It is against a state labels a certain way which makes it legal. Even if you do not like this, you need to stop sayin it is illegal. Different rules apply in this situation.

What are the applicable rules or laws? International? Maritime? Genuinely curious.

[Northwestcoug]

What are the applicable rules or laws? International? Maritime? Genuinely curious.

Before Dabrockster finds a source I'll let a former JAG working group cut to the chase:

An Operational Law Primer

Applicable International Humanitarian Law (IHL): The United States has publicly

described the narcotraFicker attacks as “non-international armed conflict” because our

“enemy” is an international terrorist organization rather than a sovereign state. As such,

the full scope of international law generally applicable to armed conflict does not

necessarily apply to this conflict.

• Common Article 3 (CA3) of the Geneva Conventions: The main body of IHL applicable

to non-international armed conflicts is a subset of the Geneva Conventions that is

applicable to all international armed conflicts. The relevant provision of CA3 states in

relevant part:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the

territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be

bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed

forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by

sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be

treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion

or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following

acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with

respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,

mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading

treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without

previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, aFording all

the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized

peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-cont...m_medium=email

[frank ryan]

Before Dabrockster finds a source I'll let a former JAG working group cut to the chase:



https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-cont...m_medium=email

Did you ask Grok or Kash Patel/Pete Hegseth/JD Vance?

[dabrockster]

OK dabrockster, you are on legal side of the 'extrajudicial killing of suspected drug runners in international waters' argument. Where are you at on the morality of it? You OK with it? And if so, do you agree with Trump that we should institute the death penalty for drug dealers inside the country?

Stop comparing U.S. judicial system where it does not fit.. And this is not about what side I am on. It is plain and simple. Is it legal or illegal? Still waiting. Stop throwing hypothesis that do not meet the standards of what is being used. Do I agree with death penalty or drive dealers in the U.S. court system?? Come on. Not even comparable. Such a stupid comparison.

Let’s for once see this as what it is. A strategic war-action under the guise of that. I am not looking at this through some small lens... He wanted to put pressure to remove Maduro and asked for a way to get around congress. Not any different than former or future Presidents.

As for Morality. I am not a soldier and nor will I second guess or judge their actions and orders. I support them and hope we can provide the support they need in the service they do. Period.

[dabrockster]

Two can play this game.. And a “Former JAG” working group is opinion based.. As if there is no bias in that interpretation..


Hey ChatGPT: What law or rule is Trump using to attack boats in international waters and his military action toward Venezuela



Short answer: there is no single “new” law. The Trump administration relied on a combination of existing constitutional authority, statutes, and international law doctrines to justify actions involving boats in international waters and military or quasi-military pressure toward Venezuela.




Below is the clear breakdown:

Presidential Commander-in-Chief authority


Under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the President (at the time, Donald Trump) is Commander in Chief of U.S. armed forces.


Presidents of both parties have long claimed this authority allows:

• Limited military actions
• Naval interdictions
• Defensive or protective strikes
  without a formal declaration of war

This is the primary legal foundation used. Drug interdiction & maritime law (boats in international waters) Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) The U.S. relies heavily on the MDLEA, which allows the U.S. military and Coast Guard to:

• Stop, board, seize, or destroy vessels in international waters
• When they are stateless, flying false flags, or engaged in drug trafficking

This law has been upheld repeatedly by federal courts and applies outside U.S. territorial waters.


International law principles


Under customary international law:

• Stateless vessels have no sovereign protection
• Any nation may interdict them
• Drug trafficking is treated as a transnational crime

Many Venezuelan-linked boats intercepted were justified under this framework.

Counter-narcotics national emergency (Venezuela)


Trump issued executive orders declaring:

• Venezuela a national security threat
• Venezuelan drug trafficking (often linked to the Maduro regime) a threat to U.S. security

This allowed:

• Expanded naval patrols
• Military support for law enforcement
• Intelligence sharing and interdiction operations

This is not a declaration of war, but a law-enforcement–military hybrid operation.


Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) – indirect use


Trump did not rely on a Venezuela-specific AUMF. However, administrations often argue that:

• Existing AUMFs (2001/2002)
• Combined with Article II powers

Allow limited force when:

• U.S. personnel are threatened
• Regional stability is at risk
• Criminal or terrorist networks overlap

This is controversial but longstanding executive branch interpretation.


War Powers Resolution (why Congress wasn’t asked)


Under the War Powers Resolution:

• The President may deploy forces up to 60 days without congressional approval
• If not engaged in sustained hostilities

Trump’s actions were framed as:

• Interdiction
• Deterrence
• Law enforcement support
  Not “hostilities” triggering the clock.

