POTUS Unilaterally Declares U.S. is in “Armed Conflict” With Cartels - Constitutional?

quote:

---

Remember, republicans will not be in power forever. How Congress reacts will determine if this sets a precedent that we may regret one day.

---

Maybe not forever, yet a high probability through 2036.

quote:

---

Yes, poison being shipped into the United States is a national security threat. They put fentanyl into almost every drug sold on the streets. I am glad Trump is doing something about it.

---

Separate issue from the unilateral declaration of armed conflict. I call balls and strikes against any administration.

Disingenuous when republicans decry Obama for ordering a drone strike against a Muslim cleric who advocated to another 9/11, but applaud when Trump unilaterally declared an endless war against “The Cartels.”

from the US pov, Maduro stole an election while millions of his citizens flee, contributing to massive humanitarian crisis. , is actively helpnig the cartel push drugs into our country, and civilians are mass protesting against his govt. regime change may be the correct move if they can

gearing up for escalation in South America, on the heels of Miller saying troops should protect our own hemisphere and Hegseth speech to the generals ...

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

LINK

Pentagon officials could not provide a list of the designated terrorist organizations at the center of the conflict, a matter that was a major source of frustration for some of the lawmakers who were briefed this week, according to one of the people familiar with the briefings.

While “friendly foreign nations have made significant efforts to combat these organizations,” the memo said, the groups “are now transnational and conduct ongoing attacks throughout the Western Hemisphere as organized cartels.” The memo refers to cartel members as “unlawful combatants.”

The Trump administration is trying to justify the use of military force against drug cartels in the same way the Bush administration justified the war against al-Qaida following the Sept. 11 attacks, said Waxman, who served in the State and Defense Departments and on the National Security Council under Bush.

Bush, however, had authorization from Congress, unlike Trump. The Trump administration is arguing that it no longer has to consider the individual circumstances of using force, said Waxman, who now chairs Columbia Law School’s National Security Law Program.

“It’s basically saying, ‘We don’t have to engage in that kind of case-by-case decision-making,’” Waxman said. “All of these vessels that are carrying enemy personnel can be targeted, whether they’re headed towards the United States or not.”

Waxman said he expects more strikes and “we’ll see if the United States takes the next big step and engages in lethal force or armed force on the territory of another state.”


Lawmakers of both major political parties have pressed Trump to seek war powers authority from Congress for operations against alleged drug traffickers. Several senators and human rights groups have questioned the legality of the strikes, calling them potential overreach of executive authority in part because the military was used for law enforcement purposes.

quote:

---

What precedent will this set? I think a dangerous one.

---

Yeah. Dangerous to drug cartels.

The Secretary of State has the authority to designate Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs).
The legal criteria for designating an FTO are:

It must be a foreign organization.
It must engage in terrorist activity that threatens the security of U.S. nationals or the national security of the United States.
The Secretary of State must consult with the Attorney General and Secretary of the Treasury before finalizing the designation.
Designations are published in the Federal Register.

The President can order the military to carry out attacks on terror organizations, but the scope of this authority is a subject of ongoing legal and constitutional debate.

The President's power comes from a combination of constitutional authority, congressional authorizations, and historical precedent.

I understand the Congress traditionally hold the power to declare war. But what if a sizable numbers of Congress is comprised by your enemy?

No one gives two shits whether we waste greaseball drug lords except maybe a few nancies…

quote:

---

What precedent will this set? I think a dangerous one

---

This isn't a precedent. This has been done many times in many forms.

An adversary doesn't have to be a nation-state in order to defend against them.