Donald Trump Probably Committed Murder - AND HE WILL GET AWAY WITH IT!
SCOTUS Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson famously wrote in their dissent to Trump v United States that:
“When the President] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”
And
“The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”
they were just being glib - it has come to pass that a president can commit murder and not be held criminally accountable (and very possibly neither will his incompetent SecDef Pete Hegseth.
It has been RELIABLY reported, first by the Washington Post and then confirmed by CNN that -
The US military carried out a follow-up strike on a suspected drug vessel operating in the Caribbean on September 2 after an initial attack did not kill everyone on board!!!!!
THAT IS MURDER BY ANYONE's STANDARDS except Trump and Hegseth.
"While the first strike appeared to disable the boat and cause deaths, the military assessed there were survivors, according to the sources. The second attack killed the remaining crew on board, bringing the total death toll to 11, and sunk the ship." Another report says two survivors were seen "clinging to the wreckage".
WHY did they go back and murder the survivors? Because they were following SecDef Pete Hegseth's orders - "The order was to KILL EVERYBODY" kill everybody” and to leave no survivors!!! - this according to two sources who heard the order.
In total, the investigative reporting was based on interviews with at least 7 people that were familiar with what took place.
The Senate has already started investigating and the House is supposed to follow suit.
CAN TRUMP BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE? NO, not criminally anyway. He could be impeached, but it includes no Jail Time. Hegseth is in a better position because Trump can simply pardon him.
Trump can't be held accountable because of the conservative SCOTUS decision to effectively make presidents "King(s) above the law". Being Commander in Chief is one of the "core presidential functions" that have full and complete immunity. That means, as the liberal justices presciently pointed out, Trump can commit actual murder and get away with it. - And now he most likely has.
I hope, but doubt, that even MAUGA will find that unacceptable. Do you?Can't see it matters - we are told that Trump caused the death ("murdered") tens of thousands of Americans during COVID. What is another handful of drug runners?
Ah. The intent is to save/protect thousands of American lives. You are correct - he should absolutely be found guilty of murder for such an evil thing!
More Republicans are chiming in about the Trump/Hegseth extrajudicial killings of survivors of their illegal bombings of supposed drug smugglers.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/01/politics … s-pressureTrump identifies Admiral who order the killing of the survivors of his first attack on a boat full of people in the Caribbean.
"The White House said Monday that Adm. Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley, commander of the US Special Operations Command, was responsible for ordering a second, targeted strike on an alleged drug vessel operating in the Caribbean on September 2 after the first strike did not kill everyone aboard."
Trump's mouthpiece says Bradley was "well within his authority". Only a deranged autocrat would think or say such a thing.
The military should immediately begin an Article 32 investigation into the Admiral for murder as well as anyone who followed his orders.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … 6ovuqudhnzIn George Washington's through Joe Biden's America, excluding the aberration from 2016 to 2021, The admiral and everyone up and down the chain would be investigated for murder as well as War Crimes.
Based on Trump, we have an easy to follow fact pattern:
1. What is probably an illegal order to sink a boatload of civilians (remember, we don't know that they were anything but that for sure and with this crowd on the Right, no intuition allowed) was carried out.
2. Some reports say the boat was not sunk and two survivors were inside. Other reports say the boat was destroyed and the two survivors were clinging to wreckage.
3. In either case, the admiral saw this and, possibly because of orders Hegseth gave earlier to leave no survivors or maybe on his own, the admiral ordered a second attack to assassinate the two survivors.
4. They were killed.
That is cut and dried, according to Trump and many others.
Nobody, save for Trump and Hegseth, believe that this WAS NOT a War Crime and an act of Murder.
So, how are you going to defend your hero now?Interesting that "Eso doesn't know something about the boatload of people" suddenly became "WE don't know something about the boatload of people". Who is "We"? The HP forum regulars? The state dept.? Trump? Our intelligence dept?
Since you are the only one here, I decided to use your logic. We, the public.
I understand. You are upset that the public is not given access to all that our intelligence system comes up with.
Personally, I'm not surprised at that, for it would not be "intelligence" then, just twisted, spun lies all over the internet.How do i know that Trump and his administration is not lying about the nature of the attacks on the fishing boats? Even Republican congressman are now making inquiries and want answers justifying Trumps actions. So, no, the President and his lackeys are not allowed to keep this information to themselves.
As to what Wilderness said in his attempt to be sarcastic - when War Crimes are involved, enough (NOT ALL or even some AS CLAIMED) of that intel needs to come out to justify what are patently illegal operations.
Also, it makes no difference at all who or what in those boats. Only those who don't believe in the rule of law or do believe the end justifies the means think what Trump has done is legal.
Sorry - I find organized drug smugglers to be waging war on the US, and as such subject themselves to our military.
Only one of the many boats sunk are questionable, and that is the one with two strikes. Then the question becomes did we target the boat the second time or the men in the water? You will say the men (without knowing) because it is against Trump, I will say I don't know.As they say all is fair in love and war. The question is are we really at war? During WWII, thousands of civilians were killed on all sides. But we were on a real war footing, that was approved by congress.
Since Korea, no U.S. war has been formally declared by Congress. Instead, presidents have relied on executive authority, UN resolutions, NATO commitments, or Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs). This has created a long-running constitutional struggle over war powers, with Congress often sidelined in practice.
This is precisely what Trump is doing with Venezuela. It raises the questions does a war on drugs warrant an Armanda Strike Force off their coast with 15,000 troops at the ready, and a closed air space, or does Trump want regime change, so that he can take over the Venezuela oil fields or both?Sounds like what was done in Vietnam, in Kuwait, in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The "war on terror" is another one. But in any case, we certainly do not need a UN resolution to wage war, nor one from NATO.
Trump is thus following in some big footsteps, isn't he? I hope he can fill them!
Those with TDS will assume Trump wants a regime change so he can annex Venezuela into the US and gain its oil, the MAGA group will assume he is after drug runners. And I...I am in the middle without any assumptions to give.
That is certainly your opinion and while it might make sense to you, but legally it does not. TheShadowSpecter wrote:
This is what fascism looks like? James Comey is the biggest fascist there is. He's another one of those FBI freaks who got booted out of his position as the FBI director for malfeasance. I couldn't see anyone with a brain hiring him even to walk their dog at this point in time.
ROFL. Thanks for the sarcasm.
replypermalinkreport
TheShadowSpecter profile image68TheShadowSpecterposted 8 hours ago
My Esoteric wrote:
ROFL. Thanks for the sarcasm.
