4 ms·

> The argument against the strikes is based on principle alone So you're alright with the sitting president in the US now being able to kill civil citizens in

> The argument against the strikes is based on principle alone So you're alright with the sitting president in the US now being able to kill civil citizens in international waters without declaring a war? Without having to go through congress? Just by saying: "Ah this is a terrorist organization. And these people must be part of that terrorist organization"

terminalshort 1y ago
What do you mean "now"? It's been this way since the Patriot Act.
- eru 1y ago
  Since long before that. The US hasn't declared war in a long time, but they have spied on, tortured, killed, maimed etc foreign civilians all the time.
  - tialaramex 11mo ago
    And their own. Remember as well as deliberately executing its own citizens abroad the US also still just tortures some of its own citizens to death for ordinary crimes which they may or may not have actually committed. Basically it's a third world country with more extremely wealthy people than you'd otherwise expect, it's eerily like several Arab countries, but with slightly more democracy, at least for now.
    - hitarpetar 11mo ago
      fully agree with you but this language > basically it's a third world country is imprecise and misleading. torturing your own citizens to death is a first world specialty, see for example the troubles in northern Ireland
      - tialaramex 11mo ago
        I was thinking of the extreme poverty and poor working conditions which are widespread in the US, but sure, the history of UK intervention in the Troubles isn't exactly a story of benevolence. No examples of torturing people to death came to mind though, are you thinking of some? The Five Techniques are torture, which is why they were banned before I was born, but the intent wasn't to torture people to death as I understand it - it's like "Enhanced Interrogation" in that you can tell idiots you're doing it to get information even though you're actually just a sadist. Even idiots understand that dead people can't tell you anything.
        eru 11mo ago
        How is extreme poverty widespread in the US? Statistically, they've won the war on poverty long ago. Working conditions are by and large also pretty good. Americans love going to work much more than most Europeans.
        tialaramex 11mo ago
        Is this more like the war on Terror, or the war on Christmas? The US loves to announce that it is fighting in a "war" on some abstract concept, and subsequently that it has won the war for whichever side it decided it was fighting on - and meanwhile the abstract concept remains unchanged. In practical terms, the US likes two measures, an international measure which doesn't adjust for local costs, so it can say hey, our people could buy enough food and so on in Cairo, so that's not poverty - ignoring the fact that they're not in Cairo and must pay US prices instead; and a US measure developed in the 20th century which assumes poor people don't need telephones, refrigerators, and such "luxuries" only available to the wealthy a hundred years ago.
        eru 11mo ago
        Well, they won the war on terror, too. Or at least, terror gave up. In any case, most of the time the people who claim that the war on poverty hasn't been won, like to look at the pre-tax, pre-redistribution income. Ignoring the great impact of the very programmes they are meaning to defend. See https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61157 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61157 for more than you'd ever wanted to know.
benterix 11mo ago
I think Trump is an idiot and almost everything he is doing is a disaster. And the fact that the country is still running in spite of this is thanks to a lot of effort by other people. However, in this particular case, I do have doubt. Because drug cartels are a huge problem and local governments are often very bad at handling them. Now, I take into consideration that it might be poor Venezuelan fishermen that are being mistaken for drug dealers, but I very much doubt it. It wouldn't make sense for anyone: for Trump, once the truth comes out, for the military personnel doing the strikes, for the reconnaissance teams - it's just nonsensical. And I believe that Trump, even though I don't keep him in high regard, actually is not a fan of killing just for killing. Or, to put it more cynically, he won't win his dream Nobel prize for killing innocent people senselessly. So, maybe, in this one particular case, maybe it could be effective in scaring the cartels into finding other routes.
- WickyNilliams 11mo ago
  > Or, to put it more cynically, he won't win his dream Nobel prize for killing innocent people senselessly You say that, but the lady who just won it this year is practically cheering on the prospect of Trump taking military action _on her own country_ to overthrow their leader. So I don't think thirst for war or death precludes winning a peace prize, unfortunately https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/05/machado-praises-trump-venezuela-actions-00637460 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/05/machado-praises-tru...
  - enaaem 11mo ago