Congress was notified but not asked to vote. What Trump did not have legal authority to do


Without Congress, Trump could not legally:

• Declare war on Venezuela
• Launch a sustained bombing campaign
• Invade or occupy territory
• Overthrow the Venezuelan government by force

That is why actions stayed naval, covert, economic, and diplomatic.


Bottom line


Trump’s actions toward boats in international waters and pressure on Venezuela relied on:

• Article II Commander-in-Chief powers
• Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act
• International law on stateless vessels
• National emergency declarations
• War Powers Resolution limits

Whether this use of authority is wise or overbroad is debated — but it follows the same legal framework used by multiple prior presidents, including Obama and Bush.

[falafel]

Show me. I have asked this before and you never given me the exact law. He has designated the state a terrorist organization and it is not any different than the drone-pounding Obama did in various countries. No matter how grey it may be it is not outright illegal.

Whether you or I believe congress needs to be involved does not negate nor say it is illegal. The hypocrisy of one President doing such actions without congress approval to another is an invalid partisan argument.

1. Hard to imagine designating an entire county a terrorist organization. And as I recall, he designated Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization. Regardless, I don't see how that designation holds water. This is from Congress.gov:

FTO Designation Criteria

Pursuant to Section 219 of the INA, the Secretary of State is authorized to designate an organization as an FTO if such an entity meets three criteria: the suspected terrorist group must (1) be a foreign organization; (2) engage in "terrorist activity," "terrorism," or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism; and (3) threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national defense, foreign relations, or economic interests of the United States.

Section 219 of the INA relies on the definition of "terrorist activity" in Section 212(a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B)) and the definition of "terrorism" in Section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (FRAA, P.L. 100-204, as amended; 22 U.S.C. §2656f(d)(2)).

The INA and FRAA definitions place differing emphasis on what might lead to an FTO designation. The INA defines "terrorist activity" to include specific types of violent actions (hijackings, assassinations, etc.). This definition deemphasizes the ideological motivations or goals of the perpetrators of such activities. However, the FRAA approaches the issue from the motivations of the aggressor and the targets of the violent activity. "Terrorism," as defined in the FRAA, is "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

There's nothing about drug boats in there. And there certainly hasn't been any effort to show us how those drug boats are engaging in "terrorism" under either statutory designation. Selling drugs, that yes can kill people if those people take them, doesn't seem to fit the definition. Not a hijacking or assassination, and not premeditated politically motivated violence.

So if they are not properly designated an FTO, then we are back to just blowing people up extra-judicially. I.e., murder, which is illegal in all 50 states and all U.S. territories, and probably the world.

Obama used drones to kill Al Qaeda and ISIS, which seem to be pretty squarely conducting "terrorism" as defined by law. So, yes, I do think there is a massive difference between the two situations and they are not comparable. I certainly wouldn't call it hypocrisy. But I will note that plenty of people hated Obama doing that, and most of them were Republicans. So hypocrisy seems to be the claim whenever the shoe is on the other foot, back and forth and back and forth throughout time.

[falafel]

Two can play this game.. And a “Former JAG” working group is opinion based.. As if there is no bias in that interpretation..


Hey ChatGPT: What law or rule is Trump using to attack boats in international waters and his military action toward Venezuela

.....

Congress was notified but not asked to vote. What Trump did not have legal authority to do


Without Congress, Trump could not legally:

• Declare war on Venezuela
• Launch a sustained bombing campaign
• Invade or occupy territory
• Overthrow the Venezuelan government by force

Good to see that I will still have a job. ChatGPT does not make a very good lawyer.

Also, I don't know if you saw it, but Trump was asked this week if he were going to ask Congress for a Declaration of War so he could put boots on the ground in Venezuela. He said he'd probably tell them about it before he did it, but he wasn't going to ask them. His claimed reason for not following the law was that he was concerned someone in Congress might leak the plans.

Probably through an unauthorized Signal group chat with journalists in it or something.

[dabrockster]

1. Hard to imagine designating an entire county a terrorist organization. And as I recall, he designated Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization. Regardless, I don't see how that designation holds water. This is from Congress.gov:




There's nothing about drug boats in there. And there certainly hasn't been any effort to show us how those drug boats are engaging in "terrorism" under either statutory designation. Selling drugs, that yes can kill people if those people take them, doesn't seem to fit the definition. Not a hijacking or assassination, and not premeditated politically motivated violence.

