8 ఆగస్టు, 2025
"President Trump has secretly signed a directive to the Pentagon to begin using military force against certain Latin American drug cartels...."
"The decision to bring the American military into the fight is the most aggressive step so far in the administration’s escalating campaign against the cartels.... The order provides an official basis for the possibility of direct military operations at sea and on foreign soil against cartels.... [D]irecting the military to crack down on the illicit trade also raises legal issues, including whether it would count as 'murder' if U.S. forces acting outside of a congressionally authorized armed conflict were to kill civilians — even criminal suspects — who pose no imminent threat...."
పోస్ట్లు
70 కామెంట్లు:
Oh FFS, this is for the Special Activities Center, not the DoD...unless our SAC guys are too busy not ending the war in Ukraine. Totally incorrect choice of tool, Donald.
If there's a time for Hegseth to push back on something, this is it.
Secret? How secret?
Top.
Secret.
"If there's a time for Hegseth to push back on something, this is it."
We spend $750 billion dollars on our military each year and except for driving their helicopters into civilian aircraft, we're not getting much return for our investment.
They've killed more Americans this year than anybody else.
So yeah, Trump is right again. We spend this money on our military because we want them out their killing our enemies ... not our vacationers.
Emigration reform.
Seems like justification for this this goes back to the pirates era. Pirates were heavily armed civilians engaged in criminal activity. That's why Letters of Marque were so important as they gave them official military status.
Isn't the Coast Guard, at least, already fully authorized to engage in "direct military operations at sea" against cartels? I would guess it's the "foreign soil" part that's the bigger issue, and I hope Trump is also working up agreements with the leaders of the nations on whose soil such operations might take place.
I've been saying for a long time that Mexico ought to be a powerhouse. But they aren't, because the cartels are using up all the power. By rights, the Mexican government ought to welcome and cooperate eagerly with this intervention. (I'm speaking of the actual anti-corruption parts of the Mexican government who are under constant threat of death.)
Wow, the NYT can't resist talking about the possibility of doing US troops for crimes. Had to get that boner down somehow, I guess.
On the other hand, since the cartels have become the facilitators of illegal invaders, it makes sense to take them on outside our borders. Just like bombing the Ho Chi Minh trail in Cambodia.
On the third hand, the answer to drug crime is legalization. I am disappointed in Trump for not jumping on the existing legalization train and slowing it to a stop in a reasonable station, rather than continuing the taint-one-nor-the-other Obama policy.
RR
JSM
… whether it would count as 'murder' if U.S. forces acting outside of a congressionally authorized armed conflict were to kill civilians — even criminal suspects — who pose no imminent threat...."
Didn’t stop Obama.
Clear and Present Danger comes to mind
It was already done, but with more "secrecy". What changed? Is it because he's a PoO?
"Didn’t stop Obama."
It was wrong then and it's wrong now. This isn't UCMJ and constitutional graywater, it's straight up black. Uniformed members of the US armed services operating in an offensively lethal capacity within the borders of a friggin' NAFTA member has tons of negative variables.
This isn't the era of Pancho Villa anymore, no matter how morally justifiable the action could be. This is legally precarious.
Trump following FLC's advice. This is a very influential blog.
Paddy O,
Privateers were civilian vessels granted a "Letter of Marque" to fight and naval and civilian vessels of countries we were at war with. By international law, anyone could attack, kill, sink "pirate" vessels at any time or place with no authorization needed.
Of course, if it was not legally a "pirate", the attacker was in all kinds of trouble.
I was under the impression that a letter of marque required a formal declaration of war. Looking at the constitution, perhaps not.
John Henry
"[D]irecting the military to crack down on the illicit trade also raises legal issues, including whether it would count as 'murder' if U.S. forces acting outside of a congressionally authorized armed conflict were to kill civilians — even criminal suspects — who pose no imminent threat...."
It's like Rip Van Winkle got a job at the NYT, and hasn't even had his coffee yet.
"... no matter how morally justifiable the action could be. This is legally precarious."
What is one to do in such a situation?
Secretly like quotes that do not quote of NYT infamy?
It's not the era of Pancho Villa anymore. He was a more honorable bandit and posed less of a danger. Nevertheless, he needed to be stopped. The cartels need to be stopped as well and at the moment the Mexican government is unable and unwilling to stop them. The presence of US troops in Mexico encouraged/allowed the Mexican government to stop Pancho VIlla. Maybe this will do the same.
I watched Captain Phillips the other evening “The true story of Captain Richard Phillips and the 2009 hijacking by Somali pirates of the U.S.-flagged MV Maersk Alabama, the first American cargo ship to be hijacked in two hundred years.”
