Venezuela

[Bray123]

Trump just pardoned former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted in a U.S. court of trafficking drugs to the United States.

Something is being released in the Epstein Files.

The Pedophile of Peace!

 

[Rebel5soul]

Yah, probably check your sources.....the tanker did not turn around.
https://www.newsweek.com/russian-oil-tanker-evades-us-navy-venezuela-maduro-seahorse-11105094

Too bad no one had their AIS running, that would have made for an interesting maritime dance.

 

[Afrodisia]

Maybe it’s time to start a Venezuela thread. In the past few days, the US has conducted so-called “demonstration bombing runs” near Venezuela’s coast. Of course, these aren’t mere demonstrations; they’re deliberate operations designed to probe, illuminate, and map Venezuela’s defensive radar and missile systems. Historically, such actions serve as precursors to kinetic air strikes.

False flag liberal

 

[Afrodisia]

The President’s job is to defend America. Deadly drugs pouring in from places like Venezuela are killing thousands of our citizens, and stopping that flow is a national imperative. The people responsible aren’t just traffickers, they’re perpetrators of mass harm. They deserve the same reckoning their poison has inflicted on Americans.

I'm telling you guys. How could ANYONE seriously try to justify a war with VENEZUELA.

#falseflag

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I'm telling you guys. How could ANYONE seriously try to justify a war with VENEZUELA.

#falseflag

No one can seriously justify a war with Venezuela. It’s a ludicrous proposition and a sign that Trump is dangerously incompetent.

 

[Rebel5soul]

No one can seriously justify a war with Venezuela. It’s a ludicrous proposition and a sign that Trump is dangerously incompetent.

I'm telling you guys. How could ANYONE seriously try to justify a war with VENEZUELA.

#falseflag

You people are jokes, completely ignorant of presidential powers and what does or does not constitute a 'war.'

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

You people are jokes, completely ignorant of presidential powers and what does or does not constitute a 'war.'

Only Congress has the power to declare war. Trump’s attacks on Venezuela exceed his authority as Commander-in-Chief.

 

[Noor]

Only Congress has the power to declare war. Trump’s attacks on Venezuela exceed his authority as Commander-in-Chief.

But it’s not surprising.

 

[ChloeTzang]

 

[dmallord]

The President’s job is to defend America. Deadly drugs pouring in from places like Venezuela are killing thousands of our citizens, and stopping that flow is a national imperative. The people responsible aren’t just traffickers, they’re perpetrators of mass harm. They deserve the same reckoning their poison has inflicted on Americans.

That's insanity speaking.

And a lunatic acting out on social media. No wonder people are warning troops about violating the Constitution. The clown is exceeding his bounds.

 

[PaxNurgle]

Read Chloe's explanation above; it has nothing to do with drugs, or traffickers. It's about global politics; Trump doesn't give a shit about drugs or the people responsible.

Meanwhile, my thoughts, prayers, and sympathies are with the people of Venezuela, much I sympathise with the people of Ukraine, and much like my ancestors sympathised with the people of France, Belgium and the Netherlands when they were unjustly attacked by a foreign totalitarian government.

 

[OralAllOver]

Remind me, please, about a feckless Nobel committee blind to Trump's rejection of violence?

Oh, Congress declared war? The UN?
Folks hundreds of miles from our border in small boat ... slaughtered
MS-13 are arch criminals when making their own law ... but Trump and minions are heros?

BTW are drug dealers forcing Americans to give them $? No, American drug consumers create the market and destabilize the hemisphere. Yup, if it's opposite of what Jesus would do, then "Christian Nationalists" dig it!

I'm guessing Trump makes himself a General. I hope that's ok with his boss, Putin

 

[dmallord]

What did Jefferson do when faced with the Barbary Pirates? What about The 1914 Veracruz Occupation ordered by President Woodrow Wilson or his 1916 10,000-man invasion of Mexico to apprehend Poncho Villa, etc, etc? I could go on.

More importantly, are the current events questions... This from ChatGPT:

Here’s a breakdown of two contrasting legal-scenarios for the recent reports that Donald J. Trump ordered U.S. naval / air-strikes on suspected drug-trafficking boats off Venezuela — one representing how defenders argue the actions are legal, the other summarizing how critics and many international-law experts say the strikes are unlawful. This frames both the “defense case” and the “critique case” so you can see how the arguments line up.