So if they are not properly designated an FTO, then we are back to just blowing people up extra-judicially. I.e., murder, which is illegal in all 50 states and all U.S. territories, and probably the world.

Obama used drones to kill Al Qaeda and ISIS, which seem to be pretty squarely conducting "terrorism" as defined by law. So, yes, I do think there is a massive difference between the two situations and they are not comparable. I certainly wouldn't call it hypocrisy. But I will note that plenty of people hated Obama doing that, and most of them were Republicans. So hypocrisy seems to be the claim whenever the shoe is on the other foot, back and forth and back and forth throughout time.

Just to be clear. I had no issue with Obama bombing them. Just like I do not in this case. What my problem was with your targeted statement that GOP had issue with Obama and now we see the reverse situation where Dems are against Trump in this.

so, my statement of hypocrisy reflects this. As for what do we know about the drug boats and other criminal actions by Maduro. As I have posted before. I tend to lend to those in the know. Like Fetterman and the opposition leader to Venezuela. And we (The public) may not know fully but they do. Do I think it needs to be more transparent. Sure, to congress. But FFS. In these situations, I do not think the public needs to know… YET..

[beefytee]

Yeah. I would love UT's take on this. He was the most critical of Obama's drone strikes here.

[Northwestcoug]

Stop comparing U.S. judicial system where it does not fit.. And this is not about what side I am on. It is plain and simple. Is it legal or illegal? Still waiting. Stop throwing hypothesis that do not meet the standards of what is being used. Do I agree with death penalty or drive dealers in the U.S. court system?? Come on. Not even comparable. Such a stupid comparison.

Let’s for once see this as what it is. A strategic war-action under the guise of that. I am not looking at this through some small lens... He wanted to put pressure to remove Maduro and asked for a way to get around congress. Not any different than former or future Presidents.

As for Morality. I am not a soldier and nor will I second guess or judge their actions and orders. I support them and hope we can provide the support they need in the service they do. Period.

Well you've already claimed multiple times that it's legal, so I've gone beyond that argument. Smarter minds than you or me have serious reservations about the legality of it, however. So you may want to keep an open mind about that. Especially if in the future it is deemed illegal, and the military you support might be found liable.

You also might want to rethink how killing foreign nationals outside of the US reflects on our own criminal justice system. Trump has repeatedly mused on capital punishment for drug dealers. He has favorably commented on totalitarian states and their brutal prosecution of drug offenders. Do you think we would be in a place like this, were it not for Trump's position that it's just fine for the US to pursue similar policies? Because that is what's happening now. We are killing most likely itinerant people peripherally involved with the drug cartel, and definitely not involved with fentanyl trafficking. And I guarantee you that it is not making a dent in fentanyl overdoses, the reason why Trump is ostensibly ordering these killings.

And I'm sorry if the moral question is so boring to you, but I thought our laws were based on some semblance of morality. Every elected official and policy maker involved in this should clearly be on the record if they think these killings are legal, let alone moral. And responsible citizens aren't off the hook. I'm not going to press you again for your opinion on the morality of all this, but it really kind of behooves the nation to come to grips with what is currently being done under the guise of AUMF.

[falafel]

Just to be clear. I had no issue with Obama bombing them. Just like I do not in this case. What my problem was with your targeted statement that GOP had issue with Obama and now we see the reverse situation where Dems are against Trump in this.

so, my statement of hypocrisy reflects this. As for what do we know about the drug boats and other criminal actions by Maduro. As I have posted before. I tend to lend to those in the know. Like Fetterman and the opposition leader to Venezuela. And we (The public) may not know fully but they do. Do I think it needs to be more transparent. Sure, to congress. But FFS. In these situations, I do not think the public needs to know… YET..

Well, I have no quibbles with that. I fully accept that the public doesn't need and probably shouldn't have everything. (I do find that response odd when the WH and Sec. of WAR post videos of the strikes on social media and then acts like its all way too sensitive for the public.

What I DO quibble with is your My reply to you was 90% about this action did not appear legal under the various justifications we have heard. I don't need to prove it one way or the other because I'm not a judge and I'm not a DOJ lawyer. But remember when you said:

As for the law. This isn’t American law. It is against a state labels a certain way which makes it legal. Even if you do not like this, you need to stop sayin it is illegal. Different rules apply in this situation.

I have shown you why I think it is illegal, as you requested, with specific citations. Do you have any citations to argue that it is legal? Or do you have a response to my argument that designating Tren de Aragua as a FTO doesn't cut it, and you can't name an entire country a FTO. If you attack a sovereign state, its called War.