Comments on: Trump and Latin America

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Tue, 02 Dec 2025 11:24:13 +0000

I suppose one might say, “All they have to do is stop sending drugs. How hard is that?”

And then think about how hard that would be.

By: Brian E

Brian E — Mon, 01 Dec 2025 23:47:49 +0000

I asked Grok what are the legal risks of the strategy by President Trump declaring the cartels Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) and invoking non-international armed (NIAC) conflict status to justify the strikes on drug running boats.

Here’s Grok’s short answer:

President Trump’s 2025 strategy—designating eight Latin American cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs) via Executive Order 14157 (January 20, 2025), and invoking a “non-international armed conflict” (NIAC) to justify military actions like boat strikes—carries significant legal risks. While it expands executive power and enforcement tools, it faces challenges under U.S. constitutional law, international humanitarian law (IHL), and human rights frameworks. The strategy has already sparked lawsuits, diplomatic backlash, and expert condemnation for overreach, potentially leading to court blocks, prosecutions, or international tribunals.

Trump’s strategy bolsters short-term enforcement (e.g., 2025 strikes seized 1.2M lbs drugs), but risks are high domestically (70–80%) from lawsuits/overreach and medium internationally (60%) from sovereignty/IHL challenges. It could lead to injunctions delaying ops (e.g., D.C. Circuit by Q2 2026) and diplomatic isolation (OAS/UN censure). Critics (Brennan Center, American University) call it a “dangerous sweep” enabling abuse without solving root causes (e.g., demand). Proponents (Graham) see it as necessary escalation. For 2026, expect court tests amid S. 1234 debates.

Richard Aubrey @ 5:25 pm raised important questions about a new designation to avoid all of the settled rules of war issues. The strategy President Trump has used is already being challenged by Maduro in the ICJ which will have no effect other than to rally global support for Venezuela. More importantly, court cases in the US will likely limit the administration’s strategy. The passage of S. 1234 would help his case if Congress would get involved.

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Mon, 01 Dec 2025 22:25:07 +0000

Can a legal combatant be, in effect, “representing” other than a sovereign nation?
To put it another way, if not the armed force of a sovereign nation, what do you need to be a legal combatant? That’s a legal question. A practical/moral question would be different, more than likely.
If there were an acknowledged HHG designation, would they be legal combatants? I think the point is they wouldn’t. Thus, what laws outside of common humanity would apply? And how much of common humanity is gong to be deserved by the narcoterrorists? Or Hamas?

By: Barry Meislin

Barry Meislin — Mon, 01 Dec 2025 20:54:11 +0000

“Why the Venezuela-Turkey connection is a ticking time bomb;
“The most dangerous lifeline for the Venezuelan dictatorship today isn’t Havana or Moscow. It is Ankara….”—
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/418647

By: Brian E

Brian E — Mon, 01 Dec 2025 20:03:57 +0000

Richard Aubrey, finding a new classification for drug terrorists that allows for a new set of rules of engagement would be the best solution.

There are problems with trying to fight them into the terrorist classification.

There is a stalled senate bill that tries to address the issue with limited AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force). This would be a good step– but probably no chance for it ever becoming law.

S. 1234, introduced in the 119th Congress on February 12, 2025, by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) with cosponsors Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Marco Rubio (R-FL), is a bipartisan (but Republican-led) bill aimed at creating a limited Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) specifically targeting “narco-terrorist organizations.” It’s often called “AUMF-lite for narcos” in media and policy circles because it authorizes targeted military actions against drug cartels without the broad, perpetual scope of the 2001 AUMF (post-9/11). The bill responds to the fentanyl crisis (over 80,000 U.S. deaths in 2024) by treating certain cartels as “unlawful combatants,” enabling strikes, sanctions, and detentions while imposing stricter congressional oversight than past AUMFs.As of December 1, 2025, the bill is stalled in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after a November 20 markup, with no floor vote scheduled amid debates over sovereignty risks (e.g., Mexico’s opposition) and legal challenges. It’s tied to the Trump administration’s “narco-terror” rhetoric, with echoes in H.J.Res. 81 (House companion, introduced March 2025 by Rep. Greg Steube, R-FL).

– Grok

It still doesn’t address the issues of declaring drug cartels as “unlawful combatants”.

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Mon, 01 Dec 2025 19:40:53 +0000

Perhaps narcos could be designated “hostis humani generis”. That’s Latin for enemies of all mankind. Old Roman law, folded into Admiralty law some centuries back.. Pirates were enemies of all mankind and anybody could capture them and punish them–haning, say–as desired.
As a general rule, non-state actor individuals are, at least by birth, citizens of some nation or other. Can’t hardly avoid it. And narcos seem to work from where they were born.
Need a different designation and maybe the HHG is it.

