When was war declared against Venezuela?

[berg80]

Boat Suspected of Smuggling Drugs Is Said to Have Turned Before U.S. Attacked It​

The Trump administration has argued that the summary killing of 11 people it accused of running drugs was legal under the laws of war.

A Venezuelan boat that the U.S. military destroyed in the Caribbean last week had altered its course and appeared to have turned around before the attack started because the people onboard had apparently spotted a military aircraft stalking it, according to American officials familiar with the matter.

The military repeatedly hit the vessel before it sank, the officials added, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter. The administration has claimed the boat was carrying drugs.

The disclosures provide new details about an operation that was a startling departure from traditional drug interdiction efforts, escalating President Trump’s use of the military for matters typically handled by law enforcement. Legal specialists have disputed that it was lawful for the military, on President Trump’s orders, to target and kill drug smuggling suspects as if they were combatants in a war.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/10/us/trump-drug-boat-venezuela-strike.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20250910&instance_id=162263&nl=from-the-times&regi_id=65145149&segment_id=205638&user_id=fecdfdffdaaa11107b72f0f4f6e429cc

Does declaring war against drug smugglers mean we can bomb people in Mexico? Importantly, where is the hard evidence the trump government made about the boat and the people in it?

Vitally, have the Repub's in Congress scheduled hearings on the matter of the government's claimed justification? If not why not?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“When was war declared against Venezuela?”

When Trump needed to try and deflect from the Epstein debacle.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The US military took out drug runners.

Good on them, I see the US Coast Guard is ramping up efforts also

 

[berg80]

“When was war declared against Venezuela?”

When Trump needed to try and deflect from the Epstein debacle.

While the White House has not provided a detailed legal rationale, it has put forward the outlines of a novel argument that using lethal military force was permissible under the laws of armed conflict to defend the country from drugs because 100,000 Americans die annually from overdoses. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said people suspected of smuggling drugs toward the United States pose “an immediate threat.” Mr. Trump, in a letter to Congress, justified the attack as a matter of self-defense.

Many legal specialists, including retired top military lawyers, have rejected the idea that Mr. Trump has legitimate authority to treat suspected drug smuggling as legally equivalent to an imminent armed attack on the United States. Even if one accepted that premise for the sake of argument, they added, if the boat had already turned away, that would further undermine what they saw as an already weak claim of self-defense.

The thing is, at this moment in time trump's power is unchecked. Congressional Repub's will not stand up to him and the SC is enabling the erosion of democracy.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The question is, why would anyone oppose shutting off drugs being imported to the US?

 

[Darkwind]

"Said to have turned".

I am on good footing to say that this is deliberately false and/or misleading.

 

[westwall]

Boat Suspected of Smuggling Drugs Is Said to Have Turned Before U.S. Attacked It​

The Trump administration has argued that the summary killing of 11 people it accused of running drugs was legal under the laws of war.

A Venezuelan boat that the U.S. military destroyed in the Caribbean last week had altered its course and appeared to have turned around before the attack started because the people onboard had apparently spotted a military aircraft stalking it, according to American officials familiar with the matter.

The military repeatedly hit the vessel before it sank, the officials added, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter. The administration has claimed the boat was carrying drugs.

The disclosures provide new details about an operation that was a startling departure from traditional drug interdiction efforts, escalating President Trump’s use of the military for matters typically handled by law enforcement. Legal specialists have disputed that it was lawful for the military, on President Trump’s orders, to target and kill drug smuggling suspects as if they were combatants in a war.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/10/us/trump-drug-boat-venezuela-strike.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20250910&instance_id=162263&nl=from-the-times&regi_id=65145149&segment_id=205638&user_id=fecdfdffdaaa11107b72f0f4f6e429cc

Does declaring war against drug smugglers mean we can bomb people in Mexico? Importantly, where is the hard evidence the trump government made about the boat and the people in it?

Vitally, have the Repub's in Congress scheduled hearings on the matter of the government's claimed justification? If not why not?

Ummmm, it was a drone. Not flying a national naval ensign on the high seas. Thus fair game.

 

[berg80]

"Said to have turned".

I am on good footing to say that this is deliberately false and/or misleading.

A Venezuelan boat that the U.S. military destroyed in the Caribbean last week had altered its course and appeared to have turned around before the attack started because the people onboard had apparently spotted a military aircraft stalking it, according to American officials familiar with the matter.

