Hacker News Reader

Comment by lenkite | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.)

The point is that there isn't anything like the AUMF that authorizes these recent strikes in the Caribbean/pacific. The administration reported them to Congress at the outset, but now that the 60 day limit (on continuing something without Congressional authorization) they've switched to claiming they don't need Congressional authority.

Overbroad application of the AUMF in no way authorizes these actions. The administration claims it has a legal memo articulating why they're OK, but refuses to disclose it, citing security concerns. That's applicable to the specific intelligence they use, but not to legal arguments that supposedly justify their use of force.

I'm opposed to the drone strikes, but there is a clear difference here. In the case of these fishy vessels, they could be detained and boarded. It's not really a high risk situation, and it's something the Navy and Coast Guard are trained to do.

In the case of alleged terrorists being targeted by drone strikes, it would be risky in many cases to try to apprehend those individuals. They are in foreign countries or parts thereof which are not under U.S. control or control of an ally.

> It's not really a high risk situation

It's only not a high risk situation if they are in fact honest fishermen. If they were drug smugglers, I would expect them to also carry weapons. Boarding seems risky to me.

You think people in a speedboat are going to start a gunfight with a Corvette?

It's something routinely done, with ample ability to defend themselves against a single speedboat. They can always shoot a missile at the boat after it starts shooting at the coast guard; the outrage is that that was the first thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_Interdiction_Tactic...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com