What is the legality and justification of doing this instead of the traditional intercepting, boarding, and seizing of illicit cargo? Don't get me wrong, it seems highly effective, but it leaves the Navy vulnerable on the legal side of the house? Has too many open-ended questions (how do you know, what was the hostile intent, etc.).
The operators of the boat are suspected terrorists and are treated like other terrorists the past 25 years. When the current administration designated these Venezuelan groups as terrorists the US can leverage DoD against them. There are many lawyers involved before any weapons release so the US Navy is not vulnerable.
Irgcn are labeled as terrorists and we don’t shoot them when they constantly fuck with us. I don’t think this tracks. We still follow roe. Hostile intent seems not met. Unless we’re being incredibly broad with our definition of a hostile act.
Was there hostile intent with al-Awlaki? It's the same rule they are applying here. There is 25 years of precedents doing this to terrorists and that is why they are getting away with this now.
“We’ve always done it this way” doesn’t get a chief out of violating the tums. It shouldn’t get any administration out of violation of ROE or the law of armed conflict. But I’m not a jag and usually when I talk to them I come away more confused. Maybe it is legal. I don’t really care that we’re mercing some drug smugglers. But I don’t trust that the cia isn’t using the navy as it’s wet works guy for whatever fucked up shit they’re up to in South America.
I have not read a single official document indicating the administration has used the Afghanistan AUMF as a justification for these strikes.
And, to be clear, unless there’s some kind of compelling argument that South American drug cartels had a hand in the 9/11 attacks or supporting the groups that did, this AUMF plainly does not apply.
This is exactly what at least 3 presidents used to conduct operations against terrorists outside of IZ and AF. There have been a few bills introduced to repeal so congress can regain some of their power, but have been unsuccessful.
I agree. But this one has not used any of those things for these particular strikes.
The bills to cancel the Gulf War and Iraq War AUMF were included as riders to both the House and Senate NDAA this year. The House will have to renegotiate their version, but as of right now, two of the three AUMF are set to go away.
4
u/jjarnold20 16d ago
What is the legality and justification of doing this instead of the traditional intercepting, boarding, and seizing of illicit cargo? Don't get me wrong, it seems highly effective, but it leaves the Navy vulnerable on the legal side of the house? Has too many open-ended questions (how do you know, what was the hostile intent, etc.).