They were, from 1980-1988. The First Gulf War addressed that issue and it is well documented that we destroyed them.

We suspected there were WMDs in 2003. We assumed there were WMD stockpiles based on our bias and flawed intelligence. Unless you have information Congress doesn't, it was determined there were not any stockpiles during the Second Iraq War.

shiftyandquick said:

---

Respect to Rand Paul who is consistent in asking for the Constitution to be followed, for the rule of law to be maintained. In today's United States, it is tantamount to political suicide for a Republican to even question Trump. Paul is one of the only GOPers who does so, some of the time.

Quote:

---

"But the drug war … or the crime war has typically been something we do through law enforcement. And so far, they have alleged that these people are drug dealers. No one said their name. No one said what evidence. No one said whether they're armed. And we've had no evidence presented."

"So, at this point, I would call them extrajudicial killings. And this is akin to what China does, to what Iran does with drug dealers. They summarily execute people without presenting evidence to the public. So, it's wrong," Paul added.

---

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5573870-rand-paul-caribbean-boat-strikes/

On the 57 dead figure. Source:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/10/28/us/trump-news-japan#us-military-boat-strikes

This current policy reminds me of the Philippines and Rodrigo Duterte. The war on drugs became a recipe for extrajudicial murders. This kind of thing has played out over and over amongst these strongman regimes.

---

Rand Paul didn't read the laws that pertain to these Presidential powers.

President Trump has the authority granted by Congress to declare a national emergency under 50 U.S. Code 1621 provided that he notifies Congress and the declaration is published in the Federal Registry.

President Trump has the authority to declare Foreign Terrorist Organizations under 8 U.S. Code 1189.

Congress gave the President these powers and a popular majority of the electorate picked DEDT (Duly Elected Donald Trump) to exercise those authorities on their behalf. President Trump is not required to obtain the concurrence of the members of Congress from his own party or the opposing party to exercise these authorities.

Do either of those give him authorization to kill foreign nationals/terrorists without Congressional approval?

Has anybody confirmed the deaths?

Could this be a psyop by taking out unmanned boats then releasing "unclassified" footage to get the cartels to stop using boats?

javajaws said:

---

Has anybody confirmed the deaths?

Could this be a psyop by taking out unmanned boats then releasing "unclassified" footage to get the cartels to stop using boats?

---

Yesterday, at the direction of President Trump, the Department of War carried out three lethal kinetic strikes on four vessels operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations (DTO) trafficking narcotics in the Eastern Pacific.

The four vessels were known by our intelligence… pic.twitter.com/UhoFlZ3jPG

— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) October 28, 2025

Hegseth confirmed deaths and a survivor

wtmartinaggie said:

---

Do either of those give him authorization to kill foreign nationals/terrorists without Congressional approval?

---

Yes, under the same emergency powers that allowed Obama to approve to kill specific terrorist leaders with a Presidential determination letter. The authority to declare the emergency grants authority to take lethal action without additional Congressional review. That's how Congress wrote the laws.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

Not getting off the hook that easy. Sorry to dissapoint.

---

What hook am I on?

Trump is acting within his executive powers. Don't like it? See if Randy will lead an impeachment.

Me? I love that he is killing narco terrorists. I would be fine with him droning some drug dens in Phillip and Portland.

He is justified in protecting my life, the life of my family and all our freedoms.

Due process is reserved for those covered by our Constitution. These "fisherman" are not covered.

Hell, we even helped in SAR for the survivor.

But seriously, what more rationale are you wanting to see?

Quote:

---

The four vessels were known by our intelligence apparatus, transiting along known narco-trafficking routes, and carrying narcotics.

Eight male narco-terrorists were aboard the vessels during the first strike. Four male narco-terrorists were aboard the vessel during the second strike. Three male narco-terrorists were aboard the vessel during the third strike. A total of 14 narco-terrorists were killed during the three strikes, with one survivor. All strikes were in international waters with no U.S. forces harmed.

Regarding the survivor, USSOUTHCOM immediately initiated Search and Rescue (SAR) standard protocols; Mexican SAR authorities accepted the case and assumed responsibility for coordinating the rescue.

---

wtmartinaggie said:

---

Yes, I had a huge problem with it then and I have a huge problem with it now. I'll also have a huge problem with it in the future. You should too.

I don't care what party is in power. The Constitution is the law, and no one is above it.

