Posted on 10/27/2025 6:43:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In a speech before the House of Commons on May 13, 1940, referencing the war against Nazi Germany, Winston Churchill stated, “What is our policy? … To wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime.”
The Prussian military theorist Karl von Clausewitz once observed that “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” Various political and moral interpretations exist regarding what constitutes a “just war.” That usually depends on one’s point of view. As the saying goes, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
What if there were a country that had absorbed the loss of over 100,000 of its citizens each year for several years, and which has done little to address the problem? Would that country not be remiss in its primary duty to protect its own citizens? Well, that country does indeed exist; it is called the United States of America.
Last year, over 100,000 Americans died of drug overdoses, mostly young people, the vast majority of them from fentanyl. Fentanyl is a synthetic opiate 50 times more powerful than heroin, the components of which are manufactured in China. The compounds are exported to countries such as Mexico, where the drug cartels then combine them to produce fentanyl. After that, the drug is smuggled across the border by land or sea to the U.S.
Fentanyl is cheap and easy to produce. Also, there is no “growing season,” so the profit margin is high.
Fentanyl has also been observed masquerading as prescription painkillers such as OxyContin. Many buyers who purchased these drugs on the street are totally unaware that they are really purchasing fentanyl. The drug is so powerful that a minuscule amount can prove fatal.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
RE: if the US is not a formal party to the treaty then, as a matter of US law, its provisions are not binding on officials of the US government.
That argument — while technically accurate in a narrow legal sense — collapses under moral scrutiny when viewed through the lens of global responsibility, ethical leadership, and the rule of law.
Being a global power means modeling responsible behavior, not exploiting legal loopholes. The U.S. often demands accountability from other nations — on human rights, maritime conduct, and international norms. To reject those same standards when inconvenient BECAUSE WE HAVE TGE BIGGER WEAPONS is morally hypocritical.
If the U.S. expects others to follow UNCLOS provisions (e.g., freedom of navigation), it must uphold them itself — even if not formally bound.
Many UNCLOS provisions are considered customary international law — meaning they reflect global consensus and are binding regardless of treaty ratification. WE BENEFIT FROM THESE NORMS.
If the U.S. benefits from these norms (e.g., protection of its ships, rights to innocent passage), it has a duty to respect the reciprocal obligations — including restraint in use of force.
The principle that “we’re not bound, so we can ignore it” undermines the moral foundation of the rule of law.
Law is not just a tool of convenience — it’s a framework for justice. Selective adherence erodes trust, legitimacy, and the moral authority of the U.S. on the world stage.
Destroying vessels based on suspicion — without trial, evidence review, or opportunity for defense — violates basic moral principles of justice.
Even if not legally bound, the U.S. is morally obligated to uphold due process, especially when innocent lives are possibly at stake.
If the U.S. claims it can destroy foreign vessels without being bound by international law, other nations may adopt the same logic — threatening U.S. ships, citizens, and interests.
Upholding international norms protects everyone. Abandoning them invites chaos and retaliation.
Not being bound by a treaty doesn’t absolve a nation of its moral duty to act justly, proportionally, and responsibly. The true test of character is not what law compels, but what conscience demands. I’d like to believe that we are a righteous nation STILL.
Your method would eventually end in the loss of American servicemen. Are you okay with that?
I’ve only watched the first video and the drug bales were visible and recognizable.
I don’t particularly want the US to disclose it’s ways and means just because old farts on the internet want “proof”.
RE: As far killing the innocent goes, just about any law enforcement exercise also carries with it the prospect of killing the innocent
I’m sorry, but That argument — while superficially pragmatic — fails morally, legally, and strategically when applied to the deliberate destruction of suspected vessels without due process.
Yes, law enforcement carries risk, but that risk is mitigated by strict rules: proportionality, necessity, accountability, and due process. This is NOT like Israel in Gaza fighting a war of survival and trying to rescue hostages ( there are no hostages here ).
