2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

This has nothing to do with TDS. It would be just as wrong if Biden did it. Board the boats and take them. If they resist and threaten with arms then shoot them.

Trump is not king.

Sure it does. And nope. If you come you die. No more playing games.

It's his Consiitutional right. Notified Congress and designated them.

Just now, Diehardfan said:

Sure it does. And nope. If you come you die. No more playing games.

It's his Consiitutional right. Notified Congress and designated them.

What do you mean "if you come"? These boats were off the Venezuelan coast.

Trump has no right to do something that is illegal. You treat him as if he is a king but he is not a king.

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

What do you mean "if you come"? These boats were off the Venezuelan coast.

Trump has no right to do something that is illegal. You treat him as if he is a king but he is not a king.

you're biting hard and not wanting to let go

4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

What do you mean "if you come"? These boats were off the Venezuelan coast.

Trump has no right to do something that is illegal. You treat him as if he is a king but he is not a king.

Stop crying. He went to Congress. If you want to get rejected by SCOTUS trying to ridiculously argue he doesn't have the authority go for it.

2 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

you're biting hard and not wanting to let go

No trolling at all. Legal and justified.

4 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

No trolling at all. Legal and justified.

I do give you the nod for being an excellent troll.

8 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

you're biting hard and not wanting to let go

You're right

4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I do give you the nod for being an excellent troll.

Truth is only trolling when someone is deranged.

2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Truth is only trolling when someone is deranged.

Whatever you say, troll

13 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

No trolling at all. Legal and justified.

It is breaking laws

2 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

It is breaking laws

Nope but keep crying about it. Article II

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Whatever you say, troll

Take it to SCOTUS TDS crybaby troll

2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Take it to SCOTUS TDS crybaby troll

you can do better than that

Just now, DrPhilly said:

you can do better than that

Don't need to. You are way off on this one trying to say Article II isn't a thing anymore.

3 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Don't need to. You are way off on this one trying to say Article II isn't a thing anymore.

you're going to need much better bait

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

you're going to need much better bait

Crying defending drug dealers is a new level even for TDS.

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

Nope but keep crying about it.

The Foreign Terrorist Organization designation itself does not automatically grant the legal authority to use military force or conduct lethal strikes

Under Law of Armed Conflict lethal force is only lawful against individuals who are part of the enemy armed forces or are directly participating in hostilities against the United States. Simply being a member of a group is not always sufficient, and targeting civilians is prohibited

5 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

The Foreign Terrorist Organization designation itself does not automatically grant the legal authority to use military force or conduct lethal strikes

Under Law of Armed Conflict lethal force is only lawful against individuals who are part of the enemy armed forces or are directly participating in hostilities against the United States. Simply being a member of a group is not always sufficient, and targeting civilians is prohibited

We can go around in circles or I could say good luck in SCOTUS arguing he doesn't have the authorization after the designation, labeling it an armed conflict, and notifying Congress. We have been doing exactly this for 20 years in the Mid East.

15 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Crying defending drug dealers is a new level even for TDS.

you should probably spend some time thinking about it before you try again

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

you should probably spend some time thinking about it before you try again

No need. They dying and I'm happy. You have to stop it like the Tush Push.

weird exchange

13 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

We can go around in circles or I could say good luck in SCOTUS arguing he doesn't have the authorization after the designation, labeling it an armed conflict, and notifying Congress. We have been doing exactly this for 20 years in the Mid East.

The strikes in the Middle East had an express authorization from Congress that grants the President power to use force against groups that planned or supported 9/11. No such authorization exists for drug cartels. The President's declaration alone is an overreach of executive power that fundamentally violates the constitutional separation of powers

The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) applies only when the fighting meets a certain threshold of organized armed groups and intense, prolonged hostilities. Drug trafficking is a crime, not an armed attack against the United States. Drug smuggling has never been considered a qualifying 'armed attack' to trigger a war footing. A President can't start a war simply by declaring a new one and applying a wartime label to a law enforcement problem

Basically A presidential designation and notice cannot replace a Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) or bypass the fundamental international legal requirement that a war must actually exist to use lethal force in lieu of criminal justice procedures.

6 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

The strikes in the Middle East had an express authorization from Congress that grants the President power to use force against groups that planned or supported 9/11. No such authorization exists for drug cartels. The President's declaration alone is an overreach of executive power that fundamentally violates the constitutional separation of powers

The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) applies only when the fighting meets a certain threshold of organized armed groups and intense, prolonged hostilities. Drug trafficking is a crime, not an armed attack against the United States. Drug smuggling has never been considered a qualifying 'armed attack' to trigger a war footing. A President can't start a war simply by declaring a new one and applying a wartime label to a law enforcement problem

Basically A presidential designation and notice cannot replace a Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) or bypass the fundamental international legal requirement that a war must actually exist to use lethal force in lieu of criminal justice procedures.

Trump's Article II powers lets him hit cartel boats smugglingfentanyl that kills thousands, no new congressional vote needed. The entire Bank tonight won't have as many as they killed last year.

Cartels like Sinaloa, labeled terrorists wage organized violence, making this an armed conflict not just crime. The 2001 AUMF already covers narcoterrorists. Demanding a new AUMF ignores the crisis and past presidents actions

Incorrect but have fun

I'm going to bow out of the trolling. I took a bite and letting go. Good luck on fishing

19 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Incorrect but have fun

I'm going to bow out of the trolling. I took a bite and letting go. Good luck on fishing

I'm happy to move on.