What is your topic? How does this video tie into your desire for America to be transformed into a White Supremacist Christian Fascist dystopia? You're hoping this doesn't happen, so the US can be taken "back" to the period in time when it was great, which would be when minorities knew their place?
btw, regarding your comment, "lol! The attacks against drug boats operated by a terrorist organization It's AUMF, not drug laws. The drug sales are being used to finance terrorism"...
The trump administration has NOT invoked the AUMF. And the AUMF concerned those who attacked us on 9-11. Drug Cartels were not behind 9-11.
🤖 Via Copilot...
⚖️ What the Trump administration actually said.
When the U.S. military carried out strikes on alleged drug‑running boats linked to Venezuelan groups, officials described the targets as “narcoterrorists” and claimed the U.S. is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels.
However, they did not formally cite the 2001 AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) as the legal basis. The AUMF covers groups tied to the 9/11 attacks and their associates, not drug cartels.
Instead, the administration leaned on a broad narrative of counter‑narcotics and counter‑terrorism operations, without pointing to a specific statute.
📝 Why some commentators invoke the AUMF.
The AUMF has been stretched over the years to justify actions against groups far removed from al‑Qaeda, so some commentators assume it’s the “catch‑all” authority for any military strike involving terrorism.
By labeling cartels as terrorist organizations (or claiming their drug sales finance terrorism), bloggers or pundits can rhetorically link the strikes to the AUMF -- even if the administration hasn’t done so.
This is more of an interpretive gloss than a reflection of actual government citations.
🚨 The legal ambiguity.
Congress never passed a new authorization specifically for strikes on drug cartels.
Legal experts and some lawmakers criticized the administration for operating in a gray zone -- neither invoking the AUMF nor pointing to clear counter‑narcotics statutes.
That’s why you’ll see blog comments filling the gap with “It’s AUMF!” even though official documents don’t say that.
The AUMF authorizes the president to use force against those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the 9/11 attacks, or who harbored such groups.
⚖️ Why the AUMF doesn’t fit narco‑terrorists.
Scope: The AUMF is tied to al‑Qaeda, the Taliban, and “associated forces.”
Drug cartels in Latin America are not associated with 9/11.
Intent: Cartels are profit‑driven criminal enterprises. They may use terror‑like tactics, but they are not ideological actors linked to the 9/11 network.
Legal stretch: To apply the AUMF to cartels, one would have to argue that drug trafficking directly funds al‑Qaeda or ISIS. That’s a tenuous claim, and Congress has never endorsed it. 🛑
They don't have to invoke anything. The word "terrorist" is in the word "narco-terrorists", and the word "war with narco-terrorists" is a War on Terror. Self evident.
You think the AUMF authorized the president to wage war on any kind of terrorist anywhere in the world? I thought you were previously for repealing the AUMF. Now you think that king donald can use it to justify any and all military strikes? You probably think that the AUMF authorizes donald trump to "take out" "antifa terrorists" inside the US border, don't you?
The laziness is yours. You posted the video with zero commentary. The reason for including a video in a blog post is because you have something to say about it. You said nothing except to add a post title. Which, in this case, was definitely not enough to determine what your opinion on the content of the video is.
4 comments:
What is your topic? How does this video tie into your desire for America to be transformed into a White Supremacist Christian Fascist dystopia? You're hoping this doesn't happen, so the US can be taken "back" to the period in time when it was great, which would be when minorities knew their place?
btw, regarding your comment, "lol! The attacks against drug boats operated by a terrorist organization It's AUMF, not drug laws. The drug sales are being used to finance terrorism"...
The trump administration has NOT invoked the AUMF. And the AUMF concerned those who attacked us on 9-11. Drug Cartels were not behind 9-11.
🤖 Via Copilot...
⚖️ What the Trump administration actually said.
When the U.S. military carried out strikes on alleged drug‑running boats linked to Venezuelan groups, officials described the targets as “narcoterrorists” and claimed the U.S. is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels.
However, they did not formally cite the 2001 AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) as the legal basis. The AUMF covers groups tied to the 9/11 attacks and their associates, not drug cartels.
Instead, the administration leaned on a broad narrative of counter‑narcotics and counter‑terrorism operations, without pointing to a specific statute.
📝 Why some commentators invoke the AUMF.
The AUMF has been stretched over the years to justify actions against groups far removed from al‑Qaeda, so some commentators assume it’s the “catch‑all” authority for any military strike involving terrorism.
By labeling cartels as terrorist organizations (or claiming their drug sales finance terrorism), bloggers or pundits can rhetorically link the strikes to the AUMF -- even if the administration hasn’t done so.
This is more of an interpretive gloss than a reflection of actual government citations.
🚨 The legal ambiguity.
Congress never passed a new authorization specifically for strikes on drug cartels.
Legal experts and some lawmakers criticized the administration for operating in a gray zone -- neither invoking the AUMF nor pointing to clear counter‑narcotics statutes.
That’s why you’ll see blog comments filling the gap with “It’s AUMF!” even though official documents don’t say that.
The AUMF authorizes the president to use force against those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the 9/11 attacks, or who harbored such groups.
⚖️ Why the AUMF doesn’t fit narco‑terrorists.
Scope: The AUMF is tied to al‑Qaeda, the Taliban, and “associated forces.”
Drug cartels in Latin America are not associated with 9/11.
Intent: Cartels are profit‑driven criminal enterprises. They may use terror‑like tactics, but they are not ideological actors linked to the 9/11 network.
Legal stretch: To apply the AUMF to cartels, one would have to argue that drug trafficking directly funds al‑Qaeda or ISIS. That’s a tenuous claim, and Congress has never endorsed it. 🛑
They don't have to invoke anything. The word "terrorist" is in the word "narco-terrorists", and the word "war with narco-terrorists" is a War on Terror. Self evident.
What's the topic? Watch the video you lazy f*ck and find out!
You think the AUMF authorized the president to wage war on any kind of terrorist anywhere in the world? I thought you were previously for repealing the AUMF. Now you think that king donald can use it to justify any and all military strikes? You probably think that the AUMF authorizes donald trump to "take out" "antifa terrorists" inside the US border, don't you?
The laziness is yours. You posted the video with zero commentary. The reason for including a video in a blog post is because you have something to say about it. You said nothing except to add a post title. Which, in this case, was definitely not enough to determine what your opinion on the content of the video is.
Post a Comment