The bigger question is, did you have a problem with it when Obama or Biden did it? If you did and don't today, then you may want to evaluate whether your partisanship has eroded your understanding of and commitment to our United States as it was founded.

---

I had no problem with Obama doing what he thought was protecting our country and I don't recall Republicans running around crying about due process and stay out of other countries etc. Did we proclaim drug cartels terrorists ? Yes we did, all legal and we need the target practice. You just hate it cause Trump is doing it. He's not breaking any laws.

Voters approve, and the polling proves it.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

They were, from 1980-1988. The First Gulf War addressed that issue and it is well documented that we destroyed them.

We suspected there were WMDs in 2003. We assumed there were WMD stockpiles based on our bias and flawed intelligence. Unless you have information Congress doesn't, it was determined there were not any stockpiles during the Second Iraq War.

---

No one cares

Those guys with TDS on here MORE THAN LIKELY don't know as much about the current situation as the current administration and US forces making these interdictions. Just a guess on my part.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

I think the idea is that the President owes Congress that information. It's not about him, it's about the Constitution.

---

Quote:

---

Trump all but sealed the physical land border by virtually halting illegal border crossing attempts and traffic. That cut way down on mule traffic AND allows border patrol to actually work on interdicting smuggling attempts.
That has forced more attempts to go by water. To move supply up the pacific coast or Caribbean try to hand loads off to "fishing and pleasure boats" going in and out.

---

The majority (90% or more) of Fentanyl is still coming in through legal points of entry in the dashboards of trucks, in gas tanks, inside barrels of other materials etc. Millions of vehicles enter the US every year. It's a daunting task.

Increasing the amount of drug sniffing dogs, more x-ray tech, better tunnel detection, etc. is what would seriously reduce the amount of drugs entering the US. Nabbing a few boats, while needed, isn't going to do much of anything to drug prices. Despite Trump's reductions in illegal entries (sorely needed & I'm glad he did btw), the price hasn't changed for Fentanyl. Raw material from China & India keeps pouring into Mexico, dropping manufacturing costs.

One thing about cartels: they adapt quickly. I'm actually surprised more of them are not using low flying drones to drop goods. Maybe they are.

nm

Drones would be very effective on the coasts and northern border. Lots of access and much less surveillance. This is just a guess on my part.

The Venezuelan boats were not intended for the continental US per my understanding, but to intermediary places in C America and the Caribbean.

You are right, the cartels will adapt. Always have, always do, always will.

One challenge will be what replaces Fentanyl. Scientists of the nefarious sort are constantly working to make drugs out of still available chemicals and in compounds that are ahead of current laws, regulations, intel.

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

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.

---

It doesn't matter what you think about drug smuggling and if it's a viable free market tool or not. The groups making and smuggling the drugs are labeled as TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS. That designation gives broad AND very specific powers to the DOD to State Dept. on how to handle those groups. It also doesn't require approval of Congress, just oversight.

It is highly suspicious these groups weren't designated even sooner, in my book. They directly or indirectly kill more Americans than Iran and all their proxies.

Definitely agree with Rand Paul on this issue.

It's a slippery slope, and blatantly using air strikes like this will lead to abuses or mission creep into domestic use. I don't understand how any true constitutionalist Americans would be cool with this.

Gig em G said:

---

Definitely agree with Rand Paul on this issue.

It's a slippery slope, and blatantly using air strikes like this will lead to abuses or mission creep into domestic use. I don't understand how any true constitutionalist Americans would be cool with this.

---

That's a good one. Thanks for the laugh.

Ulysses90 said:

---

wtmartinaggie said:

---

Do either of those give him authorization to kill foreign nationals/terrorists without Congressional approval?

---

Yes, under the same emergency powers that allowed Obama to approve to kill specific terrorist leaders with a Presidential determination letter. The authority to declare the emergency grants authority to take lethal action without additional Congressional review. That's how Congress wrote the laws.

---

Well that settles it. It's legal and constitutional. Let's keep killing them.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

No one is saying that, nothing even close to that. To make that comparison is silly.

To take the bait though... In a situation like that the President has the authority to intervene without Congressional approval. Afterwards he owes them evidence and information justifying said action, but he's 100% obliged as Commander and Chief to step in and use the Armed Forces to protect American interests. He's not immune from the consequences of making bad decisions or breaking the law while doing so, but it is his responsibility.

---

So according to you, killing a terrorist before he murders innocents is "breaking the law"?

Got it.

