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.
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.