that is not your call. The person who’s call it is says they are, so they are.
1 Like
tnt:
They are drug smugglers.
whom the President has designated as members of a foreign terrorist organization. I’m sorry you don’t get this, but neither of our opinions matter on the issue. No-ones does except for the one person with the authority to make that designation.
1 Like
tnt
December 2, 2025, 2:43pm
504
President labels Democrats (or anyone else, foreign or domestic) ‘Terrorists’
Orders the military to kill democrats.
That’s not how this works.
JayJay
December 2, 2025, 2:44pm
505
Samm:
7426k:
So is it permissible for military leadership to command this extrajudicial killing because it was not done during wartime?
I believe we’ve reached agreement that during wartime it would not be permitted, hence the example directly from the manual.
Again … we are not at war. These drug runners may be doing so with the tacit approval of a government and/or government officials, but we are not engaging military with that government, we are attacking the individual criminals caught in the act of committing a crime. These people are international criminals engaged in criminal activity. The closest equivalent we have for which to apply international law is high seas piracy.
When did our laws change where the penalty for drug smuggling is now summary execution without a trial?
And when did the enforcers of such changed law become the military?
1 Like
under which statute of constitutional provision can the President declare anyone a “domestic terrorist”?
1 Like
the united states is not at war.
theres that.
Allan
JayJay
December 2, 2025, 2:46pm
508
Ben_Natuf:
wasn’t talking about that; however, The President (the only person who can) has declared them to be narco-terrorist members of a foreign terrorist organization. So yes, they are. That however does not change the fact that there is no congressional authorization
The cartwheels you are doing in your brain to support the idea that the President has unilateral power to order extrajudicial killings is simply breathtaking.
7426k
December 2, 2025, 2:46pm
509
You think the President is under no obligation to explain to the American people his justification for going to war?
You don’t think he should be required to explain how a boat 1000’s of miles south of the US is a threat to us?
the denials you must be doing to avoid legal facts is… expected
1 Like
7426k
December 2, 2025, 2:47pm
511
What is the terrorist organization here?
do you know the difference between “obligation” and whatever my opinion might be of what he “should” do?
You’ll have to ask the pentagon. I assume its TdA
JayJay
December 2, 2025, 2:49pm
514
Did you ask this question of President Trump when he did this?
7426k
December 2, 2025, 2:50pm
515
Breathtaking perhaps.
Surprising? Not in the least. This is why no conservatives here would go on the record about this prior to Trump giving his own opinion.
1 Like
Nemesis
December 2, 2025, 2:50pm
516
I am still waiting to be edicated by Trump supporters as to why Venezuela is such an existential threat to the US with drigs but Mexican cartels are escaping any military action?
yes, I did. Now do some research and find out what legal authority the faux designation gives him. I’ll give you a hint… none. Its theater
7426k
December 2, 2025, 2:51pm
518
Yes I do. Do you know the difference between invertebrates and vertebrates?
1 Like
JayJay
December 2, 2025, 2:51pm
519
That’s the problem.
There is widespread…and growing (bipartisan) opinion that the President does not have legal facts on his side.
There is a process for declaring groups foreign terrorists.
Trump has not followed and involved a dubious argument to claim he doesn’t have to.
And I’ve already shown you he’s ignored your idea he can’t do the same thing domestically as well.
7426k
December 2, 2025, 2:53pm
520
…and Honduran drug running Presidents are worthy of pardons so they can get back to drug running.
Thats your reply? sad man.
I am speaking solely of the argument based around legal and constitutional authority. The argument is valid. Maybe you don’t like it, maybe I don’t even agree with it, but I acknowledge its validity. Personally, its a stretch of thing that was already a stretch, but it is a valid argument. And no, I do not agree with this policy of blowing up drug runners simply because you can.
1 Like