Accidental harm during a war is not the same as preemptively destroying a vessel based on suspicion. One is a tragic byproduct of restraint; the other is a deliberate act without judicial oversight.
There is no equivalence. Killing with intent based on incomplete evidence is not morally equivalent to accidental harm during a war.
RE: Your method would eventually end in the loss of American servicemen. Are you okay with that?
I’m sorry, but That response is emotionally charged and rhetorically powerful — but it’s also strategically and morally flawed.
The argument implies a false choice: either violate international and moral law or lose American lives.
It’s like saying, the police should just shoot and kill murder suspects because not doing so will eventually and possibly kill police officers.
The question “Are you okay with that?” weaponizes fear to justify preemptive killing — a tactic historically used to erode civil liberties and justify war crimes.
The moral legitimacy of U.S. actions depends on restraint, evidence, and accountability. Sacrificing those principles for tactical expediency undermines everything American servicemen are sworn to defend. This is even more true as we have not formally declared war on Maduro’s regime.
U.S. servicemen are trained to operate within rules of engagement and international law. Suggesting that their safety requires abandoning those rules cheapens their professionalism and sacrifice. Protecting servicemen means equipping them with lawful, powerful, effective and protective tools — not giving them license to act outside the law.
The safety of American servicemen is paramount — but it must be pursued through lawful, strategic, and morally defensible means. Fear cannot be the excuse for abandoning the rule of law. It is true of our Police officers, it should be true in this particular case.
Um, no, our intelligence said that Saddam Hussein had WMD's (specifically chem weapons, which their was evidence of, and potentially bio weapons). No one ever said he had nukes.
Just like poor journalism, its hard to take a comment seriously when the first sentence is factually false.
There's jus ad bellum and jus in bello. As others in this thread have noted, this is a form of hybrid warfare being waged against the US, to which I added that the scope of the smuggling goes far beyond what can be handled by the judicial system. That gives us jus ad bellum.
So if this is warfare, and not law enforcement, jus in bello doesn't require asking for surrender in order to take prisoners. And in this operation as in others, I would have assume that our military is doing what it can to discriminate combatants from non-combatants and that these really are drug boats and not fishermen. That's sufficient for me.
That argument attempts to elevate narcotics smuggling into the realm of warfare — but it misapplies both jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and jus in bello (the law governing conduct in war).
First of all, The President does not have the constitutional right to declare war. Just because he said so does not give him the right to make it so. Only Congress has that power.
Jus ad bellum applies to armed conflict between states or organized armed groups with sustained combat operations — not criminal enterprises. Drug cartels, however violent, do not meet the threshold of an armed attack under Article 51 of the UN Charter. And yes, WE ARER A SIGNATORY TO THIS CHARTER WHICH MEANS WE AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THIS ARTICLE.
Drug smuggling is a transnational crime, not an act of war. Elevating it to warfare risks militarizing law enforcement and eroding legal boundaries between war and peace.
And Hybrid Warfare ≠ Carte Blanche
Hybrid warfare refers to state-sponsored or coordinated campaigns blending conventional, irregular, and cyber tactics — not decentralized criminal smuggling.
Unless Venezuela is proven to be directing and weaponizing narcotics as a strategic tool of war, the hybrid warfare label is speculative and insufficient to justify jus ad bellum. If it is indeed, so, then let’s declare war on Venezuela. So far, we have NOT.
And Even if jus ad bellum were valid (which it isn’t here), jus in bello still constrains conduct: proportionality, distinction, and necessity.
Destroying vessels based on suspicion violates these principles — especially if the crew are civilians and the evidence is circumstantial. Therefore, Strategic resilience requires lawful, evidence-based interdiction — not war logic applied to criminal enforcement.
I’m sorry, but Jus ad bellum is not a blank check for violence. Smuggling is a criminal challenge, not a battlefield. The rule of law must not be sacrificed to rhetorical escalation. If this is indeed war, let Congress declare it as is constitutionally allowed.
The U.S. president cannot legally or morally justify blowing up suspected drug-smuggling vessels simply by declaring a “war on drugs.”