Just because the reporting does not fit the narrative you believe in doesn't mean it isn't accurate.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Stalinberg and the rest of the demented LEFT have absolutely no sense of self-awareness.
None.
N/A

 

[berg80]

"Said to have turned".

I am on good footing to say that this is deliberately false and/or misleading.

Here are a few sources of info you should consider availing yourself of.

Did the President’s Strike on Tren de Aragua Violate the Law?

By applying the tools of war to civilians, the Trump administration is entering unprecedented—and deeply problematic—legal territory.

www.lawfaremedia.org

The Just Security Podcast: Murder on the High Seas? What You Need to Know about the U.S. Strike on the Caribbean Vessel

Rebecca Ingber and Brian Finucane join Tess Bridgeman to unpack what you need to know about the US attack on a vessel in the Caribbean.

www.justsecurity.org

 

[westwall]

A Venezuelan boat that the U.S. military destroyed in the Caribbean last week had altered its course and appeared to have turned around before the attack started because the people onboard had apparently spotted a military aircraft stalking it, according to American officials familiar with the matter.

Just because the reporting does not fit the narrative you believe in doesn't mean it isn't accurate.

Who cares. It was not flying a flag on the high seas and was sailing autonomously. It's a navigational hazard AT BEST, sinking it did the world a favor.

 

[martybegan]

Here are a few sources of info you should consider availing yourself of.

Did the President’s Strike on Tren de Aragua Violate the Law?

By applying the tools of war to civilians, the Trump administration is entering unprecedented—and deeply problematic—legal territory.

www.lawfaremedia.org

The Just Security Podcast: Murder on the High Seas? What You Need to Know about the U.S. Strike on the Caribbean Vessel

Rebecca Ingber and Brian Finucane join Tess Bridgeman to unpack what you need to know about the US attack on a vessel in the Caribbean.

www.justsecurity.org

Keep sucking that terrorist drug smuggler dick.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Keep sucking that terrorist drug smuggler dick.

He's worried his supply is being destroyed

 

[berg80]

As a matter of U.S. domestic law, military action directed by the president must be either authorized by Congress through statute or pursuant to the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution.

There is no colorable statutory authority for military action against Tren de Aragua and other similarly situated groups. Occasional suggestions in the press that the Trump administration’s description of Tren de Aragua as a terrorist organization is meant to invoke the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) are almost certainly mistaken: That authorization extends only to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and select associates, and no one—not even in the Trump administration—has accused Tren de Aragua of being that. Nor does the oft-cited fact that the Trump administration has designated Tren de Aragua as both a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) and a specially designated global terrorist (SDGT) make any difference. The statutes, executive orders, and regulations underlying these two terrorist designation regimes authorize economic sanctions and select other measures, but say nothing about the use of military force. FTO or SDGT designation may make a difference in how certain internal executive branch policies relating to the use of force apply to such groups. But it has no bearing on the broader question of the president’s legal authority to order the use of military force against them in the first place.

Instead, the Trump administration’s scattered statements suggest that it is almost certainly relying on President Trump’s Article II constitutional authority. The executive branch has long maintained that Article II gives the president broad inherent constitutional authority to use military force without congressional authorization. Such views have proved controversial among legal scholars and have never been fully vindicated in the federal courts. But most judges have been reluctant to put limits on the executive branch’s actions absent clear statutory restrictions by Congress, which—with the limited (and somewhat flawed) exception of the 1973 War Powers Resolution—have not been forthcoming. As a result, the executive branch’s broad views of presidential authority remain the operational ones for purposes of informing U.S. military actions.

 

[BS Filter]

While the White House has not provided a detailed legal rationale, it has put forward the outlines of a novel argument that using lethal military force was permissible under the laws of armed conflict to defend the country from drugs because 100,000 Americans die annually from overdoses. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said people suspected of smuggling drugs toward the United States pose “an immediate threat.” Mr. Trump, in a letter to Congress, justified the attack as a matter of self-defense.

Many legal specialists, including retired top military lawyers, have rejected the idea that Mr. Trump has legitimate authority to treat suspected drug smuggling as legally equivalent to an imminent armed attack on the United States. Even if one accepted that premise for the sake of argument, they added, if the boat had already turned away, that would further undermine what they saw as an already weak claim of self-defense.