I'm actually serious. I'm sick and tired of the lower-level FBI employees being treated so horribly while the big shots in the FBI practically can get away with murder. What the FBI higher-ups did to Coleen Rowley and Sibel Edmunds was disgraceful. They took most of Coleen Rowley's retirement away and they wrongfully terminated Sibel Edmunds merely because these women did the right thing and reported corruption within the agency. It makes absolutely no sense to me that James Comey got to keep his security clearance after he was fired from the FBI. I know I sound angry, but I've known a lot of people who have worked for the FBI and they have told me some horror stories about how the lower-level employees get treated so despicably while the big shots get away with everything and are coddled by the system even when they get fired. It's mind-boggling.
If Donald J. Trump had never been president, there would likely still have been bad things coming out about James Comey. And he probably still would have been fired under a Democratic presidential administration. It just would have taken a little longer to happen probably, but it would have happened. allow a President to blow up boats in international waters unless they pose an immediate and imminent threat to the United States,
Even if there were drug runners on board carrying drugs, the ONLY thing Trump is allowed to do is stop and board them - period.
If you know otherwise, please provide the statutes that says he can.
There is even less doubt that ordering or carrying out an attack on helpless civilians clinging to wreckage in the water goes beyond the pale. If true, and Trump says it is, that by definition is a War Crime.
As to if it has happened other times, how do we know? We certainly can't take the word of pathological liars can we.
Do you think it was possible there were women in the water and in any case, I am not sure what that has to do with anything. Multiple sources say there were and I believe them - why else go back?
And why aren't you looking for the heads of the real problem - the users in America that create the demand the others satisfy. You guys act like the cartels are coming over here with needles in their hands, knocking out innocent people and putting the drugs in their arms.
You know as well as I that so long as their is a demand, it will get filled.
Pete "no survivors" Hegseth is starting to set Adm Bradley up as the fall guy to the murder of unarmed, civilian survivors.
[b]"Hegseth shifts responsibility for double-tap strike, says he stands by commander's military decisions"
"Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Monday he stands by Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley and the “combat decisions he has made” in regard to US strikes on alleged drug boats, appearing to shift primarily responsibility for those strikes to the military commander overseeing them.
“Let’s make one thing crystal clear: Admiral Mitch Bradley is an American hero, a true professional, and has my 100% support. I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made — on the September 2 mission and all others since,” Hegseth said in a post on X.
Some context: Hegseth’s post comes just hours after the White House also pointed to Bradley, who is commander of US Special Operations Command, as the official who ordered the second strike on a suspected drug boat in September in the Caribbean. The strike on September 2 was the first in a string of attacks that have since killed more than 80 people. CNN has reported that the military carried out the additional strike on September 2 after the first did not kill everyone on board.
“On September 2, Secretary Hegseth authorized Adm. Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes,” White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said on Monday. “Adm. Bradley worked well within his authority and the law directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.”
Hegseth’s role in the “double-tap” strike has received immense scrutiny from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and military legal experts who have raised concerns over the legality of the strike and the potential of war crimes."
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/02/politics … ike-maduroCowardice and piracy on the high seas? The case is being made that Hegseth is a brutish clown and has to go…….
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2025/ … aign=shareHegseth needed to go when he started spilling state secrets on Signal.
It just keeps getting worse for Republicans as they desperately try to defend and justify Donald "already a felon" Trump's illegal attacks on boats he "thinks" are carrying drugs to the United States. Now he is blowing up boats heading in other directions - a clear violation of even his own pretend justification.
"Exclusive: Boat at center of double-tap strike controversy was meeting vessel headed to Suriname, admiral told lawmakers"
Clearly now, Trump is guilty of War Crimes.
"According to intelligence collected by US forces, the struck boat planned to “rendezvous” with the second vessel and transfer drugs to it, Adm. Frank Bradley said during the briefings, but the military was unable to locate the second vessel. Bradley argued there was still a possibility the drug shipment could have ultimately made its way from Suriname to the US, the sources said, telling lawmakers that justified striking the smaller boat even if it wasn’t directly heading to US shores at the time it was hit."
"Still a possibility" is just faulty rationalization for a clear violation of federal and international law. For a man to get to his position in America's military, Bradley was taught early on, just as I was, that to do what he is doing is murder.
Making it MUCH WORSE, there is this:
"US drug enforcement officials say that trafficking routes via Suriname are primarily destined for European markets. US-bound drug trafficking routes have been concentrated on the Pacific Ocean in recent years." Then why is Trump killing people in the Caribbean - obviously they are not supplying the American demand for illegal drugs.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/05/politics … ke-bradleyOnce again, CNN --- Credibility Not Needed media
I have to be honest, your entire argument is built far more on assumptions and emotional innuendo than on hard facts. If we’re going to have a serious debate, then the standard needs to be higher than “he thinks” or “clearly guilty of war crimes.”
Even the reporting you’re citing makes one thing clear: Adm. Bradley briefed lawmakers that U.S. intelligence believed the vessel was part of a drug-transfer operation. I may disagree with the strike or question the intelligence, but pretending that the military acted based on Trump’s “thoughts” rather than on intelligence assessments is simply not factual. It’s rhetoric.
International law does not classify every targeted interdiction as a “war crime.” War crimes have specific legal definitions involving intentional targeting of civilians, disproportionate force, or deliberate violations of the laws of armed conflict. To jump from an operational disagreement to “murder” and “war crimes” without a legal foundation makes the discussion political, not factual.
Your own source acknowledges uncertainty about the final trafficking destination. Intelligence work is rarely perfect, and I’m not defending every decision made, but “still a possibility” is exactly how intelligence risk assessments are framed. If the issue is the quality of the intelligence or whether Bradley overreached in his justification, then let’s debate that honestly. But insisting that any uncertainty automatically equals illegality just isn’t grounded in reality.
And finally, the claim that “Trump is killing people in the Caribbean who weren’t supplying the U.S.” ignores the obvious: drug-trafficking networks don’t operate on clean, neatly separated routes. Cartels move product, money, and logistics across regions constantly. Even if some routes favor Europe, it doesn’t logically follow that no interdiction is justified elsewhere. Cartels don’t send out press releases telling us which boat is headed where.
If someone wants to argue that the strike was unwise, disproportionate, or based on weak intelligence, that's a conversation. But elevating it to “murder,” “war crimes,” and insinuating intent without actual evidence isn’t a factual argument; it’s hyperbolic political theater. I prefer to look at what we can verify rather than what fits a convenient narrative.Show me the law where "being part of a drug trafficking network" is grounds for non-judicial killing, especially the trafficker and the drugs weren't head toward America.