The phrase “war on drugs” is rhetorical, not a declaration of war under U.S. constitutional law. Only Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war (Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution).
Heck, Even under the President’s Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief, lethal force must comply with domestic statutes and international law — including the War Powers Resolution and the UN Charter.
We are NOT at war regardless of what the executive branch says so ( And this isn’t about Trump, it’s about ANY President, Republican or Democrat ).
The Posse Comitatus Act therefore applies, not war laws. The act limits the use of military force in domestic law enforcement.
• The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) allows interdiction and arrest — not destruction — of suspected drug vessels.
• Blowing up a vessel based on suspicion alone would violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments (unreasonable seizure and due process).
And Even if constitutional rights don’t apply directly to foreign vessles in international waters, U.S. government actions abroad must still comply with U.S. statutes (e.g., Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act) and Customary norms of proportionality and necessity.
U.S. actions are still bound by international law, our statutory limits, and strategic norms. Legal immunity is not moral license.
The US Coast Guard does that frequently. In fact, it did it within the last week or so. As for trying them in court, they are not US citizens. They are foreign nationals operating in international waters with intent of causing deadly harm to our citizens. They have zero claim to being covered by US laws.
For example when Gaza shoots rockets into Israel daily it is business as usual, when Israel shoots back it is war.
When North Korea attacks boats in South Korean waters it is not a war.
When Saddam was shooting at American planes it was not war.
When the USSR was kidnapping American Service men it was not war.
When Mexican military are shooting at American BP it is also not war.
When Chinese military cross into India and shoot their military officers it is not a war unless India shoots back.
Would you like more examples?
The barbarians are always free to do what they want and it is not war. It is only when the more or less civilized actually respond that the pink pantie brigade starts sobbing into their delicate lace hankies about the "horrible war".
As Hobbes said, "The law without the sword is but words."
There is no sword upholding international "law": it's mainly a convention that binds the conduct of Western states with one another. No one else observes it, and even Western states, when combating non-Western states or non-state actors, do not always observe it. Even now we don't observe it fighting ISIS: we simply bomb or drone them when we can.
Your claims about a declaration of war being necessary seem so extreme that the President would have to ask Congress for permission to defend the US when it being attacked, which strains credulity. If, as I argued, the drug smuggling has reached the state where it is a form of attack against the US then the President is justified in using military force to stop it. And the President alone makes the factual determination as to whether the US is being attacked, and that decision is not reviewable by anyone, the courts least of all.
Similarly the War Powers Act is a dead letter, because it too is "law without the sword." You or Congress can go ahead and sue Trump: see how far that gets you. Congress has two ways to restrain the President politically in such cases: i) they can impeach and convict; ii) they can cut military funding. And the Constitution ties the power to declare war to the treason clause. A DOW gives vast powers to the Executive domestically: Americans can be charged with treason, foreign nationals interned without trial, habeus can be suspended, foreign assets seized, etc., etc. The notion that the President can't act after Congress has given him a $1 trillion/year military is laughable. It's just leftover 1960s hippie BS.
And I really laughed out loud at your claim that Trump is violating the 4th and 5th Amendment rights of the narco trafickers, as though those apply to anyone except Americans, and even then, not to Americans who take up arms aganst the US who may be killed like any other enemy combatant.
You seem to conflate many different things: US law, "international law," and morality. The US Constitution and US law may, in fact, empower the President or Congress to do many things contravening your or my understandings of morality or international law. You seem to think those exist in some harmonious and continuous plane. I do not: there are surds or incommensurabilities in law, politics and morality.
RE: As for trying them in court, they are not US citizens. They are foreign nationals operating in international waters with intent of causing deadly harm to our citizens. They have zero claim to being covered by US laws.
I disagree. We have a law, passed by our Congress — The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) is a powerful tool that allows the U.S. to prosecute suspected drug smugglers interdicted in international waters, including Venezuelan nationals, under specific conditions.