I was really appalled that the Captain and crew were unarmed against these thugs, I assume because of some ridiculous legal codes. I’m unclear about how this mandate to stop the cartels would play out but, murdering thugs who are engaged in illegal activity against you or the interests you represent is justifiable.
Drones are a licit choice and socially distancing. Drones are also a viable method for publishing daily narratives. Uncomfortably numb.
Should have said "Privateers not pirates were granted letters of marque.."
"Didn't stop Obama ... It was wrong then and it's wrong now."
That fucking ship has sailed, bro. We're going to play by the rules that the Democrats wrote. They bring a knife, we bring a gun. Remember that?
And any court that attempts to prosecute US soldiers for "murder" for killing criminal drug cartel leaders had better have a fire department on hand every day.
How can it be a secret if the NYT's is told about it?
There was no DoW in the Quasi-war with France, which saw the use of letters-of-marque. (DoWs are a legalistic Western thing, to be used against actual countries by actual countries, and have not been relevant in most conflicts in most regions most of the time.)
And IIRC, the crime of piracy is or was one of universal jurisdiction--any sovereign state's forces can apprehend and punish pirates, even to kill them, without legal repercussions.
As it should be.
Raises concerns. Trump bad. Trump always bad. Tump - he do bad things. Make Liberals concerned. Sad.
Tell us more. Sounds like a case of Barbary Coast.
Quit talking about it. Do it
From the replies it appears that lots of commenters are fine with declaring war on Mexico...sorry, Special Military Operation in Mexico. Maybe it will last 3 days just like Putin's.
John Henry, the line between privateers and pirates were fairly thin at times. Letters of Marque were often, if im not mistaken, also granted to pirate hunters and i service of protecting the sea lanes. There was a lot of tension outside of formal declarations of war between England, France, Spain amd others that made the categories fluid. But the official navies would still go after anyone they thought were pirates
RideSpaceMountain said...
"Didn’t stop Obama."
It was wrong then and it's wrong now. This isn't UCMJ and constitutional graywater, it's straight up black. Uniformed members of the US armed services operating in an offensively lethal capacity within the borders of a friggin' NAFTA member has tons of negative variables.
This isn't the era of Pancho Villa anymore, no matter how morally justifiable the action could be. This is legally precarious.
The cartels are militarily organized foreign entities operating on our border and inside our country. They are shooting our citizens on a daily basis.
Dealing with situations like this is the primary function and responsibility of the armed forces.
But if this is going to be an ongoing operation then Congress needs to do it’s job and declare war.
"What is one to do in such a situation?"
Did you ever see Sicario? Put Matt Graver's character on a Falcon 50 with a Mexican Alejandro Gillick and let them do the dirty work they were trained to do.
You don't fight criminal foreign scumbags with the honorable. You fight them using your own scumbags using scumbag methods.
With everything people have seen Mossad pull of in the last 24 months have we learned nothing?
And this is a bad thing ummmm....why....?
"Dealing with situations like this is the primary function and responsibility of the armed forces."
Absolutely. On our soil. Mexican drug cartels have not been officially designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) yet. If we're going to get frosty with Mexico's civilian criminals, we should do that first at the very least.
Shouldn't be to hard. Trump has a pen and a phone.
RideSpaceMountain said...
From the replies it appears that lots of commenters are fine with declaring war on Mexico...sorry, Special Military Operation in Mexico. Maybe it will last 3 days just like Putin's.
I am all for our military destroying a hostile force that operates on and inside our borders. We have the perfect tools for this and the benefit to Americans is obvious.
This situation is why we have a military. I would consider rejoining to participate in this.
That being said our civilian leadership has a duty to do this the right way including making a formal case to the country and having congress declare war.
I realize the hardest part of this operation would be to help congress find their spines and stop being cowards.
@Achilles, we are in agreement on reasoning, maybe not necessarily execution. There is a right way and a wrong way to deal with this, and doing it the wrong way is pigheadedly stupid when doing it the right - and legal - way is fairly easy.
RideSpaceMountain said...
You don't fight criminal foreign scumbags with the honorable. You fight them using your own scumbags using scumbag methods.
No.
You send in a couple armored divisions of army and marines to patrol the area in convoys providing freedom to maneuver. You monitor all communications networks and develop target trees and patterns of life.
Then you send in JSOC units like Ranger Batt, Seals, and those that cannot be named and give them 2004 ROE.
People would be shocked how fast this would be over.
"....From the replies it appears that lots of commenters are fine with declaring war on Mexico...."
I'm not sure this would be without the support of Mexico's government, since whenever a Mexican politician says or does something against cartel interests, they invariably seem to end up hanging from a bridge, without their head.
Dang it.