---

Defense / Government-Side Scenario: “These boat strikes are lawful under law-of-war and U.S. military authority”​

This is the scenario advanced by administration officials, some Department of Justice (DoJ) lawyers, and allied advocates. The main lines of their reasoning:

• They claim a “non-international armed conflict” exists: According to a classified opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the U.S. government treats drug-trafficking organizations like cartel gangs as part of a non-international armed conflict. Under that classification, U.S. forces may use lethal force under the laws of war. The Washington Post+2Wikipedia+2
• Orders are “lawful orders” under U.S. military law: The DoJ-endorsed OLC memo argues that personnel carrying out the strikes are not subject to prosecution because they are following lawful orders in the context of an armed conflict. The Washington Post+1
• Cartels / traffickers are framed as “narco-terrorists” or hostile non-state actors: The administration casts these groups as existential threats — using profits from drug trafficking to fund violence and instability — justifying a war-style military response rather than merely law enforcement. The Washington Post+2Wikipedia+2
• Imminence or danger argument (as claimed): In their public pitch, proponents argue that drug traffickers pose a serious threat to American lives (through overdose deaths, societal harms) — implying the government has a legitimate interest in using force to prevent that threat. (Though critics challenge this point.) Wikipedia+2Al Jazeera+2
• Practical enforcement rationale: They argue that standard law-enforcement tools (interception, boarding, arrest) are insufficient in many of these cases: the vessels are at sea, may escape, or lack cooperation; therefore lethal force is presented as the only realistic way to prevent the drugs from reaching U.S. shores. Implicitly, they treat maritime interdiction like a counter-terror operation rather than a drug-seizure case. The Washington Post+2The Washington Post+2

From this perspective, the strikes are a legitimate exercise of executive power: the President, acting as Commander in Chief, authorized a military operation under what the administration deems a valid armed-conflict framework. Service members following those orders would be acting lawfully under U.S. military law (i.e. the UCMJ), because the orders were rendered “lawful” by an OLC opinion and the classification of the operation as armed conflict. The Washington Post+2Wikipedia+2

---

Critic / Legal-Human-Rights Scenario: “These boat strikes are unlawful — extrajudicial killings and possible war crimes”​

This is how many outside legal experts, human-rights organizations, and international-law scholars interpret the reported strikes. Their arguments:

• No legitimate armed conflict — it’s drug trafficking, not war: Organizations like Human Rights Watch (HRW) maintain that drug smuggling is a criminal law-enforcement matter, not a war. Because there is no State-to-State war or recognized armed conflict between the U.S. and Venezuela (or between traffickers and a State), applying laws of war is illegitimate. Al Jazeera+2Human Rights Watch+2
• No imminent threat to life or safety — lethal force unjustifiable: International human-rights law, which still applies outside active armed conflicts, permits lethal force only when there is an “imminent threat of death or serious injury.” There is no public evidence that the traffickers’ boats posed such a threat when struck, or that non-lethal alternatives (like boarding, seizure, arrest) were exhausted. Human Rights Watch+2Dejusticia+2
• Extrajudicial execution of incapacitated survivors: The reported second strike — targeting survivors clinging to wreckage — suggests execution of persons who were no longer a threat. That conflicts with the right to life and due process under international human-rights norm, and could amount to a war crime or crime against humanity. The United Nations Office at Geneva+2The Guardian+2
• Violation of maritime law / law of the sea: Under principles governing high seas and maritime interdiction, a foreign state generally cannot resort to lethal force against a vessel flagged by another country unless there is consent, immediate threat, or hot-pursuit under certain conditions. The strikes appear to ignore that framework. Wikipedia+2Dejusticia+2
• Lack of transparency, accountability, and due process: Neither the victims nor their families have been afforded due process, identification, trial, or any public legal proceedings. Independent observers — including the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) — have condemned the strikes as unlawful and called for investigations. The United Nations Office at Geneva+2Defense News+2
• Precedent danger — militarizing law enforcement and setting dangerous international example: This approach blurs the line between crime and war — a dangerous precedent likely to be condemned globally and encourage similar abuses by other states. Al Jazeera+2The United Nations Office at Geneva+2

From this perspective, the strikes are not a lawful military operation but a series of extrajudicial killings that violate both international human-rights law and international maritime law, and possibly constitute war crimes — especially when survivors were killed after the vessel was disabled. The fact that legal memos from the administration attempt to re-classify drug trafficking as “armed conflict” does not legitimize killing people who have not threatened violence and have not been captured or tried.

 

[OralAllOver]

More importantly, are the current events questions... This from ChatGPT:

Here’s a breakdown of two contrasting legal-scenarios for the recent reports that Donald J. Trump ordered U.S. naval / air-strikes on suspected drug-trafficking boats off Venezuela — one representing how defenders argue the actions are legal, the other summarizing how critics and many international-law experts say the strikes are unlawful. This frames both the “defense case” and the “critique case” so you can see how the arguments line up.

