Tag: perpetual war

Trump Has a Habit of Asserting Broad, Unreviewable Authority

In separate attacks this month, the U.S. military blew up two speedboats in the Caribbean Sea, killing 14 alleged drug smugglers. Although those men could have been intercepted and arrested, President Donald Trump said he decided summary execution was appropriate as a deterrent to drug trafficking.

To justify this unprecedented use of the U.S. military to kill criminal suspects, Trump invoked his “constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive” to protect “national security and foreign policy interests.” That assertion of sweeping presidential power fits an alarming pattern that is also apparent in Trump’s tariffs, his attempt to summarily deport suspected gang members as “alien enemies,” and his planned use of National Guard troops to fight crime in cities across the country.

Although Trump described the boat attacks as acts of “self-defense,” he did not claim the people whose deaths he ordered were engaged in literal attacks on the United States. His framing instead relied on the dubious proposition that drug smuggling is tantamount to violent aggression.

While that assumption is consistent with Trump’s often expressed desire to kill drug dealers, it is not consistent with the way drug laws are ordinarily enforced. In the absence of violent resistance, a police officer who decided to shoot a drug suspect dead rather than take him into custody would be guilty of murder.

That seems like an accurate description of the attacks that Trump ordered. Yet he maintains that his constitutional license to kill, which apparently extends to civilians he views as threats to U.S. “national security and foreign policy interests,” transforms murder into self-defense.

Trump has asserted similarly broad authority to impose stiff, ever-changing tariffs on goods imported from scores of countries. Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected that audacious power grab, saying it was inconsistent with the 1977 statute on which Trump relied.

The Federal Circuit said the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which does not mention import taxes at all and had never before been used to impose them, does not give the president “unlimited authority” to “revise the tariff schedule” approved by Congress. The appeals court added that “the Government’s understanding of the scope of authority granted by IEEPA would render it an unconstitutional delegation.”

Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) against alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua has also run into legal trouble. This month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit concluded that Trump had erroneously relied on a nonexistent “invasion or predatory incursion” to justify his use of that 1798 statute.

Trump argued that the courts had no business deciding whether he had complied with the law. “The president’s determination that the factual prerequisites of the AEA have been met is not subject to judicial review,” Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign told the 5th Circuit.

Trump took a similar position in the tariff case. As an opposing lawyer noted, it amounted to the claim that “the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants, so long as he declares an emergency.”

Keep reading

Trump reveals secret third blast against Venezuelan boats as intensifying drug war prompts talk of invasion

American forces have blasted three Venezuelan vessels out of Caribbean waters in recent weeks, President Donald Trump told reporters Tuesday, revealing the expanding scope of his military campaign against  ‘narco-terrorists.’

The commander-in-chief posted a video to his Truth Social account on Monday evening showing U.S. military action against a Venezuelan boat in the Caribbean.

It was the second apparent operation against what the administration claims are narcotic traffickers bound for America.

But not even a day later, the president divulged that an additional third strike was carried out on a ship after receiving a question about rising tensions with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

‘We knocked off, actually three boats, not two, but you saw two,’ the president said on the White House‘s front lawn just before departing for the U.K. with his wife, Melania Trump.

‘And the problem is, there are very few boats out in the water. There are not a lot of boats out in the water. I can’t imagine why. Not even fishing boats. Nobody wants to go take a fish,’ the president continued.

The video Trump posted on Monday evening shows a boat out at sea before being engulfed in flames following a military strike. Three confirmed narcotics traffickers were killed in the operation, the president claims.

The Trump administration is restricting congressional oversight of recent military strikes on Venezuelan vessels by barring senior House staffers from classified briefings, according to The Intercept.

Keep reading

Open Season for False-Flag Provocations as NATO and Kiev Regime Get Desperate

Russia was blamed in a damning outcry, yet the circumstances incriminate NATO’s Ukrainian client.

This week saw two false-flag provocations back-to-back, orchestrated by the NATO-sponsored Kiev regime. Tellingly, before any considered response was given by Russia or independent observers, European politicians were shutting down open discussion, warning about expected Russian lies and disinformation.

In other words, no critical examination of the incidents is permitted. These were “barbaric” and “reckless attacks” by Russia… take our [NATO] word for it, and if you don’t, then you are a Russian stooge.

Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski hammed it up in a video statement, denouncing Russian aggression, and dogmatically telling everyone to trust only NATO government information. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk was competing in hysteria, claiming Europe was closer to all-out conflict than at any time since World War II. This points to how the European information space has become totally dominated by war propaganda in a way that George Orwell or Josef Goebbels would marvel at.

So, what happened this week?

Poland is claiming that Russia deliberately targeted its sovereign territory with 19 drones. European NATO allies are subsequently scrambling to deploy warplanes and air defenses to “protect Poland”. September is the month that Nazi Germany attacked Poland 86 years ago, kicking off World War II. That bit of timing perhaps lends a nostalgic flourish to the present events, as Tusk seemed to be implying with his melodramatic words.