If you can't do that, then there is no basis for debate is there. If you can't do that, then you are defending murder, aren't you?
Did you know that about a quarter of Coast Guard boardings of vessels suspected of carrying drugs end with no drugs found!!!
Imagine, around a quarter of the boats Trump illregally blows up have innocent civilians on board!!!! How can you be OK with that?
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … d-florida/You said we should focus on what can be verified. Good. What’s verified is the conduct, the reporting, and the governing law. What’s missing is a credible justification.
It has been Verified - Trump has ordered the blowing up boats and killing people because he "thinks" there are drugs in them.- Do you dispute that?
It has been verified - Trump has provided no legal basis for doing so - Do you dispute that - if so, show me the law.
It has been verified - Many legal experts in domestic and international law says there is NO domestic or international law that let's Trump and those who work for him to target boats in international waters and kill the occupants, regardless of what they are carrying are who they are. The single exception of immanent (meaning NOW or shortly and not in a few months) threat to the territory of the United States.
It has been verified - That Trump effectively ordered killing unarmed, helpless survivors of an illegal attack as well as actually ordering the illegal attacks on boats in international waters - Do you dispute that?
It has been verified - Domestic and International law prohibits killing helpless survivors whether they are combatants or not. - Do you disagree with that?
It seems to me I have all the verifiable information on which to base the reasonable conclusions I stated.
Here, let me go over again everything that Trump and those below him are violating:
GENEVA CONVENTION
Law of Armed Conflict (if the U.S. claims this was a “conflict”, Trump tries to pass this of as even though it is clearly not)
Geneva Convention II (1949), Article 12 protects the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked at sea and requires they be “respected and protected.” This is the core treaty rule for naval contexts.
United Nations
+1
Additional Protocol I, Article 10 likewise requires protection and humane treatment of the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked. - Do you dispute these men were shipwrecked?
OHCHR
Customary IHL explicitly prohibits attacking persons hors de combat, including those rendered defenseless by shipwreck.
ICRC IHL Databases
+1
Common Article 3 (baseline rules that apply at minimum in many conflict settings) prohibits murder of persons out of the fight. - Here the Admiral stupidly said they were still fighting while clinging to the wreckage!
ICRC IHL Databases
So in an armed-conflict framing, killing shipwrecked survivors can be a war crime if they were recognizable as hors de combat.
DOMESTIC LAW
UCMJ Article 118 (Murder)[/b] makes unlawful killing by U.S. service members a prosecutable offense.
Federal criminal law at sea
[i]18 U.S.C. § 1111 (Murder) applies within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
Legal Information Institute
18 U.S.C. § 7 defines that jurisdiction to include the high seas in relevant circumstances.
U.S. Code
DOJ’s own criminal-jurisdiction guidance confirms homicide statutes can apply in this maritime jurisdiction framework.
18 U.S.C. § 2441 (War Crimes Act) criminalizes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and certain other serious LOAC violations when the jurisdictional requirements are met.
The U.S. military’s own rule-of-the-road
Recent reporting about the current controversy notes the Pentagon’s Law of War manual gives a blunt example: orders to fire on the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.
Specifically, Trump and Hegseth would be charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1111 (Murder)
NOTE: Applies “within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,” which [u]includes the high seas in relevant circumstances.[/i] - like this one.
18 U.S.C. § 2 (Aiding and abetting / causing)
This is the workhorse for charging leaders who command, induce, or procure an unlawful killing.
18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy)
General conspiracy to commit an offense against the U.S. (e.g., murder).
18 U.S.C. § 956 (Conspiracy to kill persons abroad)
Requires an overt act in the U.S.; can be used when the planned killing occurs outside the U.S. but the agreement/steps occurred here.
18 U.S.C. § 2441 (War Crimes Act)
If prosecutors argue the killings were part of an armed conflict and the victims were protected persons under the Geneva framework, this is a potential charge. - (but probably not useful here)
Admiral Bradley and anybody else who should have known better and had a hand in the killings will be subject to:
UCMJ Article 118 (Murder)
Explicitly cited by experts discussing this exact kind of alleged incident.
The “illegal orders” enforcement
UCMJ Article 92 (Failure to obey order/regulation)
Can apply where the operative violated lawful orders/rules of engagement, or where a commander issued an unlawful order contrary to the laws of war.
Now you can continue to bury your head in the sand as deep as you want and make excuses for those who you support but it is a losing battle. The evidence is there and the FACTS are clear.
But to worry, your favorite lunatic is above the law, so sayith the Conservatives on SCOTUSIn my view, if someone wants to offer an intelligent comment on this issue, they have to look at both sides of the coin and understand what the Trump administration is actually relying on legally. When a person only presents one side, the opinion ends up sounding incomplete and shaped to fit a narrative. That’s one of the biggest problems I see in our society today. Using AI is fine, but you still have to know how to elicit a well-rounded account that includes the full context, not just the pieces that confirm your viewpoint.
I want to point something out before we go any further: everything you listed comes entirely from critics of the administration, experts and lawmakers who argue the “narco-terrorism war” label is not enough legal justification. You presented only one side of the legal debate, but left out the Trump administration’s actual reasoning and the authorities they claim under U.S. law and the laws of armed conflict.
Here’s the full picture, including the part you’re leaving out.
First, yes, many experts disagree with the administration’s legal framework. I’m not denying that. They argue that drug trafficking does not meet the international threshold of “armed attack,” that Congress should authorize any conflict, and that maritime strikes risk violating humanitarian protections for people rendered helpless or shipwrecked. I’m aware of those arguments, and I’m not running from them.
But here’s the part you’re overlooking: the administration has formally declared that the United States is in a non-international armed conflict with designated “narco-terrorist” organizations. Under that declaration, Trump has notified Congress and asserted that these groups function as foreign terrorist actors engaged in continuing hostile campaigns against the U.S. That puts the operations under the law of armed conflict, not ordinary criminal law.
According to the administration’s legal position:
Under Article II powers, the President can direct military force against terrorist organizations without needing a new congressional authorization, especially if they pose an ongoing threat to U.S. security.
By designating certain cartels as narco-terrorist groups, the administration classifies them the same way previous administrations treated ISIS or al-Qaeda, as non-state armed groups capable of hostile action.
