Trump dispenses with trials, orders military strike on alleged Venezuelan drug-trafficking boat (Now up to 2, 3, 4...)

essentialsaltes said:

Sen. TIM KAINE (D-Va.) last week sent the administration a letter demanding information on the initial strike and whether it had any legal basis. Kaine said he worked with Schiff on the effort, which was supported by 24 other Democrats.

One of the signatories was Sen. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-Mich.), who told your anchor the boat attacks are “a fundamental issue of oversight.”

“We have uniformed military asking their chain of command for letters that ensure that they don’t have personal liability for any illegal action in these operations,” she said.

good luck with that.

Click to expand...

essentialsaltes said:

Former GOP officials fear US strikes on alleged drug smugglers aren't legal​

“There has to be a line between crime and war,” said John Yoo, a former deputy assistant attorney general under President George W. Bush. “We can’t just consider anything that harms the country to be a matter for the military. Because that could potentially include every crime.”

Yoo, now a professor at the University of California Berkeley, authored the Bush administration’s legal justification for enhanced interrogation techniques against suspected al Qaeda terrorists in the early years of Bush’s war on terror.

Legal experts have called on the administration to release a formal legal opinion justifying the strikes. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment Monday when asked whether DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion.

A senior administration official, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the administration’s view, said recently that the president thinks the politics of the matter are favorable and thus paramount to any legal quibbles from experts at think tanks, lawmakers or online commentators.

“What separates the U.S. military from a death squad is the law,” said Brian Finucane, a former State Department attorney who advised the Barack Obama and first Trump administration on legal and policy issues related to counterterrorism. “I’m very concerned that the American public does not grasp the stakes here: The President is asserting a license to kill without due process and outside the context of armed conflict.”

Taking a similar view, Ed Whelan, a clerk for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and deputy assistant attorney general during the George W. Bush administration, wrote in a post on X: “There is a line between legitimate acts of war (or of self-defense) and murder. It would be good for government officials to care about staying on the right side of that line.”

Click to expand...

essentialsaltes said:

What is the legal basis for the strike? The administration is refusing to provide one. Congress has not authorized a use of force that would cover this situation.

Click to expand...

essentialsaltes said:

There is no law against a policeman pulling you over, but a policeman needs a legal basis to pull you over.

The War Powers Act sets limits on the presidential use of military force.

Click to expand...

RDKirk said:

The War Powers Resolution (it's not a law, it's only an "intention statement" by Congress) only calls upon the president to justify the use of force to Congress within 60 days after his use of force.

It doesn't pre-empt the President's use of force even as an intention statement.

But when the Congress will simply roll over for the president anyway, as this one will, the War Powers Resolution doesn't have any bite at all. Trump can simply ignore the War Powers Resolution. Who is going to stop him?

Click to expand...

rjs330 said:

Exactly. There is nothing illegal about his actions..

Click to expand...

RDKirk said:

Unless the Supreme Court says so.

But this one will not.

Click to expand...

rjs330 said:

The Supreme Court won't really determine actions were ILLEGAL. They can rule that they violate the Constitution, but that doesn't mean he committed a crime. It would mean that they can't do it anymore. Its no different than when Biden's loan forgiveness was found not to be Constitutional. Biden didnt become a criminal for it.

Click to expand...

RDKirk said:

The War Powers Resolution (it's not a law, it's only an "intention statement" by Congress) only calls upon the president to justify the use of force to Congress within 60 days after his use of force.

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

The War Powers Resolution (PL93-148) is indeed a federal law. It was passed by both houses of Congress then submitted to the President for approval and finally passed into law over President Nixon's veto by a 2/3 vote of each house.

Click to expand...

RDKirk said:

You're right, I was in error.

However, every president since Nixon has viewed it as an unconstitutional infringement on the President’s Commander-in-Chief powers, and most have not formally complied with its provisions.

Click to expand...

RDKirk said:

Still, it remains on the books as law...that presidents flout when they feel like it.

Click to expand...

essentialsaltes said:

Draft Bill Would Authorize Trump to Kill People He Deems Narco-Terrorists​

Potential legislation circulating in the executive branch and Congress would grant President Trump sweeping military powers.
--
related commentary from the guy behind Just Security.

But the text is really quite striking. It is modeled on the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force, which has been the principal statutory authority for the U.S. war on terror for the use of force against the Taliban, against Al Qaeda, ISIS, Al Shabaab, and other Al Qaeda and ISIS affiliates. And it really gives the president a blank check to use force anywhere in the world against anyone he designates under the provisions of this as a narco-terrorist. There are no geographic restrictions, so potentially they could include the United States. It would provide detention authority.

Again, the administration is not engaged in counterterrorism in the same way that the U.S. was against Al Qaeda or ISIS. And it is not responding to an armed attack on the United States akin to 9/11. OK, on 9/11, Al Qaeda mounted an armed attack against the United States and killed almost 3,000 people. That is not the scenario here. Moreover, in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, it wasn’t immediately clear who all the perpetrators were. So that is why the 2001 AUMF, the model for this new legislation, provided discretion to the president to determine who the force would be used against, because it wasn’t known to Congress. It was assumed to be bin Laden, but they didn’t know the full list of perpetrators, organizations that might have been involved. So that is not the scenario here.

Click to expand...