---

Defense / Government-Side Scenario: “These boat strikes are lawful under law-of-war and U.S. military authority”​

This is the scenario advanced by administration officials, some Department of Justice (DoJ) lawyers, and allied advocates. The main lines of their reasoning:

• They claim a “non-international armed conflict” exists: According to a classified opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the U.S. government treats drug-trafficking organizations like cartel gangs as part of a non-international armed conflict. Under that classification, U.S. forces may use lethal force under the laws of war. The Washington Post+2Wikipedia+2
• Orders are “lawful orders” under U.S. military law: The DoJ-endorsed OLC memo argues that personnel carrying out the strikes are not subject to prosecution because they are following lawful orders in the context of an armed conflict. The Washington Post+1
• Cartels / traffickers are framed as “narco-terrorists” or hostile non-state actors: The administration casts these groups as existential threats — using profits from drug trafficking to fund violence and instability — justifying a war-style military response rather than merely law enforcement. The Washington Post+2Wikipedia+2
• Imminence or danger argument (as claimed): In their public pitch, proponents argue that drug traffickers pose a serious threat to American lives (through overdose deaths, societal harms) — implying the government has a legitimate interest in using force to prevent that threat. (Though critics challenge this point.) Wikipedia+2Al Jazeera+2
• Practical enforcement rationale: They argue that standard law-enforcement tools (interception, boarding, arrest) are insufficient in many of these cases: the vessels are at sea, may escape, or lack cooperation; therefore lethal force is presented as the only realistic way to prevent the drugs from reaching U.S. shores. Implicitly, they treat maritime interdiction like a counter-terror operation rather than a drug-seizure case. The Washington Post+2The Washington Post+2

From this perspective, the strikes are a legitimate exercise of executive power: the President, acting as Commander in Chief, authorized a military operation under what the administration deems a valid armed-conflict framework. Service members following those orders would be acting lawfully under U.S. military law (i.e. the UCMJ), because the orders were rendered “lawful” by an OLC opinion and the classification of the operation as armed conflict. The Washington Post+2Wikipedia+2

---

Critic / Legal-Human-Rights Scenario: “These boat strikes are unlawful — extrajudicial killings and possible war crimes”​

This is how many outside legal experts, human-rights organizations, and international-law scholars interpret the reported strikes. Their arguments:

• No legitimate armed conflict — it’s drug trafficking, not war: Organizations like Human Rights Watch (HRW) maintain that drug smuggling is a criminal law-enforcement matter, not a war. Because there is no State-to-State war or recognized armed conflict between the U.S. and Venezuela (or between traffickers and a State), applying laws of war is illegitimate. Al Jazeera+2Human Rights Watch+2
• No imminent threat to life or safety — lethal force unjustifiable: International human-rights law, which still applies outside active armed conflicts, permits lethal force only when there is an “imminent threat of death or serious injury.” There is no public evidence that the traffickers’ boats posed such a threat when struck, or that non-lethal alternatives (like boarding, seizure, arrest) were exhausted. Human Rights Watch+2Dejusticia+2
• Extrajudicial execution of incapacitated survivors: The reported second strike — targeting survivors clinging to wreckage — suggests execution of persons who were no longer a threat. That conflicts with the right to life and due process under international human-rights norm, and could amount to a war crime or crime against humanity. The United Nations Office at Geneva+2The Guardian+2
• Violation of maritime law / law of the sea: Under principles governing high seas and maritime interdiction, a foreign state generally cannot resort to lethal force against a vessel flagged by another country unless there is consent, immediate threat, or hot-pursuit under certain conditions. The strikes appear to ignore that framework. Wikipedia+2Dejusticia+2
• Lack of transparency, accountability, and due process: Neither the victims nor their families have been afforded due process, identification, trial, or any public legal proceedings. Independent observers — including the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) — have condemned the strikes as unlawful and called for investigations. The United Nations Office at Geneva+2Defense News+2
• Precedent danger — militarizing law enforcement and setting dangerous international example: This approach blurs the line between crime and war — a dangerous precedent likely to be condemned globally and encourage similar abuses by other states. Al Jazeera+2The United Nations Office at Geneva+2

From this perspective, the strikes are not a lawful military operation but a series of extrajudicial killings that violate both international human-rights law and international maritime law, and possibly constitute war crimes — especially when survivors were killed after the vessel was disabled. The fact that legal memos from the administration attempt to re-classify drug trafficking as “armed conflict” does not legitimize killing people who have not threatened violence and have not been captured or tried.

Ya kinda ignored Congress' sole authority to declare war as per the Constitution (that old thing?)

Remarkable how Republicans drool over "the founders" and create atavistic POV like "original intent" due to (alleged) reverence of Const

But at slightest inconvenience, or whim of Fat-man-who-calls-others-fat, it's Constitution who?