The Pentagon and DOJ have provided an internal legal opinion arguing that these strikes fall under the President’s authority to defend the nation and prevent hostile actors from transporting weapons, funding, or materials used in violence against the U.S.
The administration also argues that the War Powers Resolution does not apply because these actions are limited, involve unmanned systems, and do not constitute sustained “hostilities” as traditionally defined.
And they maintain that the targets are legitimate military objectives within an armed conflict , meaning the law of armed conflict applies, not domestic criminal procedure.
I’m not telling you that critics don’t exist, they do, and they’ve been extremely vocal. But you can’t claim “what’s verified” while ignoring the administration’s declared legal framework, their notification to Congress, and the constitutional argument they are relying on.
You’re presenting only the objections, not the reasoning. If we’re going to stick to facts, then both sides of the legal rationale have to be acknowledged, not just the critics.
You’re listing every law and treaty that would apply if an illegal killing had occurred, but you’re skipping the one issue that actually decides whether those laws are triggered in the first place. You’re assuming from the start that Trump, Hegseth, the Admiral, and the operators acted outside the law. That’s the entire point under dispute.
You can throw Geneva Convention articles at me all day long; I’m familiar with them. I’m also aware of the UCMJ, the War Crimes Act, and the maritime jurisdiction statutes. But those laws only become operative after a court determines that the action wasn’t part of a lawfully authorized armed conflict.
And that’s where your argument keeps skipping the foundation.
The Trump administration formally declared a non-international armed conflict against designated narco-terrorist organizations, notified Congress, and asserted authority under the President’s Article II powers, the same legal framework used for years in operations against ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, AQAP, etc. You may disagree with that interpretation, but it is a recognized legal framework that past administrations (including Obama’s and Bush’s) have used.
Whether you like it or not, that declaration matters legally. It determines the applicable framework, whether this is a criminal-law scenario, like you’re insisting, or a law-of-armed-conflict scenario, which is what the administration asserts. That question will decide whether any of the statutes you listed even apply.
Right now, you’re arguing from the conclusion instead of addressing the premise. You’re treating this as if a court has already ruled these were helpless civilians, not lawful combatants; that an armed conflict does not exist; and that the strikes were not tied to a recognized military objective. None of those things have been legally established.
Just because critics say “this clearly wasn’t an armed conflict” doesn’t make it true. That is precisely the disputed question.
And as for your last comment, no, I’m not burying my head in the sand. I’m acknowledging that there are two sides to the legal argument, something you refuse to do. You present only the critics, never the legal reasoning of the administration, the Pentagon, or the DOJ’s own internal guidance.
If this ever reaches a court, which it probably will, then the courts, not Twitter threads, will determine whether:
an armed conflict legally existed,
the targets were lawful combatants,
the strikes were lawful military engagements,
or
The actions fall under the domestic homicide statutes you listed.
Until that fundamental question is settled, claiming “the facts are clear” is just rhetoric. The legal framework is contested, not concluded.
I’m sticking with verifiable facts, not emotional certainty. You might try it.First, why do you need to insult? You did it at least twice:
1. "In my view, if someone wants to offer an intelligent comment on this issue, they have to look at both sides of the coin and understand what the Trump administration is actually relying on legally. " - Well, please know, I DO THAT, saying I don't is insulting.
2. "I’m sticking with verifiable facts, not emotional certainty. You might try it." - again with the insult. You say I don't do that when I OBVIOUSLY do.
Now to your analysis.
There are two scenarios here: 1) Trump's order to blow up the boats in the first place and 2) killing survivors of those attacks. Your position clearly states that you believe both are warranted. For the record, neither are not, especially the second.
You appear to rely solely on the fact that Trump can declare anything and it is so. Again, that is not true and the Constitution clearly says so.
You claim "Under Article II powers, the President can direct military force against terrorist organizations without needing a new congressional authorization, especially if they pose an ongoing threat to U.S. security."
1. First, that statement is way too sweeping which ends up making it nonfactual in implication
2. Article II isn’t a magic wand as Trump has claimed it is. It’s a contested reservoir of authority with limits — not a free pass to start a new war category whenever the White House wants one.
For example - Victor Hansen, a former military prosecutor and law professor, who bluntly says:
"There’s nothing “magic” about calling something a terrorist organization that gives the president authority to respond militarily.' And many other unbiased experts back him up - I can provide a list if you need one.
3. The NIAC threshold doesn’t vanish because Trump coined a new label
If the administration attempts to claim a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) framework, they still must meet the established criteria:
* organized armed group - According to Just Security, none of the terrorists groups qualify as such. Therefore, this threshold isn't met
* protracted/intense armed violence - Since there is no armed violence going on (except from us) this threshold isn't met either.
These are the traditional IHL/tribunal-derived thresholds. The ICRC and related legal references are clear that NIAC is about intensity and organization of violence, not branding.
Consequently, Declaring a NIAC doesn’t create a NIAC. The facts do. and the Facts and Law state clearly that Trump's designation is wishful thinking.
4. Even if Trump designates a cartel as an FTO, that does not, by itself, make it an “organized armed group” for NIAC purposes.
The facts have to show real organization and sustained armed conflict-level violence against the U.S. or in a relevant theater — not just trafficking, not just possession of weapons, not just a sporadic clash.
AND the Facts do not show that. Neither Trump nor you have provided any substantiation.
You claim I am ignoring the administration’s framework, I am not!. I’m refusing to treat a press-ready theory and a notification to Congress as a legal verdict. Their argument exists; its validity is the disputed question.
But, again, it is not much in dispute is it. To be Valid it MUST meet NIAC thresholds as well as the legal definition "armed organization" and, as I have shown, it meets neither.
Face it, Trump is trying to rationalize his illegal actions.
Trying to bring the other presidents into this discussion is truly an apples and oranges thing. What Trump DOESN'T have that the others DID is Congressional approval. You omitted the facts that Obama and others relied only on Articlet 2 powers but instead relied on Article 2 + the 2021 AUMF + 2022 AUMF + War Powers reporting.
There is also this problem - ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, AQAP, etc are not simply drug runners, are they. They were armed military organizations intent on overthrowing gov'ts. Trump and you are trying to say they are the same thing when legally, they are not. Apples and oranges.
Just because Trump says “this clearly is an armed conflict” doesn’t make it true. That is precisely the disputed question. It is in dispute because Trump is trying to stuff a square peg into a round hole.
Time for dinner. Be back later.ECO, let me respond point-by-point, because you’re framing my position in a way that misses what I actually argued.
