In October 2025, President Trump verified that the US launched a series of strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats off Venezuela and approved CIA operations in the country.
There is a better case to be made for capturing and not killing those aboard to verify and interrogate. It may lead up the chain of command as to who is behind the boats and why. For all you know, these could be decoy boats, to test the waters so to speak. You are right that our past policies are ineffective and that's on us to demand why the left hand of the richest country in the world can't seem to know what the right hand is doing.
No fentanyl comes from Venezuela. The CIA used to run a lot of cocaine through there--you know a lot of our cocaine is CIA owned, don't you? Probably not--but Hugo Chavez shut it down, you know, like Castro did with Cuba.
This post is full of lies. No, the President does NOT have the right to order the military to kill anyone he wants, which is what you are saying. At least Wrong Speak is the right name for you.
My op-ed isn't some push for unlimited power; it's breaking down the messy debate on zeroing in on those verified cocaine boats off Venezuela.
You're spot on that fentanyl isn't coming out of Venezuela- (bit of a red-herring though); it's mostly Mexico whipping it up from Chinese ingredients, but that's missing the point here: Venezuela's a transit stop for cocaine, with hundreds of tons slipping through every year to flood our streets. These strikes are focused on Tren de Aragua thugs transporting the goods in speedboats. Disrupt it or discourage, we'll know soon enough if it works.
As for the CIA "owning" cocaine? That's a recycled conspiracy with zero evidence. Chávez did accuse the DEA of spying in 2005, leading him to boot them out, but trafficking boomed under his watch and Maduro's. The U.S. indicted Maduro's regime for narco-terrorism in 2020, charging them with flooding the U.S. with coke. If anyone's enabling cartels, the mirror's on Caracas.
As for "kill anyone he wants", that misses that mark as well. I'm referring to established ground rules: Article II powers, the 2001 AUMF following 9/11, self-defense provisions under international law, and the 2024 Supreme Court's thumbs-up on immunity for core presidential actions. Both Dems and GOP have pulled similar targeted hits without a full Congress vote, think Obama's drone runs. Congress can always hit the brakes with the budget, and voices like Kaine's are dead right to push hard on the limits. That's the honest back-and-forth, not lies or that "Wrong Speak" jab.
Fair point on Substack's variable rigor; that's why I pulled straight from O’Connell, Becker, and the 2024 Trump v. US ruling to frame the due process debate.
If you've got a counter on the AUMF angle or Sackler-cartel parallels, I'm all ears, otherwise, thanks for reading
You don’t need to thank me for reading, I just skimmed the article. My response was based on two sentences. Beyond that I rarely go on internet arguments; they’re pointless. If you don’t mind blowing people up before you know anything about them, maybe you should try the IOF. They’ve always got room for new pager stuffers.
Like the pagers, these attacks have been judged to be terrorism. Even by an actual Judge, Napolitano. Now, we’ll all have to wait till courts decide.
I disagree that not being allowed to see classified intelligence is a valid complaint. It's a complaint, but not a valid one, however one defines valid.
There is a better case to be made for capturing and not killing those aboard to verify and interrogate. It may lead up the chain of command as to who is behind the boats and why. For all you know, these could be decoy boats, to test the waters so to speak. You are right that our past policies are ineffective and that's on us to demand why the left hand of the richest country in the world can't seem to know what the right hand is doing.
No fentanyl comes from Venezuela. The CIA used to run a lot of cocaine through there--you know a lot of our cocaine is CIA owned, don't you? Probably not--but Hugo Chavez shut it down, you know, like Castro did with Cuba.
This post is full of lies. No, the President does NOT have the right to order the military to kill anyone he wants, which is what you are saying. At least Wrong Speak is the right name for you.
My op-ed isn't some push for unlimited power; it's breaking down the messy debate on zeroing in on those verified cocaine boats off Venezuela.
You're spot on that fentanyl isn't coming out of Venezuela- (bit of a red-herring though); it's mostly Mexico whipping it up from Chinese ingredients, but that's missing the point here: Venezuela's a transit stop for cocaine, with hundreds of tons slipping through every year to flood our streets. These strikes are focused on Tren de Aragua thugs transporting the goods in speedboats. Disrupt it or discourage, we'll know soon enough if it works.
As for the CIA "owning" cocaine? That's a recycled conspiracy with zero evidence. Chávez did accuse the DEA of spying in 2005, leading him to boot them out, but trafficking boomed under his watch and Maduro's. The U.S. indicted Maduro's regime for narco-terrorism in 2020, charging them with flooding the U.S. with coke. If anyone's enabling cartels, the mirror's on Caracas.
As for "kill anyone he wants", that misses that mark as well. I'm referring to established ground rules: Article II powers, the 2001 AUMF following 9/11, self-defense provisions under international law, and the 2024 Supreme Court's thumbs-up on immunity for core presidential actions. Both Dems and GOP have pulled similar targeted hits without a full Congress vote, think Obama's drone runs. Congress can always hit the brakes with the budget, and voices like Kaine's are dead right to push hard on the limits. That's the honest back-and-forth, not lies or that "Wrong Speak" jab.
You’re absolutely right. I shouldn’t even need to say that.
But one of the problems with platforms like Substack is that the rigor of actual research is often bypassed.
It’s easy enough to find legal scholars who can explain the laws about killing people without due process.
Yet, comments abound from uninformed sources who want the world to align with their cruel pathologies.
Of course Narcoterrorism is bad…it interferes with the bottom line of the Sacklers.
Fair point on Substack's variable rigor; that's why I pulled straight from O’Connell, Becker, and the 2024 Trump v. US ruling to frame the due process debate.
If you've got a counter on the AUMF angle or Sackler-cartel parallels, I'm all ears, otherwise, thanks for reading
You don’t need to thank me for reading, I just skimmed the article. My response was based on two sentences. Beyond that I rarely go on internet arguments; they’re pointless. If you don’t mind blowing people up before you know anything about them, maybe you should try the IOF. They’ve always got room for new pager stuffers.
Like the pagers, these attacks have been judged to be terrorism. Even by an actual Judge, Napolitano. Now, we’ll all have to wait till courts decide.
The entire nonsense about Trump blowing up bad guys without congressional approval? LMAO!
Did Congress declare war in..
Korea? Nope
Vietnam? Nope
Grenada? Nope
Panama? Nope
Kuwait? Nope
Afghanistan? Nope
Iraq? Nope
And these is exactly nothing in the constitution about an AUMF, so don’t bother.
You are likely correct however there should be more supporting evidence
There's plenty of supporting evidence, just not any that's unclassified.
That may be the case, but until something valid is put out there the detractors will have valid complaints about extrajudicial actions
I disagree that not being allowed to see classified intelligence is a valid complaint. It's a complaint, but not a valid one, however one defines valid.
This may come as a shock to you but governments lie all the time. “Because we said so” is a terrible reason