 

[Bray123]

1. If this is not a war, why is the 'Department of War' in charge?

2. If this is about drugs, why did Trump just pardon a guy recently imprisoned for importing 400 tons of cocaine into the US?

 

[OralAllOver]

More importantly, are the current events questions... This from ChatGPT:

Here’s a breakdown of two contrasting legal-scenarios for the recent reports that Donald J. Trump ordered U.S. naval / air-strikes on suspected drug-trafficking boats off Venezuela — one representing how defenders argue the actions are legal, the other summarizing how critics and many international-law experts say the strikes are unlawful. This frames both the “defense case” and the “critique case” so you can see how the arguments line up.

---

Defense / Government-Side Scenario: “These boat strikes are lawful under law-of-war and U.S. military authority”​

This is the scenario advanced by administration officials, some Department of Justice (DoJ) lawyers, and allied advocates. The main lines of their reasoning:

• They claim a “non-international armed conflict” exists: According to a classified opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the U.S. government treats drug-trafficking organizations like cartel gangs as part of a non-international armed conflict. Under that classification, U.S. forces may use lethal force under the laws of war. The Washington Post+2Wikipedia+2
• Orders are “lawful orders” under U.S. military law: The DoJ-endorsed OLC memo argues that personnel carrying out the strikes are not subject to prosecution because they are following lawful orders in the context of an armed conflict. The Washington Post+1
• Cartels / traffickers are framed as “narco-terrorists” or hostile non-state actors: The administration casts these groups as existential threats — using profits from drug trafficking to fund violence and instability — justifying a war-style military response rather than merely law enforcement. The Washington Post+2Wikipedia+2
• Imminence or danger argument (as claimed): In their public pitch, proponents argue that drug traffickers pose a serious threat to American lives (through overdose deaths, societal harms) — implying the government has a legitimate interest in using force to prevent that threat. (Though critics challenge this point.) Wikipedia+2Al Jazeera+2
• Practical enforcement rationale: They argue that standard law-enforcement tools (interception, boarding, arrest) are insufficient in many of these cases: the vessels are at sea, may escape, or lack cooperation; therefore lethal force is presented as the only realistic way to prevent the drugs from reaching U.S. shores. Implicitly, they treat maritime interdiction like a counter-terror operation rather than a drug-seizure case. The Washington Post+2The Washington Post+2

From this perspective, the strikes are a legitimate exercise of executive power: the President, acting as Commander in Chief, authorized a military operation under what the administration deems a valid armed-conflict framework. Service members following those orders would be acting lawfully under U.S. military law (i.e. the UCMJ), because the orders were rendered “lawful” by an OLC opinion and the classification of the operation as armed conflict. The Washington Post+2Wikipedia+2

---

Critic / Legal-Human-Rights Scenario: “These boat strikes are unlawful — extrajudicial killings and possible war crimes”​

This is how many outside legal experts, human-rights organizations, and international-law scholars interpret the reported strikes. Their arguments:

• No legitimate armed conflict — it’s drug trafficking, not war: Organizations like Human Rights Watch (HRW) maintain that drug smuggling is a criminal law-enforcement matter, not a war. Because there is no State-to-State war or recognized armed conflict between the U.S. and Venezuela (or between traffickers and a State), applying laws of war is illegitimate. Al Jazeera+2Human Rights Watch+2
• No imminent threat to life or safety — lethal force unjustifiable: International human-rights law, which still applies outside active armed conflicts, permits lethal force only when there is an “imminent threat of death or serious injury.” There is no public evidence that the traffickers’ boats posed such a threat when struck, or that non-lethal alternatives (like boarding, seizure, arrest) were exhausted. Human Rights Watch+2Dejusticia+2
• Extrajudicial execution of incapacitated survivors: The reported second strike — targeting survivors clinging to wreckage — suggests execution of persons who were no longer a threat. That conflicts with the right to life and due process under international human-rights norm, and could amount to a war crime or crime against humanity. The United Nations Office at Geneva+2The Guardian+2
• Violation of maritime law / law of the sea: Under principles governing high seas and maritime interdiction, a foreign state generally cannot resort to lethal force against a vessel flagged by another country unless there is consent, immediate threat, or hot-pursuit under certain conditions. The strikes appear to ignore that framework. Wikipedia+2Dejusticia+2
• Lack of transparency, accountability, and due process: Neither the victims nor their families have been afforded due process, identification, trial, or any public legal proceedings. Independent observers — including the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) — have condemned the strikes as unlawful and called for investigations. The United Nations Office at Geneva+2Defense News+2
• Precedent danger — militarizing law enforcement and setting dangerous international example: This approach blurs the line between crime and war — a dangerous precedent likely to be condemned globally and encourage similar abuses by other states. Al Jazeera+2The United Nations Office at Geneva+2

From this perspective, the strikes are not a lawful military operation but a series of extrajudicial killings that violate both international human-rights law and international maritime law, and possibly constitute war crimes — especially when survivors were killed after the vessel was disabled. The fact that legal memos from the administration attempt to re-classify drug trafficking as “armed conflict” does not legitimize killing people who have not threatened violence and have not been captured or tried.

