DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Even if those boats were shipping drugs, how do we know they were going to the US?

---

Why do we care. Terrorist org is a terrorist org.

Libs and attention needing Paul crying over Narcos being blown out of the water.

Cocaine goes to Mexico where its is laced with Fent and then sent to America. What is the problem ??

Bad Trump doing king things ?

Grow some

PaulsBunions said:

---

"We have good reason to blow people up we just can't prove it trust us"

Pretty weak argument for killing 51 people not gonna lie man

---

Sorry they did not clear it through you and Rand Paul first. Sometimes you have to trust.

Do you have evidence these guys were just out fishing in speed boats running at high speeds?

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

I hate the Patriot Act. I love killing narcoterrorists.

---

This

I disagree with Trump's fiscal liberalism, but his immigration, striving for peace deals and killing drug runners are the tits

flown-the-coop said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

"We have good reason to blow people up we just can't prove it trust us"

Pretty weak argument for killing 51 people not gonna lie man

---

Sorry they did not clear it through you and Rand Paul first. Sometimes you have to trust.

Do you have evidence these guys were just out fishing in speed boats running at high speeds?

---

I don't need to provide evidence proving they were innocent, the gov needs to provide evidence proving they were guilty. This is a silly response.

techno-ag said:

---

txwxman said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

It beats the alternative, all that fentanyl killing our inner city youth.

---

Fentanyl typically comes from Mexico. South America is all about the cocaine.

---

Keep up. The land border is sealed. Cartels have shifted to water. See posts above.

---

Problem is that all the MSM and notably again PBS are going with the line "it cannot be Fentanyl because Mensa Biden and his Merry Band of Honest Abes told us it only comes from China through Mexico.

Hint: When it becomes mainstream knowledge how drugs are getting in, then typically the cartels and their suppliers have adjusted tactics.

Traditionally it did come through Mexico. But they busted up one of those rings several years ago.

Venezuela does ship a lot of cocaine to Europe, but I don't think they use open air speed boats, and would seem to be taking an indirect route through waters that have long been monitored by US intelligence / armed forces.

This isn't a court of law. You can go analyze the pieces yourself if it's that important.

PaulsBunions said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

"We have good reason to blow people up we just can't prove it trust us"

Pretty weak argument for killing 51 people not gonna lie man

---

Sorry they did not clear it through you and Rand Paul first. Sometimes you have to trust.

Do you have evidence these guys were just out fishing in speed boats running at high speeds?

---

I don't need to provide evidence proving they were innocent, the gov needs to provide evidence proving they were guilty. This is a silly response.

---

The gov, through it's own channels, had evidence that these were drug running boats, otherwise the green light wouldn't have been given.

They don't need to provide it to YOU...

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

This isn't a court of law. You can go analyze the pieces yourself if it's that important.

---

Why is the burden of proof on me, a US citizen, when questioning the reasoning behind a military action by my government?

PaulsBunions said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

This isn't a court of law. You can go analyze the pieces yourself if it's that important.

---

Why is the burden of proof on me, a US citizen, when questioning the reasoning behind a military action by my government?

---

So you're saying you don't have any proof.

PaulsBunions said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

This isn't a court of law. You can go analyze the pieces yourself if it's that important.

---

Why is the burden of proof on me, a US citizen, when questioning the reasoning behind a military action by my government?

---

What burden of proof? We're killing terrorists in a war. Did you require evidence in Iraq before killing terrorists?

techno-ag said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

This isn't a court of law. You can go analyze the pieces yourself if it's that important.

---

Why is the burden of proof on me, a US citizen, when questioning the reasoning behind a military action by my government?

---

So you're saying you don't have any proof.

---

Correct, they very well could be drug boats. But when the US is conducting military strikes without congressional approval I think its fair to ask why.

txags92 said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Even if those boats were shipping drugs, how do we know they were going to the US?

---

Why do we care. Terrorist org is a terrorist org.

---

Drug smuggling isn't terrorism. America shouldn't enforce its drug laws on other countries. If one country wants drugs and another can supply them, that's just the free market.

PaulsBunions said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

This isn't a court of law. You can go analyze the pieces yourself if it's that important.

---

Why is the burden of proof on me, a US citizen, when questioning the reasoning behind a military action by my government?

---

So you're saying you don't have any proof.

---

Correct,

---

TYVM.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

This isn't a court of law. You can go analyze the pieces yourself if it's that important.

---

Why is the burden of proof on me, a US citizen, when questioning the reasoning behind a military action by my government?

---

What burden of proof? We're killing terrorists in a war. Did you require evidence in Iraq before killing terrorists?