And to make that comparison is not silly at all. A terrorist is a terrorist. And the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. And any action that leads to dead terrorists is justified. It was justified with Obama. It is justified now. International terrorists do not have Constitutional protections.

Hey look. There's a speedboat in international waters loaded with nuclear materials and headed towards a coastal US city. Quick, let's call a meeting with congress and see if they grant us permission to stop them.

SunrayAg said:

---

wtmartinaggie said:

---

No one is saying that, nothing even close to that. To make that comparison is silly.

To take the bait though... In a situation like that the President has the authority to intervene without Congressional approval. Afterwards he owes them evidence and information justifying said action, but he's 100% obliged as Commander and Chief to step in and use the Armed Forces to protect American interests. He's not immune from the consequences of making bad decisions or breaking the law while doing so, but it is his responsibility.

---

So according to you, killing a terrorist before he murders innocents is "breaking the law"?

Got it.

And to make that comparison is not silly at all. A terrorist is a terrorist. And the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. And any action that leads to dead terrorists is justified. It was justified with Obama. It is justified now. International terrorists do not have Constitutional protections.

Hey look. There's a speedboat in international waters loaded with nuclear materials and headed towards a coastal US city. Quick, let's call a meeting with congress and see if they grant us permission to stop them.

---

And then what if they were Palestinians in the boat? Do we call Israel first? Make sure Rashida is in the loop? Do we stop the boat to confirm the nuke was good, active and ready to annihilate? Then they will need a defense team to guard against vindictive prosecution.

Or we can blow them the **** out of the water, let libs, CMs and poor understanders of executive powers cry into their furry costumes whilst clutching they pearls.

Trump is doing great. Bout time more people said thanks.

Considering about 10 boats have been sunk with a payload of drugs that would kill 50,000 per or 500,000 Americans, the 57 dead drug runners are an acceptable loss.

The simple statement, "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes", has never been more appropriate.

But if people must cry for those who want to kill Americans I can't stop that stupidity.

He is just parroting Reddit talking points. It's what he does.

Interesting. I didn't know Reddit was known for truly conservative stances on anything.

Gig em G said:

---

Interesting. I didn't know Reddit was known for truly conservative stances on anything.

---

Let's not treat every libertarian opinion as conservative...

Next you will be suggesting the American Indians should have their land returned. And then claim it's some grand conservative ideal.

The can move back to Delhi if they want land. I don't care if they are now Americans of Indian descent or not. Geet out.

Liberals would prefer we kindly escort the drug boats to the US. Provide them a lengthy trial, granting them bond in the US, while they commite other crimes here, give them probation instead of convictions, along with free rent & health insurance to stay in the US as long as they want.

bobbranco said:

---

Gig em G said:

---

Interesting. I didn't know Reddit was known for truly conservative stances on anything.

---

Let's not treat every libertarian opinion as conservative...

Next you will be suggesting the American Indians should have their land returned. And then claim it's some grand conservative ideal.

---

Limited government, constitutional checks, due-process and skepticism toward rapid or expansive use of power are pretty deeply conservative ideals...

That is not true. My opinion is not party driven whatsoever.

Prove it.

Didn't say that either.

Madagascar said:

---

How is the constitution not being followed? If they are not citizens, then those attacked have no rights. I could see a question of whether these attacks are an act of war or not which would need to be declared by congress. But it seems that these attacks are not trying to start a war as much as defend us against Venezuelan threats.

---

There's also a question of whether it violates international law given it occurs in international waters.

Gig em G said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Gig em G said:

---

Interesting. I didn't know Reddit was known for truly conservative stances on anything.

---

Let's not treat every libertarian opinion as conservative...

Next you will be suggesting the American Indians should have their land returned. And then claim it's some grand conservative ideal.

---

Limited government, constitutional checks, due-process and skepticism toward rapid or expansive use of power are pretty deeply conservative ideals...

---

There must have been some purists who cried about the awful treatment of the Barbary pirates at some point. LOL.

MaxPower said:

---

Madagascar said:

---

How is the constitution not being followed? If they are not citizens, then those attacked have no rights. I could see a question of whether these attacks are an act of war or not which would need to be declared by congress. But it seems that these attacks are not trying to start a war as much as defend us against Venezuelan threats.

---

There's also a question of whether it violates international law given it occurs in international waters.

---

If that's the case, by the time any legal action gains any traction, those making the decisions right now will be long gone from their current positions and it'll be the next administration's problem.