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.
The AUMF concerned the religiously ideologically motivated terrorist attacks on 9-11, not profit motivated narcoterrorism. Republicans, ever after have been saying "never forget". It seems you forgot.
And those aren't my blogging rules, they are common sense blogging rules. But a lot of your views do defy common sense.
You're the one trying to redfine the AUMF to apply to narcoterrorism. Turd-2 isn't citing it re their illegal extrajudicial executions of alleged drug runners.
You feel that way because you are experiencing peak maga delusion. That will likely decrease over time. Depending on whether or not d0nald's fascist takeover of America is successful or not.
Yet, even given that the rightturd justices are completely corrupt, I am not sure that would happen. Though there is currently no case.
"Trump is a domestic terrorist and proving it more with each passing day".
Correct!
And he also pardons Turds that fund terrorism.
The Guardian: Trump pardons founder of Binance, world’s largest crypto exchange. Changpeng Zhao pleaded guilty to failing to stop money laundering in 2023 and was sentenced to four months ... The US justice department’s case against Binance accused the company of failing to report over 100,000 suspicious transactions to law enforcement, including those involving US-designated terrorist groups such as al-Qaida and Hamas. link
26 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.
Trump is a domestic terrorist and proving it more with each passing day.
Indeed. All of the above. Thanks Democrats for never repealing it!
omg I violated the Dervish rules of blogging. How will I ever forgive myself?
Then why wasn't he charged with the other 91
+ felony counts?
The AUMF concerned the religiously ideologically motivated terrorist attacks on 9-11, not profit motivated narcoterrorism. Republicans, ever after have been saying "never forget". It seems you forgot.
And those aren't my blogging rules, they are common sense blogging rules. But a lot of your views do defy common sense.
That's what I hate about Democrats, always falsely redefining terms trying to establish their agendas...
Because we have an unenlightened scotus, ab stupid republican party, and a nation in which 40% are asleep wide awake.
Naaah. You just have cowardly delusional Democrats.
You're the one trying to redfine the AUMF to apply to narcoterrorism. Turd-2 isn't citing it re their illegal extrajudicial executions of alleged drug runners.
I have full faith in SCotUS to rule differently.
You feel that way because you are experiencing peak maga delusion. That will likely decrease over time. Depending on whether or not d0nald's fascist takeover of America is successful or not.
Yet, even given that the rightturd justices are completely corrupt, I am not sure that would happen. Though there is currently no case.
If not for cowardly Republicans donald trump would have been impeached and unquestionably unable to return to the presidency a second time @@
They'd rule 9-0 in Trump's favour.
Why would Republicans vote for Trumped up impeachment charges. They're not corrupt liars like Democrats. :)
"Trump is a domestic terrorist and proving it more with each passing day".
Correct!
And he also pardons Turds that fund terrorism.
The Guardian: Trump pardons founder of Binance, world’s largest crypto exchange. Changpeng Zhao pleaded guilty to failing to stop money laundering in 2023 and was sentenced to four months ... The US justice department’s case against Binance accused the company of failing to report over 100,000 suspicious transactions to law enforcement, including those involving US-designated terrorist groups such as al-Qaida and Hamas. link
Minus: Why would Republicans vote for Trumped up impeachment charges. They're not corrupt liars like Democrats.
They lied in denying that the charges were accurate.
HOW? The Democratic-appointed justices would vote in trump's favor due to death threats? A maga brain virus? Being replaced with maga-bot duplicates?
They're Institutionalists. They'd vote to uphold the Constitution and the AUMF.
We should sue the US Treasury Department for failing to stop global money laundering... despite millions of suspicious transactions/. @@
ps - The charges were legally adjudicated "false".
Minus: The charges were legally adjudicated "false".
Via Copilot...
🧠 Fact‑check of the blogger’s claim.
Saying the charges were “legally adjudicated false” is incorrect.
The Senate acquitted Trump both times, meaning he was not convicted or removed from office.
But acquittal does not mean the charges were legally ruled false -- it means the Senate did not reach the two‑thirds majority required to convict.
No court of law adjudicated the charges; impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one. 🛑
They would vote against trump for that reason.
Post a Comment