The thing is, at this moment in time trump's power is unchecked. Congressional Repub's will not stand up to him and the SC is enabling the erosion of democracy.

Killing drug smugglers is now "the erosion of democracy". I suggest democrats use that slogan for the midterms.

 

[martybegan]

As a matter of U.S. domestic law, military action directed by the president must be either authorized by Congress through statute or pursuant to the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution.

There is no colorable statutory authority for military action against Tren de Aragua and other similarly situated groups. Occasional suggestions in the press that the Trump administration’s description of Tren de Aragua as a terrorist organization is meant to invoke the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) are almost certainly mistaken: That authorization extends only to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and select associates, and no one—not even in the Trump administration—has accused Tren de Aragua of being that. Nor does the oft-cited fact that the Trump administration has designated Tren de Aragua as both a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) and a specially designated global terrorist (SDGT) make any difference. The statutes, executive orders, and regulations underlying these two terrorist designation regimes authorize economic sanctions and select other measures, but say nothing about the use of military force. FTO or SDGT designation may make a difference in how certain internal executive branch policies relating to the use of force apply to such groups. But it has no bearing on the broader question of the president’s legal authority to order the use of military force against them in the first place.

Instead, the Trump administration’s scattered statements suggest that it is almost certainly relying on President Trump’s Article II constitutional authority. The executive branch has long maintained that Article II gives the president broad inherent constitutional authority to use military force without congressional authorization. Such views have proved controversial among legal scholars and have never been fully vindicated in the federal courts. But most judges have been reluctant to put limits on the executive branch’s actions absent clear statutory restrictions by Congress, which—with the limited (and somewhat flawed) exception of the 1973 War Powers Resolution—have not been forthcoming. As a result, the executive branch’s broad views of presidential authority remain the operational ones for purposes of informing U.S. military actions.

That's a whole lotta opinion without an actual link to the entire opinion.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

As a matter of U.S. domestic law, military action directed by the president must be either authorized by Congress through statute or pursuant to the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution.

There is no colorable statutory authority for military action against Tren de Aragua and other similarly situated groups. Occasional suggestions in the press that the Trump administration’s description of Tren de Aragua as a terrorist organization is meant to invoke the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) are almost certainly mistaken: That authorization extends only to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and select associates, and no one—not even in the Trump administration—has accused Tren de Aragua of being that. Nor does the oft-cited fact that the Trump administration has designated Tren de Aragua as both a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) and a specially designated global terrorist (SDGT) make any difference. The statutes, executive orders, and regulations underlying these two terrorist designation regimes authorize economic sanctions and select other measures, but say nothing about the use of military force. FTO or SDGT designation may make a difference in how certain internal executive branch policies relating to the use of force apply to such groups. But it has no bearing on the broader question of the president’s legal authority to order the use of military force against them in the first place.

Instead, the Trump administration’s scattered statements suggest that it is almost certainly relying on President Trump’s Article II constitutional authority. The executive branch has long maintained that Article II gives the president broad inherent constitutional authority to use military force without congressional authorization. Such views have proved controversial among legal scholars and have never been fully vindicated in the federal courts. But most judges have been reluctant to put limits on the executive branch’s actions absent clear statutory restrictions by Congress, which—with the limited (and somewhat flawed) exception of the 1973 War Powers Resolution—have not been forthcoming. As a result, the executive branch’s broad views of presidential authority remain the operational ones for purposes of informing U.S. military actions.

Meh, drug runners liquidated

You should applaud that.. well unless

 

[Concerned American]

The Trump administration has argued that the summary killing of 11 people

So, you're opposed to the sinking of a Venezuelan drug runner boat with millions of dollars worth of dangerous drugs aboard, but you cheer the summary execution of an unarmed American veteran whose only crime was trespass on public land. Hmmm. Ironic.

 

[Concerned American]

according to American officials familiar with the matter.

WHO? LMAO, typical democrat msm BS. "American officials familiar with the matter" is NOT a source. Name them!

 

[Concerned American]

Killing drug smugglers is now "the erosion of democracy". I suggest democrats use that slogan for the midterms.

That's the message they are sending. Crime in the streets in blue cities, unbridled immigration, allow drugs into the country with impunity--DEMOCRAT PLATFORMS.