[Brian Griffin]

“Terror network headed by Osama bin Laden has tried to develop high-strength form of heroin that it planned to export to United States and Western Europe, according to United States intelligence reports; plan was supposedly in retaliation for US missile attack against terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, and provides rare link between Al Qaeda and drugs”

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/04/world/a-nation-challenged-drugs-super-heroin-was-planned-by-bin-laden-reports-say.html

Note well the date.

Wars can be fought with more than spears, bows & arrows, and guns.

In WWI, war was fought using chemicals as well as with guns.

The chemicals are different now. There are Chinese that want revenge, Mexicans that want revenge, etc.

[nathanbedford]

Yes, in 1950 Mao was the well-known stalwart defender of the Bill of Rights.

If you contend that the use of drugs as a weapon of war means that we can suspend the Bill of Rights to wage that war, in the end, you must comply with the rules of making war as set down in the Constitution.

These are safeguards, safeguarding the nation, to curb the power of the president, to prevent overreach by the executive. Our history is replete with the struggle between Congress and the president concerning the president's power to make war, just as our history is replete with struggles over the power of the executive to enforce laws.

The President may not wage war when prosecuting crimes to evade provisions of the Constitution, no matter how compelling the cause. If a Causus Belli exists, then wage war according to the law of war. The president may not do one thing while pretending to be the other.