    Enemy of my enemy...
- orwin 11mo ago
  Venezuela more known for gold smuggling (and 'trafficking' people who want out) than drug smuggling. I bet some environmentalist will argue that gold smuggling is worse than drug trafficking, but still, my bet is that most of the kills were trafficked people and gold smugglers.
  - 11mo ago
lenkite 11mo ago
Sitting US Presidents have been able to kill and massacre people (including US citizens) in international areas without declaring a congressionally approved War for a very long time now. Just because Trump likes to heavily boviate while former Presidents generally kept this under the radar, doesn't change how the US operated.
- larkost 11mo ago
  I think you need to show evidence that this is a power U.S. Presidents have. As much as I dislike most of the drone strikes the U.S. has conducted in the "war on terror" in the Middle East (and think some of them are war crimes), that actually does have specific Congressional approval. This military action in the Caribbean does not have that approval, and I don't think there is any way of categorizing the smuggling of drugs as a part of terrorism. Bad and illegal, and worthy of policing, yes. Terrorism, no. And to be even more specific: I think that there is good evidence that in many countries the drug cartels are committing terroristic acts in many South American countries in order to force the populations there to accede to them. But those are in those countries, and are not directed at the United States. And blowing up boats that the U.S. suspects are carrying narcotics (sometimes not even on their way to the U.S.), is not fighting that terrorism.
  - lenkite 11mo ago
    If you are referring specifically to AUMF-2001 under which both President Bush and then President Obama used as justification to bomb anything they disliked in the middle-east - including drug crop fields of the Taliban, I would point out that is an extremely flimsy supporting argument. The authorization was stretched until it was less than paper-thin. Many of the folks that the US bombed also became funded by the US just a few years later. Head-chopping terrorists magically became "moderate rebels" - famous term by President Obama. (I don't support these strikes - my only point was that former US Presidents unfortunately setup this tradition and culture of military strikes that has now been normalized. Congress needs to firmly reclaim the use of lethal international force under their authority.)
    - 11mo ago
lazide 11mo ago
‘So you’re alright with’? What do you think that has to do with anything? No one really asked if anyone was okay with Obama ‘droning’ random folks while calling them terrorists either. Notably, using the same tools (social network analysis, etc) that are now apparently being aimed at domestic ‘terrorists’.
- lesuorac 11mo ago
  People did complain about Obama's done strikes. Find articles from back then and you see the words "controversial" [1]. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/us-military-drones-obama-afghanistan-yemen-isis https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/us-military-dr...
  - Integrape 11mo ago
    People used to complain about Obama's drone strikes. They still do, but they used to, too.
  - lazide 11mo ago
    Yes. I said ‘did anyone ask’, aka did anyone doing them care. And the answer is no. There was a bigger fuss in the power structure about the time he wore a tan suit, than about drone strikes. That someone complains doesn’t mean if it matters. Plenty of people are complaining about what is going on now, also to zero effect. And for those saying the AUMF justified Obama - it clearly didn’t justify it in Libya (not affiliated), and Congress expressly did not authorize it against ISIS - but drones were still widely used. The biggest difference in these scenarios is if they were sold as ‘the right thing’, or as ragebait. There is plenty of precedent for presidents just droning/air striking countries with zero congressional approval - including Trump in his first term, Obama before that, etc. Hell, Trump himself bombed Iran just a few months ago, and folks barely blinked an eye. Zero congressional involvement.
- vel0city 11mo ago
  I'm not a fan of Obama's legacy of drone strikes. They hurt a lot of civilians and I think probably did more harm to US interests overseas than they helped. However, most (if not all?) of the intended targets of Obama's drone strikes were targets with a pretty reasonable connection to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military force. So those drone strikes were likely "legal" and covered under what Congress enabled when it passed that law and has so far failed to repeal. Theoretically, these were all people Congress agreed we were essentially at war with. Congress can choose to repeal the AUMF at any time, and could have done so during Obama's term. I don't think there's any reasonable interpretation that random boats of the coast of Venezuela have any connection to 9/11 though, and thus there's pretty much no way to contort an argument that these actions are then somehow allowable. If Trump wants to go to war against Venezuela, he needs to get Congress to approve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...