What about using force to show us the list of pedophiles?
"You send in a couple armored divisions of army and marines to patrol the area in convoys providing freedom to maneuver. You monitor all communications networks and develop target trees and patterns of life. Then you send in JSOC units like Ranger Batt, Seals, and those that cannot be named and give them 2004 ROE."
We'll call it Mexican–American War 2: Special Military Operation Boogaloo!
If he "secretly signed it", how do the boyz and girlz and transz in the NYT newsroom know?
Lack of courage and resolve forces us to put up with 90% of the negative crap we endure. When we find the resolve to fix it, we are amazed at how easy it is and how lame it was to put up with it. If fear was handled rationally, we would realize that putting up with shit is far worse than dealing with it directly and moving past it.
The last time we went to War with Mexico we got California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming. In this next not war we should annex Baja, Playa, Puerto and Cancun.
At this rate by the time we have Mexican–American War 3: Special Military Operation Jamboree Mexico will be roughly the size of Honduras.
The alternative to military cooperation is a protracted war with native and collateral damage at both ends of the bridge or maintaining the status quo, including [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] immigration reform.
How do the cartels operate freely inside Mexico? In the U.S.? With the blessing of the Mexico government, that’s how. Trump warned her. Her being Claudia Sheinbaum. Her and fellow “bribees” are too far into the cartel’s checkbook to change now.
"Her and fellow 'bribees' are too far into the cartel’s checkbook to change now."
"This is anti-semitism!" she cried.
Using the military to fight the cartels is how the Mexican military came to be in bed with the cartels. It's already happening to the American judiciary.
Italics begone!
Oh noes! First he goes after the grift with USAID. Now he is going after the dark money with the cartels. Bad news for Democrats all around.
How do the cartels operate freely inside Mexico?
Sanctuary states and affirmative action with redistributive change schemes.
The British Navy used to stop slave ships on the high seas up to 1880 when it was still legal to import them from Africa to Brazil on Portuguese ships. Lots of precedent to enforce international crime.
Oh Mexico, so fr from God, so close to the United States.
The movie “Clear and Present Danger” comes to mind, except Trump does not lose. That and the fact it’s no secret now.
"...including whether it would count as 'murder' if U.S. forces acting outside of a congressionally authorized armed conflict were to kill civilians — even criminal suspects — who pose no imminent threat...."
Maybe an enterprising reporter will ask Obama how this potential scenario compares to the US' extensive use of armed drones in Afghanistan under his watch. Crickets and tumbleweeds...
Barrett's Privateers
Stan Rogers
O, the year was 1778
How I wish I was in Sherbrooke now
A letter of marque came from the king
To the scummiest vessel I've ever seen
Goddamn them all
I was told we'd cruise the seas for American gold
We'd fire no guns, shed no tears
But I'm a broken man on a Halifax pier
The last of Barrett's Privateers
The NYT is publishing secret documents in order to help the cartels and gin up more hate against Trump.
Oh, sure. Leave it to Trump to jack up the cost of marijuana and fentanyl.
Just one more example of his lack of compassion.
jurisdiction--any sovereign state's forces can apprehend and punish pirates, even to kill them, without legal repercussions.
On the high seas, right? Or as we now style it, in international waters? My question remains about other nations' soil. I'm sympathetic to RSM's position but I think our actions would need to be formalized with those governments.
because of the bylines, I find it's probably 'fake but accurate' but Cartels have transnational reach, like when Pablo Escobar bombed an American airliner, and special operators collaborated with the Search Bloc, to find and eliminate him
Joe Bar - I looked up Stan Rogers and discovered he died in an airline fire, on the ground in Cincinnati. Ironic end for a guy who made a living writing tragic historical ballads.
RR
JSM
Yes, Jamie, I should have been precise. I don't have any good policy ideas for the mother of all snakepits, only that SSDD ain't working.
[D]irecting the military to crack down on the illicit trade also raises legal issues, including whether it would count as 'murder' if U.S. forces acting outside of a congressionally authorized armed conflict were to kill civilians — even criminal suspects — who pose no imminent threat...."
The globalist tools are consistent in their desire to humiliate and destroy members of the armed forces.
To be honest it wouldn't take much effort to convince the military units and soldiers in them in our army that the are a bunch of enemies of the country in the NYTs building.
"President Trump has secretly signed a directive to the Pentagon to begin using military force against certain Latin American drug cartels...."
Well, it was secret, anyway...
It is a marketing tool to escalate the reality that the Mexican government can’t dance plata o plomo with the cartels. National government can’t be hostage to people who decorate overpasses with hanged bodies, but no one can stick their head up. Or they will be killed.
So the answer is that Trump is a nazi.