---

Iraq? The country we declared war on? Or the 20 years we spent after in the ME wasting trillions of dollars?

PaulsBunions said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

This isn't a court of law. You can go analyze the pieces yourself if it's that important.

---

Why is the burden of proof on me, a US citizen, when questioning the reasoning behind a military action by my government?

---

I think we found Rand Paul's TexAgs handle.

But seriously, just take a step back and reflect on what you are asking. You certainly have a right to request justification. Pretty sure Trump by releasing the videos and providing statements on the actions, has provided you that information.

What you / Randy are asking for is above and beyond what is reasonable. Neither of you are on a need to know basis regarding these ongoing ops. As a US citizen, you have the option of electing someone else to represent your interests.

Maybe look at Kentucky? They seem to be more D focused regardless of what side of the aisle they supposedly represent.

flown-the-coop said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

"We have good reason to blow people up we just can't prove it trust us"

Pretty weak argument for killing 51 people not gonna lie man

---

Sorry they did not clear it through you and Rand Paul first. Sometimes you have to trust.

Do you have evidence these guys were just out fishing in speed boats running at high speeds?

---

You should never trust your government without question. A lot of that happening nowadays.

javajaws said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

"We have good reason to blow people up we just can't prove it trust us"

Pretty weak argument for killing 51 people not gonna lie man

---

Sorry they did not clear it through you and Rand Paul first. Sometimes you have to trust.

Do you have evidence these guys were just out fishing in speed boats running at high speeds?

---

You should never trust your government without question. A lot of that happening nowadays.

---

Agreed. See the word "sometimes".

flown-the-coop said:

---

javajaws said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

"We have good reason to blow people up we just can't prove it trust us"

Pretty weak argument for killing 51 people not gonna lie man

---

Sorry they did not clear it through you and Rand Paul first. Sometimes you have to trust.

Do you have evidence these guys were just out fishing in speed boats running at high speeds?

---

You should never trust your government without question. A lot of that happening nowadays.

---

Agreed. See the word "sometimes".

---

Never =/= sometimes. So you don't actually agree lol

flown-the-coop said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

It beats the alternative, all that fentanyl killing our inner city youth.

---

The ingredients for illicit fentanyl are made in China and sent to Mexico, where the Mexican cartels manufacture the fent and send it up to the US. It doesn't really come from Venezuela.

---

Yea, that's sort of outdated. We focused pretty hard to shutting down the west coast of Mexico. So those precursors come by alternate route.

Why do people resist giving Trump credit for doing an awesome thing?

---

Unfortunately, I do not think it is Trump. The next GOP candidate will receive just as much resistance. And the next, and the next....


This country has been led into believing (and even acting like) 50% of the population is an enemy. That is bad news no matter how you spin it.

Trump is just the guy right now. The next guy/girl will be treated no better, and likely worse given the trend.

techno-ag said:

---

It beats the alternative, all that fentanyl killing our inner city youth.

---

If you have children, you may want to learn what's happening in your suburban bubble, Texas A&M dorms, etc.

I so wish that libs and concerned Republicans cared as much about our citizenry as they do about foreigners and their "rights". Rand Paul represents Kentucky. His constituents are some of those who are being killed by fentanyl and the other narcotics being shipped here from those Latin American countries. He is not a Senator to defend Venezuelans in any fashion.

flown-the-coop said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

This isn't a court of law. You can go analyze the pieces yourself if it's that important.

---

Why is the burden of proof on me, a US citizen, when questioning the reasoning behind a military action by my government?

---

I think we found Rand Paul's TexAgs handle.

But seriously, just take a step back and reflect on what you are asking. You certainly have a right to request justification. Pretty sure Trump by releasing the videos and providing statements on the actions, has provided you that information.

What you / Randy are asking for is above and beyond what is reasonable. Neither of you are on a need to know basis regarding these ongoing ops. As a US citizen, you have the option of electing someone else to represent your interests.

Maybe look at Kentucky? They seem to be more D focused regardless of what side of the aisle they supposedly represent.

---

The videos that just showed the strikes and a statement saying "trust our intelligence" is all the proof you need?

Today, at the direction of President Trump, the Department of War carried out yet another lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by a Designated Terrorist Organization (DTO). Yet again, the now-deceased terrorists were engaged in narco-trafficking in the Eastern Pacific.

The… pic.twitter.com/PEaKmakivD

— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) October 23, 2025

What do you think Rand is being unreasonable in asking for here?