terminalshort 1y ago

What do you mean "now"? It's been this way since the Patriot Act.

eru 1y ago
Since long before that. The US hasn't declared war in a long time, but they have spied on, tortured, killed, maimed etc foreign civilians all the time.
- tialaramex 11mo ago
  And their own. Remember as well as deliberately executing its own citizens abroad the US also still just tortures some of its own citizens to death for ordinary crimes which they may or may not have actually committed. Basically it's a third world country with more extremely wealthy people than you'd otherwise expect, it's eerily like several Arab countries, but with slightly more democracy, at least for now.
  - hitarpetar 11mo ago
    fully agree with you but this language > basically it's a third world country is imprecise and misleading. torturing your own citizens to death is a first world specialty, see for example the troubles in northern Ireland
    - tialaramex 11mo ago
      I was thinking of the extreme poverty and poor working conditions which are widespread in the US, but sure, the history of UK intervention in the Troubles isn't exactly a story of benevolence. No examples of torturing people to death came to mind though, are you thinking of some? The Five Techniques are torture, which is why they were banned before I was born, but the intent wasn't to torture people to death as I understand it - it's like "Enhanced Interrogation" in that you can tell idiots you're doing it to get information even though you're actually just a sadist. Even idiots understand that dead people can't tell you anything.
      - eru 11mo ago
        How is extreme poverty widespread in the US? Statistically, they've won the war on poverty long ago. Working conditions are by and large also pretty good. Americans love going to work much more than most Europeans.
        tialaramex 11mo ago
        Is this more like the war on Terror, or the war on Christmas? The US loves to announce that it is fighting in a "war" on some abstract concept, and subsequently that it has won the war for whichever side it decided it was fighting on - and meanwhile the abstract concept remains unchanged. In practical terms, the US likes two measures, an international measure which doesn't adjust for local costs, so it can say hey, our people could buy enough food and so on in Cairo, so that's not poverty - ignoring the fact that they're not in Cairo and must pay US prices instead; and a US measure developed in the 20th century which assumes poor people don't need telephones, refrigerators, and such "luxuries" only available to the wealthy a hundred years ago.
        eru 11mo ago
        Well, they won the war on terror, too. Or at least, terror gave up. In any case, most of the time the people who claim that the war on poverty hasn't been won, like to look at the pre-tax, pre-redistribution income. Ignoring the great impact of the very programmes they are meaning to defend. See https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61157 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61157 for more than you'd ever wanted to know.

benterix 11mo ago

I think Trump is an idiot and almost everything he is doing is a disaster. And the fact that the country is still running in spite of this is thanks to a lot of effort by other people. However, in this particular case, I do have doubt. Because drug cartels are a huge problem and local governments are often very bad at handling them. Now, I take into consideration that it might be poor Venezuelan fishermen that are being mistaken for drug dealers, but I very much doubt it. It wouldn't make sense for anyone: for Trump, once the truth comes out, for the military personnel doing the strikes, for the reconnaissance teams - it's just nonsensical. And I believe that Trump, even though I don't keep him in high regard, actually is not a fan of killing just for killing. Or, to put it more cynically, he won't win his dream Nobel prize for killing innocent people senselessly. So, maybe, in this one particular case, maybe it could be effective in scaring the cartels into finding other routes.

