Is a retroactive, dubiously legal justification for extra legal killings a thing?

[struth]

The War Powers Resolution says that a president who unilaterally deploys U.S. forces into hostilities “shall terminate” the operation after 60 days if Congress has not authorized it by then.

Well just like prior admins, from Obama to Clinton, the Trump admin has said the war powers act doesn’t apply

 

[berg80]

Terminate - restart - rinse - repeat. BOOM!

Illegal. Not that you or the regime gives a damn.

 

[Mac-7]

Trump ‘Determined’ the U.S. Is Now in a War With Drug Cartels, Congress Is Told​

President Trump has decided that the United States is engaged in a formal “armed conflict” with drug cartels his team has labeled terrorist organizations and that suspected smugglers for such groups are “unlawful combatants,” the administration said in a confidential notice to Congress this week.

The notice was sent to several congressional committees and obtained by The New York Times. It adds new detail to the administration’s thinly articulated legal rationale for why three U.S. military strikes the president ordered on boats in the Caribbean Sea last month, killing all 17 people aboard them, should be seen as lawful rather than murder.

Mr. Trump’s move to formally deem his campaign against drug cartels as an active armed conflict means he is cementing his claim to extraordinary wartime powers, legal specialists said. In an armed conflict, as defined by international law, a country can lawfully kill enemy fighters even when they pose no threat, detain them indefinitely without trials and prosecute them in military courts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/us/politics/trump-drug-cartels-war.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20251002&instance_id=163691&nl=breaking-news&regi_id=65145149&segment_id=207041&user_id=fecdfdffdaaa11107b72f0f4f6e429cc

Memo to Congress.........."Oh, by the way, those dead Venezuelans I ordered to be killed without any evidence that's been presented to you or anyone else, it's okay cuz I unilaterally decided it's okay. Pay no attention to this guy."

Geoffrey S. Corn, a retired judge advocate general lawyer who was formerly the Army’s senior adviser for law-of-war issues, said drug cartels were not engaged in “hostilities” — the standard for when there is an armed conflict for legal purposes — against the United States because selling a dangerous product is different from an armed attack.

Any active JAG or IG of a similar opinion will just be fired so no worries.

The cartels are offering bounties for killing ICE and BP agents

And since they control countries like mexico and venezuela that puts trump on solid ground

 

[OODA_Loop]

Illegal. Not that you or the regime gives a damn.

Nope

 

[berg80]

The cartels are offering bounties for killing ICE and BP agents

And since they control countries like mexico and venezuela that puts trump on solid ground

If that were true the regime would use it as a justification for its illegal actions in the Caribbean. It hasn't.

 

[berg80]

Nope

The suggestion the regime can send the same notice to Congress over and over after the 60 day window for conducting military operations without congressional consent expires is a steaming pile.

 

[OODA_Loop]

If that were true the regime would use it as a justification for its illegal actions in the Caribbean. It hasn't.

Nope its eradicating named terrorists in the process of bringing illegal drugs into the US. Boom

 

[22lcidw]

If that were true the regime would use it as a justification for its illegal actions in the Caribbean. It hasn't.

We give money to other nations at war. Ukraine as an example. We have had a huge presence in the middle east for 35 years. Trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars spent. The western hemisphere is fortunate compared to most parts of the planet with wars. It is not so fortunate with huge drug cartels and poverty.

 

[struth]

Illegal. Not that you or the regime gives a damn.

Again the war powers resolution doesn’t apply

We aren’t engaged in hostilities. See Obama admin response to the question in regards to Libya

But moreover good luck challenging it in court, see Campbell v Clinton.

 

[berg80]

Nope its eradicating named terrorists in the process of bringing illegal drugs into the US. Boom

Unilaterally designating individuals or groups as terrorists, when they don't fit the criteria for such a designation, is essentially trying to put a square peg in a round hole so as to pretend it gives the regime the legal right to continue extra judicial killings. It's just another steaming pile.

 

[SweetTea]

Saying there's a "war on drugs" is not the same as a real war justifying the killing of smugglers.

Geoffrey S. Corn, a retired judge advocate general lawyer who was formerly the Army’s senior adviser for law-of-war issues, said drug cartels were not engaged in “hostilities” — the standard for when there is an armed conflict for legal purposes — against the United States because selling a dangerous product is different from an armed attack.

The legal definition of hostilities does not require arms. If an action causes death or destruction to the US or its citizens, that is hostile. Weapons are not required. Bringing drugs and fentanyl to the US, which undoubtedly harms Americans, is a hostile act by every legal and reasonable definition.