On the accusation of insults: nothing I wrote was meant as a personal slight. When I said “an intelligent comment needs both sides” or “I’m sticking with verifiable facts,” that wasn’t directed at your character. It was directed at the structure of the argument you presented, which did omit the administration’s legal rationale. You’re interpreting that as a personal attack, but it wasn’t written as one.
Now, to the substance. --- You keep saying I’m treating Trump’s declaration as though it “magically” creates a lawful conflict. That’s not what I said. What I’m saying is this: In U.S. law, a presidential declaration of a non-international armed conflict carries legal weight unless and until a court rules otherwise.
You don’t have to like that, but it’s a legal reality. That’s why I emphasized the existence of two competing frameworks, not because Trump “says so,” but because until the courts invalidate the administration’s position, the issue remains unresolved.
You’re treating your preferred conclusion as already legally established. It isn’t.
NIAC Thresholds Are Exactly What’s in Dispute — Not Settled Facts
You keep repeating: -- “NIAC thresholds aren’t met.” “Cartels don’t qualify. “There is no sustained armed violence.”
But those are your assertions — not judicial determinations.
The administration argues that the cartels are foreign armed non-state groups, conduct systematic violence that destabilizes regions and directly impacts U.S. security, and are integrated with organizations that meet traditional NIAC characteristics.
You may disagree with that interpretation (and many critics do), but you cannot treat your disagreement as a legal verdict. A threshold that is contested is not the same as a threshold that is settled.
You Keep Comparing this to ISIS/AQAP while ignoring the Key Point
You said: “Obama and others had AUMFs, and Trump didn’t.” True, but irrelevant to the point I made. My comparison wasn’t about whether the cartels are the same thing as ISIS. It was about the legal authority being invoked.
Presidents from both parties have used Article II powers to strike non-state actors without fresh congressional approval when they argue the groups pose an ongoing threat. You can call that overreach, you can call it flawed, but you cannot pretend Trump invented it. He leaned on the exact same constitutional argument used repeatedly since 2001.
Your argument treats Article II like it has no force unless paired with an AUMF. That’s simply not correct.
Declaring a NIAC Does Not Automatically Make It Valid, But It Also Doesn’t Become Invalid Just Because Critics Say So.
You said I’m treating Trump’s declaration as though it settles the matter.
That’s not what I wrote.
What I wrote is:
"The legal framework is officially asserted, formally notified to Congress, and not adjudicated yet. Therefore, at this moment, it cannot be dismissed as “obviously illegal.”
Your position jumps straight to: There is no NIAC, the cartels are not an organized armed group, and there is no intensity. And the killings automatically fall under homicide statutes. All of that presumes the foundation is already decided. It isn’t.
That is the entire point I made, and it’s the point you keep skipping past.
The Survivors' Issue Cannot Be Determined Until the Framework Question Is Settled
You insist that killing survivors is clearly illegal. It might be, but only if: no armed conflict existed, the individuals were civilians or hors de combat,
and LOAC didn’t apply.
All three of those are part of the exact dispute we’re discussing.
You’re jumping ahead to the criminal-law conclusion while bypassing the threshold question that decides which legal framework even applies.
Courts decide that, not Twitter threads, and not your preferred interpretation.
You keep saying: ---- “You’re treating Trump’s declaration as if it makes it so.”
No. I’m treating it as a legal claim that MUST be adjudicated, not brushed aside because critics dislike it. Whether that claim succeeds or fails is a court’s JOB. But pretending the legal question is already settled is just inaccurate.
My bottom line
You’re arguing from the conclusion. I’m arguing from the process. You’re treating your interpretation of international law as the final word.
I’m pointing out that the Trump administration invoked a recognized legal pathway, notified Congress, and framed the operations under Article II, which means the legality is not predetermined and not as clear-cut as you keep claiming.
When there is an unresolved legal dispute, pretending one side has already “won” is not analysis - it's certainty without resolution.
That was actually a great read... got a chuckle for sure...
The lengths the Left will go to twist meaning, to take things out of context and to misinterpret intent knows no limits.
You know what is so sad in all this? In spite of Trump breaking the law with extrajudicial killings, which the majority of Americans oppose, the legal jeopardy he has put our service members in, the green light he gave others (think Iran) to sink our boats, and the disrepute and shame he has brought upon our nation - not one single American life will be saved.
Americans are driving the demand for drugs. Let me say that again since y'all ignored the other times I brought this TRUTH up - Americans are driving the demand for drugs! They will ALWAYS find a source, if not here, then there. If not there, then some place else.
What Trump is doing is pure political theater to satisfy his narcissistic ego, not to save lives. He wants to look like a strongman who can kill people just because he can even though he is very weak when you get down to it. (Already China and Russia have beat him so he has effectively joined with them)Now isn't this ironic:
CNN, the outlet people trust more the Fox News, had this headline.
"Hegseth in 2016 repeatedly warned of Trump issuing unlawful military orders"
The report is for subscribers only so I will include a couple of highlights.
It opens with this:
"In 2016, as then-presidential candidate Donald Trump vowed that US troops would carry out even his most extreme battlefield orders as commander in chief — some of which former military leaders said would be illegal — Pete Hegseth warned that service members had a duty to refuse unlawful orders from a potential President Trump.[/b]"
“You’re not just gonna follow that order if it’s unlawful,” Hegseth said in a March 2016 appearance on “Fox & Friends,” referring to veterans he spoke with.
“The military’s not gonna follow illegal orders,” Hegseth said of Trump in another March appearance on Fox Business.
This is how fealty works - now Hegseth is passing on those same illegal orders!!
This is how an psychopathic egomaniac responded to the military not following his illegal orders -
"That criticism came to a head in a March 2016 Republican presidential debate when Trump was pressed by moderators about warnings from former military leaders that US forces are legally obligated to reject unlawful orders.
“So what would you do, as commander in chief, if the US military refused to carry out those orders?” asked Fox News’ Bret Baier, one of the night’s moderators.
“They won’t refuse,” Trump responded. “They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me.”
Well, it has come to pass.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/08/politics … ders-kfile
May the silence begin.Honestly, I don’t find anything “ironic” about this at all. What stands out to me is how badly the context is being twisted. Pete Hegseth’s comments in 2016, which he made on Fox & Friends and Fox Business, by the way, were simply describing basic military protocol. Every service member is trained to refuse unlawful orders. That’s not new, not controversial, and certainly not some sign of “fealty.” He was explaining the legal duty of the military, plain and simple.