Congress approved AND SPECIFICALLY FUNDED Jefferson's response to folks known to, and at that moment, ransoming kidnapped Americans

btw is anyone so deep in the cult so as to be blind to Orange Satan's oil grab?
Yup, the highest purpose for the US military is to enrich the Trumps

 

[dmallord]

Ya kinda ignored Congress' sole authority to declare war as per the Constitution (that old thing?)

Remarkable how Republicans drool over "the founders" and create atavistic POV like "original intent" due to (alleged) reverence of Const

But at slightest inconvenience, or whim of Fat-man-who-calls-others-fat, it's Constitution who?

Different slant on the current issues. Of course, you are right about the declaration of war. Here, that declaration isn't as relevant, since Trump is circumventing that authority by exercising other assumed powers.

Has he gone too far with his tactics? I believe he has.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

He has gone to far at January 6th a couple of years ago and never looked back. He's an incompetent moron and now surrounded by his cronies.
What started so unwell is getting worse by the day.
The US have a long history for starting wars for internal reasons. This is just another chapter, combining the freak show and the bad side of US history.
By the way, if China was so dependent on Venezuela what do you think will the huge fleet, and still growing by the day, of China do? Oh, and who owns a huge sum of US dollars and can totally effort throwing them into the market overnight and see the rest of US economy burn?

 

[Meekly_Anna]

Fun fact, Trump made sure that everyone in the world now knows that the US is not a reliable partner anymore. The US dollar lost a lot of its importance. Trump made sure of it.
So, if China decides to get rid of greenbacks they know that it will hurt other countries and not only the US. Of course the US will be hurt the most but the other countries will be hurt way less then before the Reign of Error, aka Trump 1.

 

[Bray123]

The few countries that regard the US as friendly include Russia and Hungary. Next on the list, Cuba???

 

[Rightguide]

Only Congress has the power to declare war. Trump’s attacks on Venezuela exceed his authority as Commander-in-Chief.

I'm telling you guys. How could ANYONE seriously try to justify a war with VENEZUELA.

#falseflag

Think about the ovarian outrage these two would have had to endure, if having had to live through all of this:

• Dominican Republic Intervention (1965) – Johnson
• Cambodia & Laos Bombing (1964–1973) – Johnson/Nixon
• Iran Hostage Rescue Attempt (1980) – Carter
• Grenada Invasion (1983) – Reagan
• Lebanon Peacekeeping / Beirut deployment (1982–1984) – Reagan
• Libya Airstrikes (1986) – Reagan
• Panama Invasion (1989) – George H.W. Bush
• Gulf War (1991) – George H.W. Bush (Congressional authorization, but no declaration of war)
• Somalia Intervention (1992–1994) – George H.W. Bush / Clinton
• Bosnia Operations (1995) – Clinton
• Kosovo Air Campaign (1999) – Clinton
• Afghanistan War (2001–) – Bush (authorization, but no declaration of war)
• Iraq War (2003–) – Bush (authorization, but no declaration of war)
• Pakistan Drone Strikes (2004–) – Bush/Obama/Trump
• Libya Intervention (2011) – Obama
• Syria Airstrikes (2014–) – Obama/Trump
• Yemen Operations (various) – Obama/Trump/Biden
• Counter-ISIS Operations worldwide (2014–) – Obama/Trump/Biden
• Targeted Strike on Qassem Soleimani (2020) – Trump
• Red Sea / Houthi Strikes (2023–) – Biden
• Caribbean maritime strikes on drug-trafficking vessels (2025) – Trump (as reported)

 

[Rightguide]

He has gone to far at January 6th a couple of years ago and never looked back. He's an incompetent moron and now surrounded by his cronies.
What started so unwell is getting worse by the day.
The US have a long history for starting wars for internal reasons. This is just another chapter, combining the freak show and the bad side of US history.
By the way, if China was so dependent on Venezuela what do you think will the huge fleet, and still growing by the day, of China do? Oh, and who owns a huge sum of US dollars and can totally effort throwing them into the market overnight and see the rest of US economy burn?