By: Gringo

Gringo — Mon, 01 Dec 2025 17:01:46 +0000

Art Deco, thanks for the suggestions on voting procedures. The long time to tabulate ballots—didn’t California take 2-3 weeks?—has got to end.

By: Art Deco

Art Deco — Mon, 01 Dec 2025 14:07:33 +0000

Not sure about all these claims. We would benefit from a return to analog methods.
==
1. Hard copy voter registration forms, sent through the mail. At the board of elections, a team consisting of one Republican clerk and one Democratic clerk check the form for material errors and omissions, check the addresses given against a gazeteer, and check the registrant against a half dozen databases assembled by state agencies in order to screen out those who have died, those enmeshed in the criminal justice system, those under guardianships, and those who haven’t filed a state income tax return from addresses where they said they were resident > 18 months ago. Such forms should always require the registrant to identify himself as a native or naturalized citizen and state the date of his naturalization where applicable (under penalty of perjury charges).
==
2. Limiting the issuance of postal ballots to (a) civilian employees of the U.S. government posted abroad (and any spouse in country with them), (b) servicemen (and any spouse living with them), (c) persons under 25 enrolled at a residential campus, and (d) miscellaneous persons who are eligible but live in institutional group quarters (e.g a school dormitory or an eldercare center). The first three might live anywhere in the world and correspondence with them would be sent to their palpable residence. The fourth would have to live in state and have a nominal residence with a relative or friend. You might also send postal ballots to the domicile of those who have applied for one with a 3d party attestation from their doctor (that they are homebound) or their work supervisor (that they are outside the county overnight for > 50 days per year). You could have such ballots on renewable standing order.
==
3. Stock checks of the entire county voter roll on a biennial cycle. You re-run the check done when a form first arrived and put some in the ‘inactive file’. You then send a postcard to those whose registration has been de-activated inviting them to re-register or call for clarification.
==
4. Voting precincts of roughly equal population with a maximum of one precinct per 3,000 residents.
==
5. Allowing eleven hours to vote on Saturday (7:00 am to 6:00 pm) and four hours (6:00 pm to 10:00 pm) the evening before.
==
6. Registers you must sign in the precinct. For those who vote by post, there should be a master arrival register at the board of elections and each ballot returned must be recorded on the register with a Republican and a Democratic clerk providing initials and a date to attest to arrival.
==
7. Printed ballots with serial numbers and other identifying marks which distinguish them from counterfeits. The serial numbers on the ballots sent to a given precinct would be recorded, but there would be no association recorded between a particular serial number and a particular voter.
==
8. Tabulation machines in the precinct which are tested beforehand by Republican and Democratic employees and are not networked.
==
9. Dispatch of counts to the board of elections HQ via e-mail followed by hard-copy reports signed by the chief Republican clerk and the chief Democratic clerk on duty.
==
10. Storage of postal ballots rejected on arrival in one lock box (with two locks, one for the Republican elections commissioner, one for the Democratic) and storage of those which arrived too late to be validly tabulated in another.
==
11. Verification checks on postal ballots arriving to be conducted each workday by teams consisting of a Republican clerk and a Democratic clerk. On a given day, you check the previous workday’s arrival. The last round of checks would occur the morning of the Friday on which in-person voting was to begin. All arriving later would be invalid.
==
12. Storage of checked postal ballots in lock-boxes with two locks. On the Saturday postal balloting is taking place, they’re transported to a gymnasium unlocked, and the ballots in them tabulated. The tabulation would take place in the afternoon and be complete before the close of the polls at 6:00 pm.
==
Other things which could be done would be for the IRS to make available for the Secretary of State or the Commissioner of Taxation in each state lists of persons who had file a federal income tax return from an address in the state. Flow checks of incoming registration forms and stock checks of the file of registrants could be undertaken against this database. An additional question on tax returns could be added, insisting people state under penalty of perjury whether they were native citizens, naturalized citizens, or aliens and having them put the dates of their naturalization where applicable. These questions could then be subject to spot audits each year.

By: Bauxite

Bauxite — Mon, 01 Dec 2025 12:52:00 +0000

Thanks. Looking forward to the new post.

By: om

om — Mon, 01 Dec 2025 12:38:59 +0000

Is a drug running boat a “warship?”

Words mean things.

Missed it by a nautical mile.