Trying to compare that to the dramatic political ad a couple of congressmen put out is just not serious. Pete was talking about long-standing military obligations in a straightforward way. The ad, on the other hand, was crafted as political theater, emotional, sensational, and designed to create outrage. The contexts and the setting could not be more different, and pretending they’re the same only weakens the argument.
And about his claim that “CNN is the outlet people trust more than Fox News”, that just isn’t supported by reality. CNN has been losing viewers at a historic rate. Their primetime numbers have fallen to some of the lowest levels they’ve ever had, and they are nowhere near the most watched or most trusted network. Many people have simply stopped tuning in because of this exact style of narrative-driven framing.
Turning Pete’s basic explanation of military law into a story about him “passing on illegal orders” is a massive stretch. The military has always been obligated to refuse unlawful orders from any president. That hasn’t changed, and nothing Pete said contradicts that.Whatever the setting was Pete knows better, unless he has selective memory. The fact that he follows Trump's orders while he knows better is fealty in my view. All one has to do is watch as he requests his cabinet member's praise him as he falls asleep right in the middle of the meeting.
I get what you’re trying to argue, but this is where the leap just doesn’t hold up for me. Pete giving a straightforward explanation of long-standing military protocol in 2016 is not the same thing as “following illegal orders” today. Nothing in the current discussion shows he’s been asked to carry out anything unlawful, and nothing shows he’s knowingly going along with something he “knows better” about. That’s an assumption, not a fact.
As for the cabinet meeting clip, yes, Trump closed his eyes for a moment. I saw the same video. But using a tired moment to argue that his entire team is in some kind of forced-praise dynamic just feels like narrative-building rather than evidence. People read an awful lot into a few seconds of footage.
Pete’s job, then and now, has been to communicate policy and protocol. That’s it. Turning that into some grand story about fealty or blind obedience requires facts that simply aren’t there. I’m sticking with what’s actually documented, not what people read into an unrelated moment on video.
On a lighter note --- I hope you are enjoying the Holiday season...Then why are so many MAGA-aligned voices tying themselves into knots to justify it, if there’s really ‘nothing there’? If the legality were obvious, why hasn't Trump produced the statutes that give him the authority to kill those people? (I know why, there isn't any such statute.)
In fact,
An Oct YouGov poll found
37% think “the U.S. military has legal authority to carry out these strikes in international waters.” MEANING 63% DO NOT think Trump has legal authority to carry out those killings
That 63% would be even higher if it weren't for the fact that
24% FALSELY believe “the U.S. military strikes on boats have been authorized by Congress.” - They have not
38% FALSELY believe the government has publicly presented evidence the boats were smuggling illegal drugs. - They have not
YouGov
That’s a pretty strong indicator that the public is skeptical about legality/authorization or at least unsure.
A close proxy (not framed as “legality,” but about due process)
A Reuters/Ipsos poll (Nov 2025) found:
29% support the U.S. military killing suspected drug traffickers without a judge/court,
51% oppose,
Frankly, I am very disappointed that so many Americans no longer believe in the Rule of Law.You’re leaning on assumptions rather than facts. If someone wants to claim Trump violated the law, it’s their job to cite the specific statute and the official finding, not demand that Trump ‘produce’ laws to prove he didn’t break. That’s not how legal standards work.
Until the Supreme Court tells me otherwise, I’m going to assume the President and his administration are acting within the law. I’m not going to rely on media narratives or armchair legal experts to declare something illegal when no court or Congress has said so.
Polls also don’t mean much here. Most Americans, understandably, know very little about the specific authorities and legal frameworks involved in these types of strikes. Public opinion is not a legal argument, nor do I personally respect it in this case.
From what I’ve seen, Trump has operated within the legal boundaries and has been very clear about the authorities he believes apply to him. I’ve already posted that information before and will now add it again. Repeat it every time someone brings up recycled talking points; it's getting old. If there’s an actual law he supposedly violated, then name it. Otherwise, it’s just media-driven speculation being repeated as fact.
Key Laws & Constitutional Authorities
• Constitutional powers (Article II)
Under the U.S. Constitution, the president is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, which gives the executive broad inherent authority to direct military operations.
Legal Information Institute
Intelligence Resource Program
The idea is that the president — as head of the executive and foreign-policy lead — can act in the nation’s defense and respond to threats without waiting for Congress, especially when immediate or limited action is needed.
Intelligence Resource Program
Congress.gov
• Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001
This is a statute passed by Congress (after 9/11) authorizing the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against those who “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the September 11 attacks — or harbored those responsible.
Wikipedia
Because it is a statutory authorization, some administrations interpret it as providing a legal basis for targeted strikes abroad — including against terrorist groups and individuals — under the broad mandate to prevent future terrorist attacks.
Intelligence Resource Program
Legal Information Institute
• The 1973 War Powers Resolution (WPR)
The WPR was passed to regulate and limit presidential war powers. It says that introducing U.S. forces into hostilities (without a declaration of war) requires either (1) a congressional declaration of war, (2) a specific statutory authorization (like AUMF), or (3) an emergency created by attack on the U.S. itself.
FAS Project on Government Secrecy
It also requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing forces, and generally limits action to 60 days (with 30-day withdrawal), unless Congress acts.
American Center for Law and Justice
Congress.gov
However: in practice, many administrations—including prior ones from both parties—have argued that limited strikes (e.g. drone strikes, targeted operations) don’t count as “hostilities” under the WPR, and therefore do not require congressional authorization or even full compliance with the WPR’s limits.
Department of Justice
Congress.gov
• Historical practice & legal memos from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)
Decades of precedent show that presidents from both parties have carried out military or limited-force operations abroad without formal declarations of war or explicit new congressional votes.
Department of Justice
Intelligence Resource Program
A 2001 OLC memo (written after 9/11) concluded that the president has “plenary” constitutional authority to use force abroad — not just to retaliate for attacks, but to preempt or deter threats from terrorist groups or states that harbor them.
Intelligence Resource Program
This memo and similar legal guidance have been repeatedly cited by administrations as providing a legal basis for drone strikes, counterterrorism operations, and other limited uses of force.
Intelligence Resource Program
Congress.gov
It would be helpful if people stayed on point. The issue was "Trust" not "viewership".
A YouGov survey from May 11–12, 2025 reports:
CNN net trust: +8
Fox News net trust: 0
So on this overall net measure, CNN edges Fox.
Then there is the fact that Fox News admitted in court they Lied. Nobody has ever taken CNN to court for lying.