This reads less like analysis and more like someone feverishly typing every geopolitical cliché they’ve ever heard. You stitched together January 6th, China, Venezuela, and a doomsday currency dump like a conspiracy quilting party.

Fun fact, Trump made sure that everyone in the world now knows that the US is not a reliable partner anymore. The US dollar lost a lot of its importance. Trump made sure of it.
So, if China decides to get rid of greenbacks they know that it will hurt other countries and not only the US. Of course the US will be hurt the most but the other countries will be hurt way less then before the Reign of Error, aka Trump 1.

This is economic fan-fiction. The dollar didn’t lose global dominance under Trump, and China dumping its reserves would nuke its own economy long before it dented ours, but keep pretending Beijing is waiting to commit financial suicide just to prove your slogan about a BS "Reign of Error."

 

[HisArpy]

More importantly, are the current events questions... This from ChatGPT:

Here’s a breakdown of two contrasting legal-scenarios for the recent reports that Donald J. Trump ordered U.S. naval / air-strikes on suspected drug-trafficking boats off Venezuela — one representing how defenders argue the actions are legal, the other summarizing how critics and many international-law experts say the strikes are unlawful. This frames both the “defense case” and the “critique case” so you can see how the arguments line up.

---

Defense / Government-Side Scenario: “These boat strikes are lawful under law-of-war and U.S. military authority”​

This is the scenario advanced by administration officials, some Department of Justice (DoJ) lawyers, and allied advocates. The main lines of their reasoning:

• They claim a “non-international armed conflict” exists: According to a classified opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the U.S. government treats drug-trafficking organizations like cartel gangs as part of a non-international armed conflict. Under that classification, U.S. forces may use lethal force under the laws of war. The Washington Post+2Wikipedia+2
• Orders are “lawful orders” under U.S. military law: The DoJ-endorsed OLC memo argues that personnel carrying out the strikes are not subject to prosecution because they are following lawful orders in the context of an armed conflict. The Washington Post+1
• Cartels / traffickers are framed as “narco-terrorists” or hostile non-state actors: The administration casts these groups as existential threats — using profits from drug trafficking to fund violence and instability — justifying a war-style military response rather than merely law enforcement. The Washington Post+2Wikipedia+2
• Imminence or danger argument (as claimed): In their public pitch, proponents argue that drug traffickers pose a serious threat to American lives (through overdose deaths, societal harms) — implying the government has a legitimate interest in using force to prevent that threat. (Though critics challenge this point.) Wikipedia+2Al Jazeera+2
• Practical enforcement rationale: They argue that standard law-enforcement tools (interception, boarding, arrest) are insufficient in many of these cases: the vessels are at sea, may escape, or lack cooperation; therefore lethal force is presented as the only realistic way to prevent the drugs from reaching U.S. shores. Implicitly, they treat maritime interdiction like a counter-terror operation rather than a drug-seizure case. The Washington Post+2The Washington Post+2

From this perspective, the strikes are a legitimate exercise of executive power: the President, acting as Commander in Chief, authorized a military operation under what the administration deems a valid armed-conflict framework. Service members following those orders would be acting lawfully under U.S. military law (i.e. the UCMJ), because the orders were rendered “lawful” by an OLC opinion and the classification of the operation as armed conflict. The Washington Post+2Wikipedia+2

---

Critic / Legal-Human-Rights Scenario: “These boat strikes are unlawful — extrajudicial killings and possible war crimes”​

This is how many outside legal experts, human-rights organizations, and international-law scholars interpret the reported strikes. Their arguments:

• No legitimate armed conflict — it’s drug trafficking, not war: Organizations like Human Rights Watch (HRW) maintain that drug smuggling is a criminal law-enforcement matter, not a war. Because there is no State-to-State war or recognized armed conflict between the U.S. and Venezuela (or between traffickers and a State), applying laws of war is illegitimate. Al Jazeera+2Human Rights Watch+2
• No imminent threat to life or safety — lethal force unjustifiable: International human-rights law, which still applies outside active armed conflicts, permits lethal force only when there is an “imminent threat of death or serious injury.” There is no public evidence that the traffickers’ boats posed such a threat when struck, or that non-lethal alternatives (like boarding, seizure, arrest) were exhausted. Human Rights Watch+2Dejusticia+2
• Extrajudicial execution of incapacitated survivors: The reported second strike — targeting survivors clinging to wreckage — suggests execution of persons who were no longer a threat. That conflicts with the right to life and due process under international human-rights norm, and could amount to a war crime or crime against humanity. The United Nations Office at Geneva+2The Guardian+2
• Violation of maritime law / law of the sea: Under principles governing high seas and maritime interdiction, a foreign state generally cannot resort to lethal force against a vessel flagged by another country unless there is consent, immediate threat, or hot-pursuit under certain conditions. The strikes appear to ignore that framework. Wikipedia+2Dejusticia+2
• Lack of transparency, accountability, and due process: Neither the victims nor their families have been afforded due process, identification, trial, or any public legal proceedings. Independent observers — including the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) — have condemned the strikes as unlawful and called for investigations. The United Nations Office at Geneva+2Defense News+2
• Precedent danger — militarizing law enforcement and setting dangerous international example: This approach blurs the line between crime and war — a dangerous precedent likely to be condemned globally and encourage similar abuses by other states. Al Jazeera+2The United Nations Office at Geneva+2