Trump says, OK , you have a problem, we can help and make the future better.
The Mexican president says, no thanks, that would be too embarrassing.
Sorry but I have learned something of Mexico, usually by sitting on the curb in front of my hotel with a bottle of Don Julio and my Mexican clients waiting for the federales to subdue the reds.
Bagoh - provides a quote I shall place on my wall.
More look over here in vain, Epstein and Maxwell aint going away until trump pardons her and then changes the focus to why its a good thing and President of Mexico said keep your freakin army at home,that aint happening.
So lets see TACO DON gives PUTIN 50 DAYS ,THEN 10 DAYS now a meeting on American soil in 16 days so no increased tariffs for an international warranted WAR CRIMINAL where Putin will dance circles around trump AGAIN. Putin always wins and trump talking about giving in to Russia before meeting even begins, Give away Ukraines territory and its good deal for both Russia and Ukraine Did you ever hear such bullcrap. Putin and Bibi playing trump like a fiddle ,its a freakin embarrassment to the United States .How many more TACO DONS does Putin get and Bibi dont give a flying frog about it he already got trump to do his bombing for him.What a weak organization, should put trumps inn Congress to get the files before they finish blocking out all trumps name.. Cmon man do something..7 months and Ukraine and Gaza a mess and the fake peace deals that trump did is also FAKE NEWS only believed by the MAGA SYCOPHANTS, and HOW did you like trumps financial charts after the real numbers came out you know the "MEDIUM income " you would think someone would check this fellas mental status he is too old and too dull ...
International WAR CRIMINAL meeting on US SOIL WTF and of course no Zelenski as trump spills the beans on the deal 3 weeks before it starts ,Putin should not be allowed anywhere near US SOIL unless handcuffed and brought to ALLIGATOR ALCATRAZ Where are all the MAGA patriots ?
Yeah, legalization has worked so well. How many years has it been from legalizing pot -- just pot, they swore and wheedled and promised -- to using public funds to abet shooting fentanyl on the streets?
I'll give High Times subscribers an extra 100 hours to add the numbers.
Trump is right. This is a war. In merely two years, twice as many Americans have died from fentanyl than the combined casualities in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam. There's more than one type of way to invade a country.
Trump lost a brother, age 42, to alcoholism. He is a teetotaler. So long as these are limited operations, he will be praised for them.
I can’t believe that China or Asia hasn’t been brought up in this thread — because they’re a big part of the strategic equation here.
If we look at this through a game theory lens, we can break the situation into four payoff scenarios:
1. Status quo – Mexico remains a security partner (albeit a strained one). Cartel issues are addressed through existing cooperation mechanisms, and U.S. deterrence capacity in other theaters (like the South China Sea) stays intact.
2. Bluff – The U.S. signals intent to use the military under an AUMF but takes no action. This creates uncertainty for Mexico and adversaries alike, but if the bluff crystallizes into public policy without action, it erodes credibility. Beijing, in particular, gains leverage — U.S. signaling in Asia weakens because its attention appears split.
3. Limited action – Cross-border strikes or targeted operations against cartels. Mexico’s government likely treats this as a breach of sovereignty. Cooperation collapses, and while the U.S. spends resources managing the fallout, China uses the distraction to push more aggressively in the South China Sea or toward Taiwan.
4. Extensive action – A sustained military campaign in Mexico. This is overt war against a current ally, with predictable collapse of bilateral relations and serious blowback in Latin America. China benefits the most — U.S. focus and resources are diverted, alliances in the Indo-Pacific are rattled, and deterrence credibility is deeply damaged.
The payoff asymmetry is important:
For Mexico: escalation risks are existential to sovereignty.
For the U.S.: escalation risks are strategic — it’s not just about Mexico; it’s about how adversaries exploit the distraction.
For China:
Status quo: Minimal gain — U.S. focus in Asia remains strong.
Bluff: Small gain — U.S. signaling credibility weakens slightly.
Limited action: Moderate gain — U.S. bandwidth and resources are diverted.
Extensive action: Major gain — U.S. strategic focus fractures, regional allies question U.S. commitments, and deterrence in Asia is degraded.
Even if this is a bluff, Beijing already gains a small strategic win simply from the signal — because it muddies the U.S. deterrence picture in Asia without firing a shot.
Curious to hear what others think: Is the China angle underplayed here, or is it just not on most people’s radar when the discussion is focused on cartels?
Note: This is really an n-person game. I’m only showing three main players (U.S., Mexico, China) for clarity. In reality, there are additional actors — the president, the cartels, regional governments, even international organizations — each with their own payoff structure. Some have smaller magnitudes, but they still affect the overall equilibrium.
కామెంట్ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.