Dishonorable discharge every single one that refuses an order from the President.
Simple fix... and helps clean out the trash.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, a hero and decorated disabled veteran, speaks to Trump's illegal orders.
"Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth on boat strikes: ‘Everything that they have done has been illegal’"
The audio is here:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/07/politics … te-hegsethLoyal soldier --- Of the Democratic Party's army.
Who won't follow illegal orders from her Party like any PATRIOTIC American wouldn't.
Glad you brought her up — she openly lied in that online interview about the boat incident. First, she claimed she watched the video and found it disturbing, but when she was pressed, she admitted she hadn’t seen the clip at all and had only read a report about the bombing. Tammy Duckworth flat-out lied, and she did it on camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq1BKmLnZfs
Enter at 2:53First, given you are not bothered about Trump lying all the time, I don't understand why you think Duckworth lied. That doesn't compute.
Second, she appeared to claim she’d seen a video, "presumably meaning the classified video, [b]then 'immediately" clarified she hadn’t seen the classified footage and had only seen public media clips and read the report.
Lie? Try again."First, given you are not bothered about Trump lying all the time, I don't understand why you think Duckworth lied. That doesn't compute."ECO
I wasn’t discussing Trump. I choose carefully when I engage on that topic, because repeating the same conversations over and over feels, for lack of a better word, a bit ‘creepy.’ I focus on actions, not dramatized interpretations of words. And based on his deeds, I believe Trump is doing a very good job. I feel the nation is in capable hands, and I have no doubts about his agenda.
As for her, in my view, Duckworth lied openly. The context in the video speaks for itself, so we’ll simply have to agree to disagree.
I am curious. You, who defend Trump blowing up boats in the Caribbean that "might" have drug runners on board who "might" be part of a cartel and that "might" have drugs on board which "might" be heading to the United States at some point in the future say that is fine and dandy to kill everyone on board.
If that is the case, what is your response if that same boat is in the middle of the Great Salt Lake in Utah. Will you hold the same view that Trump can be prosecutor, judge, and literally executioner of those people?In my view, making criminals out to be victims is absurd. Let’s be clear: this isn’t a hypothetical “might” scenario; it’s a documented national security policy backed by intelligence. The Pentagon confirmed that these cartel boats were carrying drugs, and assessments showed they were actively en route to the United States. These aren’t innocent civilians; these are armed smuggling vessels linked to organized crime and directly threatening American lives.
The idea that this can somehow be compared to a boat floating in Utah is ridiculous. U.S. forces are authorized to act against real threats in international waters, especially when the ships are armed and trafficking dangerous narcotics. Trump’s actions were consistent with these policies; they were national security and law enforcement operations, not “random executions.”
Ignoring the Pentagon’s assessments to suit a narrative is misleading. The facts are clear: these were cartel vessels carrying illegal drugs in international waters, posing a real threat. Treating criminals like victims ignores reality, undermines law enforcement, and puts Americans at risk.You changed the scenario so you don't have to say blow it up. It is a boat that Trump thinks has suspected cartel drug runners with a load of drugs on board and it is going from one place to another on the Great Salt Lake. That is EXACTLY the same scenario as is in the Caribbean.
Do you think Trump has the right to sink that boat and kill everyone on board?
It is a simple question and can be answered yes or no.
As to who and what is on board the boats in the Caribbean, we simply don't know do we. I know you will tell me you will trust a pathological liar. Well, I don't until he shows proof.
In the America before Trump 2.0 we took pride in doing things lawfully! We don't now. Before Trump 2.0, the Coast Guard would board and search those boats. 25% of the time they found nothing! EVEN THOUGH their intel said there was!!!! (I proved the source previously). If they found something then they arrested those on board and confiscated the drugs.
Does that register? Based on the Coast Guard experience that means 25% of the Trump killings are probably of INNOCENT PEOPLE. Does that even matter to those on the Right? It seems to me, based on their rhetoric, it does not.
And nobody is ignoring the Pentagon's assessment. It is just that based on recent experience with the Pentagon, nobody except MAUGA believes them.
No, Trump is NOT being consistent with previous policies. Previous policies allows Trump to board the boats, not blow them up[/u[!
14 U.S.C. § 522 is the only domestic statute that allows American personnel to interfere with boats on the high seas. [b]It says the Coast Guard can [u]board suspected drug-smuggling vessels in international waters when the vessel falls under MDLEA jurisdiction]/b]—most commonly because it’s stateless or because a flag state has given consent—and it carries out that enforcement power under its Title 14 authority.
46 U.S.C. § 70503 and 46 U.S.C. § 70502 are the statutes that define what MDLEA
Careful reading of 14 U.S.C. § 522 should be clear to anyone that "boarding" is not the same thing as bombing. Trump has no authority to bomb those boats if you believe in the Rule of Law. Of course if you don't believe in the Rule of Law like Trump does not, them I suppose anything goes and the strongest survives while all others parish - Darwin.
I see you stayed silent on the issue that it is the American drug users that are the real problem. I wonder why that is.
Some Republican's in Congress grow some balls.
"Congress will vote on limiting Hegseth’s travel budget unless he releases unedited video of boat strikes"
It should have been 75% of his travel budget instead of 25%.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/08/politics … o-congressIs Donald "Regime Change" Trump looking to take over Venezuela?
"Trump administration quietly builds plans for what would happen if Maduro were ousted in Venezuela"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/09/politics … ter-maduroThis is indirect evidence that Trump and Hegseth understood they committed a War Crime in killing those two survivors -
]b\"3 separate US strikes on alleged drug boats have initially left survivors. Each time they’ve been treated differently"[/b]
If it was OK to return to finish off the survivors the first, why did they stop doing it the other two times - that we know of?
In one case, they picked them up and returned them to their home. Why did they do that if people in the chain of command thought the order was "no survivors"?
In the second case, they left the man or woman to die a slow horrible death from drowning (at least nobody has reported rescuing them), which is a crime in and of itself
Under domestic law - If you’re the master or person in charge of a vessel, U.S. law says you shall render assistance to any individual found at sea in danger of being lost as long as you can do so without serious danger to your vessel or the people on board. Violating this can bring a fine and up to 2 years in prison.
and under international law International maritime law also recognizes a duty to render assistance to persons in distress at sea (codified in UNCLOS and complemented by SOLAS and the SAR Convention). The core idea is the same: if you can help without serious danger to your own ship or crew, you must try.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/10/politics … s-militaryYou ignored all of this ---
Key Laws & Constitutional Authorities
• Constitutional powers (Article II)
Under the U.S. Constitution, the president is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, which gives the executive broad inherent authority to direct military operations.