The MDLEA applies outside U.S. territory, including the high seas (international waters). If the vessels were stateless or falsely claiming Venezuelan registration, the United States would be fully within its legal rights to arrest and prosecute the occupants under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA).
And there are Precedents — I remember U.S. v. Martinez-Hidalgo (1993).
The courts have consistently upheld that non-citizens tried under the MDLEA are entitled to due process and trial rights. In U.S. v. Martinez-Hidalgo, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that:
“Once a defendant is brought to the United States for trial, he is entitled to the protections of the Constitution.”
This principle has been reaffirmed in numerous MDLEA cases involving Colombians, Hondurans, Dominicans, and others.
These rights include:
Be presumed innocent until proven guilty
Receive a fair and public hearing
Be tried without undue delay.
So while these individuals may not have full constitutional rights abroad, once they are in U.S. custody and facing trial, they are entitled to the same core legal protections as any defendant in the American justice system. We might not like it, but that’s our law. If we don’t like it, let’s repeal it.
RE: drug smuggling has reached the state where it is a form of attack against the US then the President is justified in using military force to stop it. And the President alone makes the factual determination as to whether the US is being attacked, and that decision is not reviewable by anyone, the courts least of all.
That argument dangerously overstates presidential power and misrepresents both constitutional law and international norms.
While the President is Commander-in-Chief, that power is not unchecked. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war (Article I, Section 8).
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted precisely to limit unilateral military action by the executive.
Courts have historically reviewed and constrained executive war powers — including in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), where the Supreme Court rejected Truman’s wartime seizure of steel mills.
The President cannot unilaterally redefine criminal activity as an “attack” to justify military force. That would collapse the distinction between law enforcement and war — a hallmark of authoritarian regimes.
Under Article 51 of the UN Charter ( yes, we are a signatory), the right to self-defense applies only to an armed attack — not criminal activity, however severe.
Drug cartels are non-state actors, and unless they are directed by a state (e.g., Venezuela), their actions do not justify invocation of jus ad bellum.
Elevating smuggling to “armed attack” status without clear state sponsorship invites global condemnation and undermines U.S. credibility.
If the President could unilaterally declare war on anything he deems an “attack,” there would be no limit to executive power. You might trust the President because he happens to be Trump, but think how it would be like if God forbid, we had a Democrat?
We cannot erode the distinction between internal security and external warfare — a line that democracies must vigilantly protect.
The President is not a sovereign monarch. Drug smuggling is a serious transnational crime — not an armed attack. Conflating the two invites legal overreach, diplomatic fallout, and moral erosion. The Constitution, international law, and strategic prudence all demand restraint, not unilateral militarization.
In this particular case, INTERDICTION and ARREST is the better option, not unilaterally blowing up a vessel.
And BTW, where’s the evidence shown to the public that these vehicles were carrying narcotics? All we have is “Trust us, we said so.”
RE: conflate many different things: US law, “international law,” and morality. The US Constitution and US law may, in fact, empower the President or Congress to do many things contravening your or my understandings of morality or international law. You seem to think those exist in some harmonious and continuous plane.
You’re right to say I shouldn’t conflate these systems.
My goal is to MAP their BOUNDARIES, show where they reinforce or contradict each other, and help navigate the tradeoffs.
When I cite international law, I’m not claiming it overrides U.S. law — I’m showing how it frames global legitimacy. When I invoke morality, I’m not moralizing — I’m surfacing the strategic and reputational implications.
I’m not President, therefore all I can do is state what I believe is the best thing to do under the current circumstances.
Here’s how I see SHOULD be done:
Use statutory authority: Rely on the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), which allows interdiction of stateless or falsely flagged vessels.
This means we should not be gun-happy. There are lawful means of protecting our citizens without resorting to blowing things up.
Before acting, confirm whether the vessel is stateless, falsely flagged, or properly registered.
Use proportional force: Only use lethal force if there is an imminent threat — not merely suspicion of narcotics.