Also, the US Constitution purposely does not define war as an armed conflict.

This retired judge is making things up to suit a political narrative. If this case was brought to an unbiased court, it would be cut and dry, but we have a lot of leftist activists judges just as biased as this retired one.

 

[Mac-7]

If that were true the regime would use it as a justification for its illegal actions in the Caribbean. It hasn't.

Maybe I am a step or two ahead of trump on this one

Plus he’s still rngaged with diplomacy

I dont know what inducements we have to cause the mamacita figurehead president of mexico to risk her life by turning against the drug gangs

But maybe there is something

 

[berg80]

Maybe I am a step or two ahead of trump on this one

Plus he’s still rngaged with diplomacy

I dont know what inducements we have to cause the mamacita figurehead president of mexico to risk her life by turning against the drug gangs

But maybe there is something

After having established your racist bona fides it looks like that isn't enough so you're going for misogyny too. Well done.

 

[struth]

Unilaterally designating individuals or groups as terrorists, when they don't fit the criteria for such a designation, is essentially trying to put a square peg in a round hole so as to pretend it gives the regime the legal right to continue extra judicial killings. It's just another steaming pile.

Congress set out how to designate groups terrorist…they gave the sec of state the unilateral power to do that under section 219 of the immigrant and nationality act

Try again you uninformed dembot

 

[Couchpotato]

Trump ‘Determined’ the U.S. Is Now in a War With Drug Cartels, Congress Is Told​

President Trump has decided that the United States is engaged in a formal “armed conflict” with drug cartels his team has labeled terrorist organizations and that suspected smugglers for such groups are “unlawful combatants,” the administration said in a confidential notice to Congress this week.

The notice was sent to several congressional committees and obtained by The New York Times. It adds new detail to the administration’s thinly articulated legal rationale for why three U.S. military strikes the president ordered on boats in the Caribbean Sea last month, killing all 17 people aboard them, should be seen as lawful rather than murder.

Mr. Trump’s move to formally deem his campaign against drug cartels as an active armed conflict means he is cementing his claim to extraordinary wartime powers, legal specialists said. In an armed conflict, as defined by international law, a country can lawfully kill enemy fighters even when they pose no threat, detain them indefinitely without trials and prosecute them in military courts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/us/politics/trump-drug-cartels-war.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20251002&instance_id=163691&nl=breaking-news&regi_id=65145149&segment_id=207041&user_id=fecdfdffdaaa11107b72f0f4f6e429cc

Memo to Congress.........."Oh, by the way, those dead Venezuelans I ordered to be killed without any evidence that's been presented to you or anyone else, it's okay cuz I unilaterally decided it's okay. Pay no attention to this guy."

Geoffrey S. Corn, a retired judge advocate general lawyer who was formerly the Army’s senior adviser for law-of-war issues, said drug cartels were not engaged in “hostilities” — the standard for when there is an armed conflict for legal purposes — against the United States because selling a dangerous product is different from an armed attack.

Any active JAG or IG of a similar opinion will just be fired so no worries.

You mean like the strikes in Yemen, Syria, Libya, etc etc? How is what this admin is doing in SA any different than what past admins have done in (insert foreign country here) over the past 25 years?

Step 1. Name a group of people terrorists

Step 2. Bomb them


Thats it. No more steps.

 

[Mac-7]

After having established your racist bona fides it looks like that isn't enough so you're going for misogyny too. Well done.

What racist bonafides?

its too early for you to be hitting the bottle - or worse

 

[Lesh]

The legal definition of hostilities does not require arms. If an action causes death or destruction to the US or its citizens, that is hostile. Weapons are not required. Bringing drugs and fentanyl to the US, which undoubtedly harms Americans, is a hostile act by every legal and reasonable definition.

Also, the US Constitution purposely does not define war as an armed conflict.

This retired judge is making things up to suit a political narrative. If this case was brought to an unbiased court, it would be cut and dry, but we have a lot of leftist activists judges just as biased as this retired one.

Wait… weapons are not required here but were on Jan 6?

You turds need to find more consistent arguments

 

[Lesh]

What racist bonafides?

its too early for you to be hotting the bottle - or worse

Ummm… who’s “hotting the bottle”?

 

[Mac-7]

Ummm… who’s “hotting the bottle”?

Thanks for the correction

 

[SweetTea]

Wait… weapons are not required here but were on Jan 6?

You turds need to find more consistent arguments

I don’t think anybody said the actions of Jan. 6th weren’t hostile, they just weren't trying to overthrow the government as you meatheads have said.