Legal Information Institute
Intelligence Resource Program
The idea is that the president — as head of the executive and foreign-policy lead — can act in the nation’s defense and respond to threats without waiting for Congress, especially when immediate or limited action is needed.
Intelligence Resource Program
Congress.gov
• Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001
This is a statute passed by Congress (after 9/11) authorizing the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against those who “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the September 11 attacks — or harbored those responsible.
Wikipedia
Because it is a statutory authorization, some administrations interpret it as providing a legal basis for targeted strikes abroad — including against terrorist groups and individuals — under the broad mandate to prevent future terrorist attacks.
Intelligence Resource Program
Legal Information Institute
• The 1973 War Powers Resolution (WPR)
The WPR was passed to regulate and limit presidential war powers. It says that introducing U.S. forces into hostilities (without a declaration of war) requires either (1) a congressional declaration of war, (2) a specific statutory authorization (like AUMF), or (3) an emergency created by attack on the U.S. itself.
FAS Project on Government Secrecy
It also requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing forces, and generally limits action to 60 days (with 30-day withdrawal), unless Congress acts.
American Center for Law and Justice
Congress.gov
However: in practice, many administrations—including prior ones from both parties—have argued that limited strikes (e.g. drone strikes, targeted operations) don’t count as “hostilities” under the WPR, and therefore do not require congressional authorization or even full compliance with the WPR’s limits.
Department of Justice
Congress.gov
• Historical practice & legal memos from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)
Decades of precedent show that presidents from both parties have carried out military or limited-force operations abroad without formal declarations of war or explicit new congressional votes.
Department of Justice
Intelligence Resource Program
A 2001 OLC memo (written after 9/11) concluded that the president has “plenary” constitutional authority to use force abroad — not just to retaliate for attacks, but to preempt or deter threats from terrorist groups or states that harbor them.
Intelligence Resource Program
This memo and similar legal guidance have been repeatedly cited by administrations as providing a legal basis for drone strikes, counterterrorism operations, and other limited uses of force.
Intelligence Resource Program
Congress.gov
The Trump administration did not break any laws. Democrats need to put up or shut up. The Congress can address all the issues that revolve around your concerns. Thus far, only Rhedic has come from them.
I had to wait until a few more facts were it, but it seems Donald "the felon" Trump did something dramatic again. And this time it might even be legal.
It seems he seized a Venezuelan oil tanker off its coast in international waters; something he is making great political hay over releasing videos and the like which he won't do when he needs to cover something up. Apparently, a federal judge had ordered the seizure of the Skipper because of alleged links to Iran-backed terror groups.
Why can't Trump follow the law in similar circumstances? (Because that is not in his DNA obviously)
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/10/politics … escalationI’m really not seeing how anyone can jump straight to “piracy” or “Trump stealing Venezuelan oil” when we actually know what happened. From everything that’s come out, the tanker the U.S. seized had already been under sanctions for years and was tied to an illicit shipping network connected to Iran and groups like Hezbollah. The operation wasn’t some random grab for oil, it was carried out under a WARRANT, involved the Coast Guard, FBI, Homeland Security, and the military, and it was done without any casualties. I get that Venezuela and Iran are screaming “piracy,” but of course they would.
The U.S. is saying this was part of enforcing sanctions and cutting off networks that help finance terrorism. Now, I also recognize that seizing a foreign-flagged ship on the high seas hits a gray area in international law; some legal experts argue that sanctions alone don’t necessarily give us that authority. So yes, people can debate the legality, but pretending this was some rogue act with no justification just isn’t honest. It’s a complicated geopolitical and legal situation, not a cartoonish oil-heist plot.
"Why can't Trump follow the law in similar circumstances? (Because that is not in his DNA obviously)" ECO
My view is this — when I look at President Trump’s approach to governing, I genuinely see someone who tackles long-standing problems with a problem-solver’s mindset. For the first time in a long time, it feels like the issues that have dragged on for decades are finally being confronted head-on. He’s simply not a status-quo politician, and he’s not the type to sweep anything under the carpet. He’s making it clear to Americans, and to the world, that we’re done ignoring problems just because they’re difficult. And in this case, he’s sending a message to cartels and terrorist networks that the United States isn’t looking the other way anymore, no, quiet pass, no wink and nod.
I knew this would upset some liberals, and most definitely the Washington Democrats. Because they are pros at the wink and the nod----
A few of my sources
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/1 … hatgpt.com
https://apnews.com/article/trump-tanker … dd276732c0
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/ … hatgpt.com
Related Discussions
- 29
Executive Authority & The Military
by Jessie Watson 8 years ago
Yesterday during the brief after the U.S. deployed missiles in Syria, General Mattis said something to the effect of "After reviewing Article II of the constitution, we are confident that the POTUS had legal authority for this military action"Section II of the Second Article of the...
- 97
Mr. President, who are you to denigrate WWII allies participation?
by Credence2 12 months ago
excerpt from Atlantic Monthly:So this is a time of commemoration, and in this time, the president of the United States, Donald Trump, issued a very strange post about the event on the 8th of May. He wrote:“Many of our allies and friends are celebrating May 8th as Victory Day, but we did more than...
- 42
Mitch McConnell - The Baffling Continued Support for Donald Trump
by Sharlee 5 years ago
"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it," McConnell said at the time. "The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their...
- 91
Is Donald Trump a threat to Hillary Clinton and women for President ?
by Catherine Mostly 10 years ago
I am really curious about what other women think; because I've only recently started paying attention to politics since the media is ramping up Trump so much, lately. Before that, I'm sorry... I was not even SORT of paying attention to any other candidate from any party. Hillary is my girl, and she...
- 19
Is the rioting helping President Donald Trump? The left thinks so.
by Readmikenow 5 years ago
I don't agree with much this leftest from the LA Times says, BUT I do believe the rioting is benefiting President Donald TrumpHow the nightly clashes on American streets benefit TrumpAn eight-inch hole blown through the wall of a police precinct house in Seattle. A courthouse set on fire in...
- 32
Has Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin Restarted the Nuclear Arms Race?
by Scott Belford 9 years ago
I lived through the fear of nuclear war between the old Soviet Union and America. I remember practicing what to do in elementary school in case of an attack. I remember the television commercials advertising bomb shelters. I remember the Missile Crisis.And now, Vladimir Putin...