I believe there's a breaking point for Congress. First, Trump is a lame-duck, so his coattails are non-existent. Second, his threats and bark only work in certain places, like GA-14 where MTG would rather resign than deal with MAGA against her. Third, the chance something "bad" like violence against public officials, will occur (by MAGA), is high, and one event could be a trigger to move Congress to act. Fourth, an unpopular war by a president who promised to get us out of wars given the other points, is plenty of reason to motivate Congress to clip the executive's wings. Fifth, Trump will turn on Hegseth if he believes Congress is about to act, to protect himself.
If it is legitimate to destroy a drug running boat with a missile it is legitimate to finish the job if the first missile fails to sink the boat. The US Coast Guard requires all ships/boats going to sea to have at a minimum a readily inflatable life raft for use in case the boat is sinking or catches fire. This requirement is simply there because of good seamanship. These life rafts can be inflated in about 30 seconds. If the drug boats lacked the life raft it is not the responsibility of the initial mission to change the goal to accommodate this fact. That a couple of sailors were clinging to the still floating wreckage is immaterial. If they had abandoned the drug boat and were killed while in a life boat a real war crime case could be made and I would support it. As it stands now the facts don’t support it so this is simply more fodder in the “Get Trump” narrative.
It is in fact not legal in the first place, for a few reasons:
1) The boats were nowhere near US waters,
2) drug trafficking is not a capital crime,
3) the military has to be fired upon by said boats for lethal force to be used.
Regarding the "second strike", you're wrong because of both US and international laws established via numerous treaties, including within the US military code. Rescue survivors, then sink the ship is the way to do it legally (if we're talking about a legal military action).
The legal way to deal with them is to capture them when they enter US waters, then use the evidence on said boat to charge and try the crew. In the instances where survivors have been retrieved - they were released without charges.
The administration has also admitted they don't know who or what is actually on these boats - they've provided no evidence, and no legal basis for these attacks.
I believe there's a breaking point for Congress. First, Trump is a lame-duck, so his coattails are non-existent. Second, his threats and bark only work in certain places, like GA-14 where MTG would rather resign than deal with MAGA against her. Third, the chance something "bad" like violence against public officials, will occur (by MAGA), is high, and one event could be a trigger to move Congress to act. Fourth, an unpopular war by a president who promised to get us out of wars given the other points, is plenty of reason to motivate Congress to clip the executive's wings. Fifth, Trump will turn on Hegseth if he believes Congress is about to act, to protect himself.
If it is legitimate to destroy a drug running boat with a missile it is legitimate to finish the job if the first missile fails to sink the boat. The US Coast Guard requires all ships/boats going to sea to have at a minimum a readily inflatable life raft for use in case the boat is sinking or catches fire. This requirement is simply there because of good seamanship. These life rafts can be inflated in about 30 seconds. If the drug boats lacked the life raft it is not the responsibility of the initial mission to change the goal to accommodate this fact. That a couple of sailors were clinging to the still floating wreckage is immaterial. If they had abandoned the drug boat and were killed while in a life boat a real war crime case could be made and I would support it. As it stands now the facts don’t support it so this is simply more fodder in the “Get Trump” narrative.
It is in fact not legal in the first place, for a few reasons:
1) The boats were nowhere near US waters,
2) drug trafficking is not a capital crime,
3) the military has to be fired upon by said boats for lethal force to be used.
Regarding the "second strike", you're wrong because of both US and international laws established via numerous treaties, including within the US military code. Rescue survivors, then sink the ship is the way to do it legally (if we're talking about a legal military action).
The legal way to deal with them is to capture them when they enter US waters, then use the evidence on said boat to charge and try the crew. In the instances where survivors have been retrieved - they were released without charges.
The administration has also admitted they don't know who or what is actually on these boats - they've provided no evidence, and no legal basis for these attacks.