From this perspective, the strikes are not a lawful military operation but a series of extrajudicial killings that violate both international human-rights law and international maritime law, and possibly constitute war crimes — especially when survivors were killed after the vessel was disabled. The fact that legal memos from the administration attempt to re-classify drug trafficking as “armed conflict” does not legitimize killing people who have not threatened violence and have not been captured or tried.

It's an interesting contrast and which you believe depends on your politics instead of facts.

 

[Rightguide]

More importantly, are the current events questions... This from ChatGPT:

Here’s a breakdown of two contrasting legal-scenarios for the recent reports that Donald J. Trump ordered U.S. naval / air-strikes on suspected drug-trafficking boats off Venezuela — one representing how defenders argue the actions are legal, the other summarizing how critics and many international-law experts say the strikes are unlawful. This frames both the “defense case” and the “critique case” so you can see how the arguments line up.

---

Defense / Government-Side Scenario: “These boat strikes are lawful under law-of-war and U.S. military authority”​

This is the scenario advanced by administration officials, some Department of Justice (DoJ) lawyers, and allied advocates. The main lines of their reasoning:

• They claim a “non-international armed conflict” exists: According to a classified opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the U.S. government treats drug-trafficking organizations like cartel gangs as part of a non-international armed conflict. Under that classification, U.S. forces may use lethal force under the laws of war. The Washington Post+2Wikipedia+2
• Orders are “lawful orders” under U.S. military law: The DoJ-endorsed OLC memo argues that personnel carrying out the strikes are not subject to prosecution because they are following lawful orders in the context of an armed conflict. The Washington Post+1
• Cartels / traffickers are framed as “narco-terrorists” or hostile non-state actors: The administration casts these groups as existential threats — using profits from drug trafficking to fund violence and instability — justifying a war-style military response rather than merely law enforcement. The Washington Post+2Wikipedia+2
• Imminence or danger argument (as claimed): In their public pitch, proponents argue that drug traffickers pose a serious threat to American lives (through overdose deaths, societal harms) — implying the government has a legitimate interest in using force to prevent that threat. (Though critics challenge this point.) Wikipedia+2Al Jazeera+2
• Practical enforcement rationale: They argue that standard law-enforcement tools (interception, boarding, arrest) are insufficient in many of these cases: the vessels are at sea, may escape, or lack cooperation; therefore lethal force is presented as the only realistic way to prevent the drugs from reaching U.S. shores. Implicitly, they treat maritime interdiction like a counter-terror operation rather than a drug-seizure case. The Washington Post+2The Washington Post+2

From this perspective, the strikes are a legitimate exercise of executive power: the President, acting as Commander in Chief, authorized a military operation under what the administration deems a valid armed-conflict framework. Service members following those orders would be acting lawfully under U.S. military law (i.e. the UCMJ), because the orders were rendered “lawful” by an OLC opinion and the classification of the operation as armed conflict. The Washington Post+2Wikipedia+2

---

Critic / Legal-Human-Rights Scenario: “These boat strikes are unlawful — extrajudicial killings and possible war crimes”​

This is how many outside legal experts, human-rights organizations, and international-law scholars interpret the reported strikes. Their arguments:

• No legitimate armed conflict — it’s drug trafficking, not war: Organizations like Human Rights Watch (HRW) maintain that drug smuggling is a criminal law-enforcement matter, not a war. Because there is no State-to-State war or recognized armed conflict between the U.S. and Venezuela (or between traffickers and a State), applying laws of war is illegitimate. Al Jazeera+2Human Rights Watch+2
• No imminent threat to life or safety — lethal force unjustifiable: International human-rights law, which still applies outside active armed conflicts, permits lethal force only when there is an “imminent threat of death or serious injury.” There is no public evidence that the traffickers’ boats posed such a threat when struck, or that non-lethal alternatives (like boarding, seizure, arrest) were exhausted. Human Rights Watch+2Dejusticia+2
• Extrajudicial execution of incapacitated survivors: The reported second strike — targeting survivors clinging to wreckage — suggests execution of persons who were no longer a threat. That conflicts with the right to life and due process under international human-rights norm, and could amount to a war crime or crime against humanity. The United Nations Office at Geneva+2The Guardian+2
• Violation of maritime law / law of the sea: Under principles governing high seas and maritime interdiction, a foreign state generally cannot resort to lethal force against a vessel flagged by another country unless there is consent, immediate threat, or hot-pursuit under certain conditions. The strikes appear to ignore that framework. Wikipedia+2Dejusticia+2
• Lack of transparency, accountability, and due process: Neither the victims nor their families have been afforded due process, identification, trial, or any public legal proceedings. Independent observers — including the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) — have condemned the strikes as unlawful and called for investigations. The United Nations Office at Geneva+2Defense News+2
• Precedent danger — militarizing law enforcement and setting dangerous international example: This approach blurs the line between crime and war — a dangerous precedent likely to be condemned globally and encourage similar abuses by other states. Al Jazeera+2The United Nations Office at Geneva+2

From this perspective, the strikes are not a lawful military operation but a series of extrajudicial killings that violate both international human-rights law and international maritime law, and possibly constitute war crimes — especially when survivors were killed after the vessel was disabled. The fact that legal memos from the administration attempt to re-classify drug trafficking as “armed conflict” does not legitimize killing people who have not threatened violence and have not been captured or tried.

Analyze these as well:

• Korean War (1950–1953) – Truman
• Vietnam War (1961–1973) – Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon
• Lebanon Intervention (1958) – Eisenhower
• Bay of Pigs (1961) – Kennedy
• Dominican Republic Intervention (1965) – Johnson
• Cambodia & Laos Bombing (1964–1973) – Johnson/Nixon
• Iran Hostage Rescue Attempt (1980) – Carter
• Grenada Invasion (1983) – Reagan
• Lebanon Peacekeeping / Beirut deployment (1982–1984) – Reagan
• Libya Airstrikes (1986) – Reagan
• Panama Invasion (1989) – George H.W. Bush
• Gulf War (1991) – George H.W. Bush (Congressional authorization, but no declaration of war)
• Somalia Intervention (1992–1994) – George H.W. Bush / Clinton
• Bosnia Operations (1995) – Clinton
• Kosovo Air Campaign (1999) – Clinton
• Afghanistan War (2001–) – Bush (authorization, but no declaration of war)
• Iraq War (2003–) – Bush (authorization, but no declaration of war)
• Pakistan Drone Strikes (2004–) – Bush/Obama/Trump
• Libya Intervention (2011) – Obama
• Syria Airstrikes (2014–) – Obama/Trump
• Yemen Operations (various) – Obama/Trump/Biden
• Counter-ISIS Operations worldwide (2014–) – Obama/Trump/Biden
• Targeted Strike on Qassem Soleimani (2020) – Trump
• Red Sea / Houthi Strikes (2023–) – Biden
• Caribbean maritime strikes on drug-trafficking vessels (2025) – Trump (as reported)

 

[ll74]

Analyze these as well:

• Korean War (1950–1953) – Truman
• Vietnam War (1961–1973) – Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon
• Lebanon Intervention (1958) – Eisenhower
• Bay of Pigs (1961) – Kennedy
• Dominican Republic Intervention (1965) – Johnson
• Cambodia & Laos Bombing (1964–1973) – Johnson/Nixon
• Iran Hostage Rescue Attempt (1980) – Carter
• Grenada Invasion (1983) – Reagan
• Lebanon Peacekeeping / Beirut deployment (1982–1984) – Reagan
• Libya Airstrikes (1986) – Reagan
• Panama Invasion (1989) – George H.W. Bush
• Gulf War (1991) – George H.W. Bush (Congressional authorization, but no declaration of war)
• Somalia Intervention (1992–1994) – George H.W. Bush / Clinton
• Bosnia Operations (1995) – Clinton
• Kosovo Air Campaign (1999) – Clinton
• Afghanistan War (2001–) – Bush (authorization, but no declaration of war)
• Iraq War (2003–) – Bush (authorization, but no declaration of war)
• Pakistan Drone Strikes (2004–) – Bush/Obama/Trump
• Libya Intervention (2011) – Obama
• Syria Airstrikes (2014–) – Obama/Trump
• Yemen Operations (various) – Obama/Trump/Biden
• Counter-ISIS Operations worldwide (2014–) – Obama/Trump/Biden
• Targeted Strike on Qassem Soleimani (2020) – Trump
• Red Sea / Houthi Strikes (2023–) – Biden
• Caribbean maritime strikes on drug-trafficking vessels (2025) – Trump (as reported)

I.e. - the other guys did shit I hate so that makes this ok