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: 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.