Engage multilaterally: Coordinate with good regional partners (e.g., Chile, Argentina, Dominican Republic) and international bodies to share intelligence and build legitimacy.
Arrest and prosecute — don’t destroy — unless absolutely necessary for self-defense.
Maintain transparency: Publicly disclose legal basis, evidence, and outcomes. Uphold accountability.
Regarding the last one, there hasn’t thus far, been ANY evidence shown publicly to show that these blown up vehicles were ferrying narcotics other than the claim that we have to believe our intelligence sources ( yes, the intelligence that gave us the 50 or so deep state operatives that declared Hunter Biden’s laptop to be a Russian operation ).
RE: As Hobbes said, “The law without the sword is but words.”
I’m not sure why you brought this quote in the picture.
I’ve never advocated that we not use the sword. We have the most powerful sword I history and we should use it — WHEN NECESSARY.
The issue here is IS IT NECESSARY in this particular case?
I say yes BUT WITH JUDICIOUS RESTRAINT.
The law is there to restrain the use of the sword and prevent it from being used Willy-nilly, especially when the evidence is uncertain.
I want our police to have more firepower than the bad guys, that’s the “sword”. But I don’t want them to shoot to kill any suspected drug dealer out there just because they see someone loading a truck of transporting suspected drugs.
They have zero constitutional rights abroad. You are talking about arresting them in international waters, bringing them to the US and having US taxpayers carry the costs for their lawyers, trials and incarceration. You are also talking about risking the lives of our sailors and coasties, depending on whether Navy or Coast Guard do the stops and arrests. You also risk some far left judge letting them out and preventing them from being deported.
I am unalterably opposed to this. Dead means they will never again do harm to our people.
RE: are talking about arresting them in international waters, bringing them to the US and having US taxpayers carry the costs for their lawyers, trials and incarceration. You are also talking about risking the lives of our sailors and coasties, depending on whether Navy or Coast Guard do the stops and arrests. You also risk some far left judge letting them out and preventing them from being deported.
And you want the USA to slaughter people in vessels in international waters on mere suspicion of carrying drugs without absolutely verifying that this is so. That’s where we part ways.
Killing suspects because prosecution is expensive is not law enforcement — it’s lawlessness.
Once we accept cost as a justification for killing, we lose the moral distinction between democracy and tyranny.
It invites a logic where mere suspicion could be met with lethal force.
Why can’t we use the same argument to kill ANY illegal who enter our country? Many are mules for drug cartels. Why can’t we use the same argument to kill any suspected drug dealer in the streets of Chicago to save on cost and not risk left wing judges?
And I’m not even certain of the cost/ benefit here.
I am inclined to think that Lawful interdiction is more expensive upfront, but far more sustainable and legitimate long-term.
Extrajudicial destruction may seem cheaper, but it invites massive strategic, legal, and reputational costs that compound over time.
I don’t happen to believe Trump is violating any laws, written or moral. We’ve tried the stupid way since the 70’s. Not only did the problem get worse and many Americans have died as a result, but many Americans have had their rights violated by unconstitutional civil forfeiture laws and by militarized police.
It’s time to end it militarily. It is interesting to me that the cartels have not yet pivoted to other types of boats yet. Clearly, they are slow learners.
I have no problem with “the angry fist of God” method.
RE: We’ve tried the stupid way since the 70’s.
I don’t think interdicting a suspected vessel instead of blowing them up without being sure that they are transporting narcotics is the stupid way.
“…What Evidence has been shown by the US Navy that the boats from Venezuela that have been blown up are carrying narcotics other than the testimony of US Intelligence?”
Answer that question and you will likely give clues to the enemy of what surveillance methods are being used. Do you believe our armed forces people are just blowing stuff up for fun?
“The military can still exercise restraint and use all tools necessary at its disposal— including intercepting the boat, capturing the occupants as POWS and giving them a military trial.”
How about tracking the boats to their destination, confirming the delivery and cargo that was delivered, holding an immediate mass trial and killing all of them? Are we to object to dead drug traffickers?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.