Trump dispenses with trials, orders military strike on alleged Venezuelan drug-trafficking boat (Now up to 2)

[Yarddog]

When the president does it it’s not illegal.

That's not true. He may not be able to be prosecuted but that doesn't mean it's not illegal. The military is not supposed to obey an unlawful order.

 

[RDKirk]

That's not true. He may not be able to be prosecuted but that doesn't mean it's not illegal. The military is not supposed to obey an unlawful order.

The military is in a double-bind with the Trump administration.

The military cannot itself declare a presidential order illegal...the Constitution does not give the military that authority. A general would have to consider how Congress and/or the court would rule.

First, the Supreme Court has already given the president unprecedented qualified immunity...it's up for grabs whether any order Trump issues can be ruled "illegal."

Second, it would have to be Congress that presses the charge, and this Congress won't do that.

 

[rjs330]

That's not true. He may not be able to be prosecuted but that doesn't mean it's not illegal. The military is not supposed to obey an unlawful order.

How do you know it was unlawful. You dont get to decide that.

 

[rjs330]

Why?

When the US government takes out terrorists, it's common practice to annouce who we got.

I don't recall that at all. When we hit a group of terrorists we did list all their names. If it was a high value target we might, but we've killed a LOT of terrorists and didn't list all their names.

What makes you think.we need to?

 

[johansen]

We don't know how much (if any) narcotics were destroyed.

bro the boat sank. its all gone.

 

[rebornfree]

It absolutely blows my mind how liberals are defending narco terrorists on top of ms-13 rapist and murders. This is exactly why the DNC is failing so horribly and how Trump's approval rating is almost twice that of the DNC.

Are they? Or are they suggesting that it should be established that they are drug dealers and then put them through due process? I dont think anyone here is defending drug cartels but they are defending the rule of law

The fact is, the Navy could have interdicted the vessal, arrested the the alleged narcos for questioning, prosection etc and disposed of the boat. Instead, the POTUS chose to blow it out of the water.

Exactly.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Are they?

Yes.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Are they? Or are they suggesting that it should be established that they are drug dealers and then put them through due process? I dont think anyone here is defending drug cartels but they are defending the rule of law

Exactly.

Poor narco terrorist.

 

[Desk trauma]

That's not true. He may not be able to be prosecuted but that doesn't mean it's not illegal.

A distinction without a difference.

 

[Yarddog]

How do you know it was unlawful. You dont get to decide that.

Not me but the military can. What measures did they take? I've been trying to find out exactly what they did in an attempt to stop the boat. What are the rules of engagement in this scenario?

 

[Yarddog]

A distinction without a difference.

Labels, Not Law, to Justify Lethal Force: Venezuela Boat Strike

A new label does not transform a problem or grant the U.S. president or the U.S. military expanded legal authority to kill civilians.

www.justsecurity.org

 

[wing2000]

I don't recall that at all. When we hit a group of terrorists we did list all their names. If it was a high value target we might, but we've killed a LOT of terrorists and didn't list all their names.

What makes you think.we need to?

....because "we" (Sec. of War) doesn't know who they are...despite his claims. Oh, they probably have some indications the vessel was tied to a criminal organization, but I suspect they had no clue who the 11 individuals were on that boat. All that mattered was sending a message, as Trump himsellf noted. The message is paramount.

 

[wing2000]

Nor was this boat of 11 individuals an "immediate threat to the United States. "

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that kinetic strike was done on Trump’s orders, because “the president has a right to eliminate immediate threats to the United States.” But it isn’t clear how a speedboat in the Caribbean, even one full of drugs, constituted “an immediate threat,” especially when Rubio initially said that its destination was Trinidad.
.....
"Matthew Waxman, who served in senior national security positions in the George W. Bush administration, told me: “The president can label this like the war against al-Qaeda, but that doesn’t make it legally so. This is yet another astonishing theory of Trump’s powers, this one being used to justify murky operations that likely violate international law and perhaps domestic law, too.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/09/08/trump-hegseth-defense-department-war/

 

[Desk trauma]

Labels, Not Law, to Justify Lethal Force: Venezuela Boat Strike

A new label does not transform a problem or grant the U.S. president or the U.S. military expanded legal authority to kill civilians.

www.justsecurity.org

He’s immune, and no one’s going to stop him, words are wind.

 

[RDKirk]

....because "we" (Sec. of War) doesn't know who they are...despite his claims. Oh, they probably have some indications the vessel was tied to a criminal organization, but I suspect they had no clue who the 11 individuals were on that boat. All that mattered was sending a message, as Trump himsellf noted. The message is paramount.

I remember in the years between DESERT STORM and OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM, we regularly bombed wedding parties, Bedouin convoys, et cetera.

I remember one of my troops who had identified one day an "unknown convoy" of trucks at an oasis and the next day seeing that convoy as a smoking rubble, having been hit by an A-10. He looked at me and asked, "Why did we hit them? We didn't even know what they were."

It's not like this is the first time the US has been doing this kind of thing.

 

[ralliann]

Are we going back to having “outlaws”?

Going back? No, terrorism is an ongoing category.

In the olden days an “outlaw” was someone designated as being “outside of the law”, therefore anything that the ”law” did to them was fine…this requires that the Constitutional principles of presumed innocence and equal protection in the law be dispensed with and that extra-judicial killings is just a-okay.

In our times we recognize paramilitary groups organized as terrorists.

 

[wing2000]

I remember in the years between DESERT STORM and OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM, we regularly bombed wedding parties, Bedouin convoys, et cetera.

I remember one of my troops who had identified one day an "unknown convoy" of trucks at an oasis and the next day seeing that convoy as a smoking rubble, having been hit by an A-10. He looked at me and asked, "Why did we hit them? We didn't even know what they were."

It's not like this is the first time the US has been doing this kind of thing.

Indeed.

But it is the first time in the context of a counter-narcotic operation.

 

[Landon Caeli]

What are we as a country doing to help these victims on our end? Of course, you can blow up all the dinghies in the Caribbean but that’s not going to put addicts in the US into the rehab and mental health programs they desperately need to kick their addictions. I would more believe your sincerity on this matter if I saw we were actually doing something to help these people directly and not just blowing up random boats way out off the coasts of Venezuela.

The only thing we can do is protect our most vulnerable from these money hungry monsters. It's what we have to do.. it's all we can do.

...You know who else is vulnerable from the monsters? Artistic people. We need artistic people. And we need to protect our most vulnerable.

We have to fight!

 

[Yarddog]

He’s immune, and no one’s going to stop him, words are wind.

He does have limited immunity. That doesn't absolve him or the US, from retribution. How will the world respond to these murders?

 

[wing2000]

At least one Republican Senator comes to the defense of due process:

Sen Rand Paul responded to VP Vance on X (warning: expletive).

After Vance said the strike on a small Venezuelan boat was the “highest and best use of our military,” Paul lashed out Saturday night: “What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial,” he wrote on X.

“Maybe [the boat] was coming here. Maybe it wasn’t. But nobody’s even asking whether we need to prove that. We just blow them up,” he said, adding: “I got no love lost for these people. But at the same time, is this the new Coast Guard policy? ... Almost none of the boats we’ve interdicted does it end up with us blowing up the boat.”

“But I think what really ticked me off and got me going,” Paul continued, referring to Vance, “was for someone to glorify the idea of killing people without any due process and saying he just didn’t give a ____ what anybody who was going criticize him was going to say. That to me was a disdain for human life and a disdain for processes.”

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/09/08/congress/rand-paul-jd-vance-boat-strike-00551368