WickyNilliams 11mo ago
> Or, to put it more cynically, he won't win his dream Nobel prize for killing innocent people senselessly You say that, but the lady who just won it this year is practically cheering on the prospect of Trump taking military action _on her own country_ to overthrow their leader. So I don't think thirst for war or death precludes winning a peace prize, unfortunately https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/05/machado-praises-trump-venezuela-actions-00637460 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/05/machado-praises-tru...
- enaaem 11mo ago
  Enemy of my enemy...
orwin 11mo ago
Venezuela more known for gold smuggling (and 'trafficking' people who want out) than drug smuggling. I bet some environmentalist will argue that gold smuggling is worse than drug trafficking, but still, my bet is that most of the kills were trafficked people and gold smugglers.
- 11mo ago

lenkite 11mo ago

Sitting US Presidents have been able to kill and massacre people (including US citizens) in international areas without declaring a congressionally approved War for a very long time now. Just because Trump likes to heavily boviate while former Presidents generally kept this under the radar, doesn't change how the US operated.

larkost 11mo ago
I think you need to show evidence that this is a power U.S. Presidents have. As much as I dislike most of the drone strikes the U.S. has conducted in the "war on terror" in the Middle East (and think some of them are war crimes), that actually does have specific Congressional approval. This military action in the Caribbean does not have that approval, and I don't think there is any way of categorizing the smuggling of drugs as a part of terrorism. Bad and illegal, and worthy of policing, yes. Terrorism, no. And to be even more specific: I think that there is good evidence that in many countries the drug cartels are committing terroristic acts in many South American countries in order to force the populations there to accede to them. But those are in those countries, and are not directed at the United States. And blowing up boats that the U.S. suspects are carrying narcotics (sometimes not even on their way to the U.S.), is not fighting that terrorism.
- lenkite 11mo ago
  If you are referring specifically to AUMF-2001 under which both President Bush and then President Obama used as justification to bomb anything they disliked in the middle-east - including drug crop fields of the Taliban, I would point out that is an extremely flimsy supporting argument. The authorization was stretched until it was less than paper-thin. Many of the folks that the US bombed also became funded by the US just a few years later. Head-chopping terrorists magically became "moderate rebels" - famous term by President Obama. (I don't support these strikes - my only point was that former US Presidents unfortunately setup this tradition and culture of military strikes that has now been normalized. Congress needs to firmly reclaim the use of lethal international force under their authority.)
  - 11mo ago

lazide 11mo ago

‘So you’re alright with’? What do you think that has to do with anything? No one really asked if anyone was okay with Obama ‘droning’ random folks while calling them terrorists either. Notably, using the same tools (social network analysis, etc) that are now apparently being aimed at domestic ‘terrorists’.

lesuorac 11mo ago
People did complain about Obama's done strikes. Find articles from back then and you see the words "controversial" [1]. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/us-military-drones-obama-afghanistan-yemen-isis https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/us-military-dr...
- Integrape 11mo ago
  People used to complain about Obama's drone strikes. They still do, but they used to, too.
- lazide 11mo ago
  Yes. I said ‘did anyone ask’, aka did anyone doing them care. And the answer is no. There was a bigger fuss in the power structure about the time he wore a tan suit, than about drone strikes. That someone complains doesn’t mean if it matters. Plenty of people are complaining about what is going on now, also to zero effect. And for those saying the AUMF justified Obama - it clearly didn’t justify it in Libya (not affiliated), and Congress expressly did not authorize it against ISIS - but drones were still widely used. The biggest difference in these scenarios is if they were sold as ‘the right thing’, or as ragebait. There is plenty of precedent for presidents just droning/air striking countries with zero congressional approval - including Trump in his first term, Obama before that, etc. Hell, Trump himself bombed Iran just a few months ago, and folks barely blinked an eye. Zero congressional involvement.
vel0city 11mo ago
I'm not a fan of Obama's legacy of drone strikes. They hurt a lot of civilians and I think probably did more harm to US interests overseas than they helped. However, most (if not all?) of the intended targets of Obama's drone strikes were targets with a pretty reasonable connection to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military force. So those drone strikes were likely "legal" and covered under what Congress enabled when it passed that law and has so far failed to repeal. Theoretically, these were all people Congress agreed we were essentially at war with. Congress can choose to repeal the AUMF at any time, and could have done so during Obama's term. I don't think there's any reasonable interpretation that random boats of the coast of Venezuela have any connection to 9/11 though, and thus there's pretty much no way to contort an argument that these actions are then somehow allowable. If Trump wants to go to war against Venezuela, he needs to get Congress to approve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...