Bomb first, ask questions “never” makes zero constitutional sense and even less practical sense. I still have questions about the survivors from Ecuador and Colombia. Either they’re drug traffickers, in which case they should be tried and locked up, or they’re not. It shouldn’t… pic.twitter.com/dRYMcTbjSL

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) October 27, 2025

So now, we put our enemies in war on trial? Since when?

PaulsBunions said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

"We have good reason to blow people up we just can't prove it trust us"

Pretty weak argument for killing 51 people not gonna lie man

---

Sorry they did not clear it through you and Rand Paul first. Sometimes you have to trust.

Do you have evidence these guys were just out fishing in speed boats running at high speeds?

---

I don't need to provide evidence proving they were innocent, the gov needs to provide evidence proving they were guilty. This is a silly response.

---

If they believe they were wronged by the government, they are welcome to come to court and sue the government for wrongfully blowing up their boats.

PaulsBunions said:

---

The videos that just showed the strikes and a statement saying "trust our intelligence" is all the proof you need?


You do realize that any additional information they provided would still require you to "trust our intelligence". Or do you think if they tell Randy and he tells you its all good then its all good?


What do you think Rand is being unreasonable in asking for here?

Randy is not POTUS. He is not entitled to the information. I am certain if he wants a 1:1 briefing with Noem and Hegseth, he could request one.

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

So now, we put our enemies in war on trial? Since when?

---

Since when do we just drop off our enemies in the countries they came from? Are they prisoners of war, or suspects of a crime?

PaulsBunions said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

So now, we put our enemies in war on trial? Since when?

---

Since when do we just drop off our enemies in the countries they came from? Are they prisoners of war, or suspects of a crime?

---

Pretty sure we send enemies back all the time to the countries from which they came. Is your contention we hold them in perpetuity?

And they were not suspects. They were terrorists actively engaged in terrorist things. So they got blowed up.

shiftyandquick said:

---

LOL, you guys think this is about the drugs?

You think blowing up a few boats is going to make any difference?

You are very much optimists. Or apologists for this regime.

"This time we are going to win the war on drugs by blowing up speed boats." How do you guys stop from laughing as you say this?

---

You've been watching too many movies and really think the criminals/terrorists are the smart ones.

PaulsBunions said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

So now, we put our enemies in war on trial? Since when?

---

Since when do we just drop off our enemies in the countries they came from? Are they prisoners of war, or suspects of a crime?

---

What are you talking about? Immigration and drug running are two completely different things and they're being handled completely differently.

But you're reeeeeeeing about both, I guess. I support both. And the new White House ballroom.

flown-the-coop said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

So now, we put our enemies in war on trial? Since when?

---

Since when do we just drop off our enemies in the countries they came from? Are they prisoners of war, or suspects of a crime?

---

Pretty sure we send enemies back all the time to the countries from which they came. Is your contention we hold them in perpetuity?

And they were not suspects. They were terrorists actively engaged in terrorist things. So they got blowed up.

---

These are terrorists and we just released them?

And yes we still have "terrorists" in Guantanamo in perpetuity.

I'm curious if Rand Paul believe he is entitled to "evidence"? Or that the executive branch must provide evidence to the Senate?

While I like that he isn't the typical Rep/Dem leftist, the only thing he does is blovate in the Senate.

This is an 80/20 issue, Rand should sit this one out…this isn't about ending drugs for good, it is about forcing change in Venezuela for oil mostly, and showing drug cartels that we will take them out.

Folks on here would be upset Truman didn't call them prior to dropping the A bombs.

BTKAG97 said:

---

I'm curious if Rand Paul believe he is entitled to "evidence"? Or that the executive branch must provide evidence to the Senate?

While I like that he isn't the typical Rep/Dem leftist, the only thing he does is blovate in the Senate.

---

Congress provides oversight to executive decisions. Checks and balances.

Rand's point (summarized by AI)

1. If this is warfare (or "hostilities"):
The Constitution (Article I, Section 8) gives Congress alone the power to declare war.
The War Powers Resolution (1973) requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing forces to hostilities and to terminate use of force within 60-90 days unless Congress authorizes it.
Airstrikes killing 14+ people in foreign waters without congressional approval = unconstitutional unless it fits a narrow self-defense exception (which Paul says it doesn't).

2. If this is law enforcement (drug interdiction):
Killing suspects without arrest, trial, or evidence presented in court = extrajudicial execution.
Even in maritime interdiction, the U.S. must follow due process under the 5th Amendment and international law (e.g., UNCLOS, human rights treaties).
Paul demands evidence (photos, intel, names, contraband logs) be shown to Congress and the public to justify lethal forceespecially since ~25% of Coast Guard searches find no drugs.