The day before the much-hyped “drone invasion,” on September 9, the Kiev regime claimed Russia dropped one of its heavy FAB-500 aerial bombs on a village, killing 24 people who were collecting their pensions.

In both incidents, however, the evidence points to false-flag provocations for those who care to calmly examine the facts.

Keep reading

So Much for the Nobel Peace Prize

The first seven months of Donald Trump’s second term as president has seen a remarkable transformation. In his inaugural address, Trump said that “My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier.” He promised to “measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end – and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.” “That’s what I want to be,” Trump said, “a peacemaker.”

Seven months later, Trump changed the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War. It is not just a change of name. It is a change of “attitude,” that rebrands the image the Trump administration wants to project to the world. Trump’s executive order says the name change “conveys a stronger message of readiness and resolve compared to ‘Department of Defense,’ which emphasizes only defensive capabilities.”

From 1789 until 1949, the department was named the Department of War. As the Department of War, the U.S. won every war, Trump said. “And then we decided to go woke, and we changed the name to Department of Defense,” Trump said.” Pete Hegseth, whose sign on his door was quickly changed to “Secretary of War,” says that the U.S. is “going to go on offense, not just on defense. Maximum lethality, not tepid legality. Violent effect, not politically correct. We’re going to raise up warriors, not just defenders.” That is not the language of a President or an administration that wants to be remembered as “a peacemaker” that is judged by “the wars that we end” and “the wars we never get into.”

Donald Trump has made no secret of his ambition to win a Nobel Peace Prize. He has brought it up and campaigned for it in interview after interview and speech after speech. In June, Trump took to Truth Social to boast of his role in brokering peace between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. “I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for this, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between India and Pakistan, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between Serbia and Kosovo, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for keeping Peace between Egypt and Ethiopia… and I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for doing the Abraham Accords in the Middle East… No, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran… but the people know, and that’s all that matters to me.”

But the change of names to the Department of War betrays that campaign. And it is more than just a change of name. The rebrand reflects the ever bloating role of the military in the Trump administration to push out diplomacy and law enforcement. Trump pushed aside diplomacy that was working with Iran with an unprecedented bombing of Iran’s civilian nuclear facilities. And he has pushed aside law enforcement with military action against drug cartels in Latin America.

On September 2, the U.S. claims to have identified a speed boat that was running drugs for a Venezuelan drug cartel. They did not turn to law enforcement, as has, until now, been standard operating procedure by having the National Guard interdict the boat and arrest the suspected drug smugglers. Instead, either an attack helicopter or an MQ-9 Reaper drone fired on it, killing all 11 of its crew. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking for an administration that wants to be a “peacemaker” that is judged by “the wars we never get into,” explained that “What will stop them is when we blow up and get rid of them.”

In order to prevent the flow of drugs into the United States, Trump and his Department of War have sent three Aegis guided-missile destroyers, several P-8 spy planes and at least one nuclear-powered fast attack submarine. Apparently insufficient to deal with the problem, the U.S. has now sent ten F-35 fighter jets to Puerto Rico to help carry out the operation against the drug cartels.

Keep reading

Endless Wars and Misguided Intelligence: Rethinking US Foreign Policy

For decades, the United States has been drawn into military interventions far from its borders, consuming trillions of dollars in taxpayer money and putting thousands of American service members in harm’s way. These conflicts – from Afghanistan to Iraq, and now the specter of confrontation with Iran – illustrate a recurring failure of U.S. foreign policy: the tendency to act on incomplete, misleading, or politically convenient intelligence.

One of the clearest patterns is how external actors can manipulate American decision-making. In the lead-up to the Iraq War, figures like Ahmed Chalabi provided information that exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Those claims, as we now know, proved to be baseless – there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Yet the narrative took root, steering Washington into a war that cost thousands of American lives, destabilized an entire region, and drained U.S. resources that could have been devoted to pressing domestic needs.

Similarly, in the case of Iran, opposition groups such as the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) offered claims regarding Iran’s nuclear program that were later amplified in U.S. political and media circles. While these groups presented themselves as allies against hostile regimes, their primary objective was to advance their own agendas, not American national interests. Policymakers who rely on such sources risk committing the country to conflicts that serve others while imposing heavy costs on U.S. citizens.

The consequences of these interventions are measurable and enduring. Beyond the immediate loss of life, wars divert critical resources from domestic priorities, undermine public trust in government, and entrench cycles of instability abroad. Relying on partisan or ideologically motivated intelligence prevents an accurate assessment of threats and alternatives, leading to decisions that are reactive, costly, and often counterproductive.

It is imperative that the United States reassess the criteria for military engagement. Intelligence must be rigorously verified, independent of actors with self-serving motives, and embedded within a broader strategic framework that prioritizes diplomacy, regional stability, and the protection of American citizens and service members. Blindly following narratives designed to provoke intervention undermines both national security and moral responsibility.

Ultimately, true national strength is demonstrated not by the number of conflicts waged overseas, but by the ability to pursue peace, restraint, and reasoned foreign policy. U.S. leadership should emphasize negotiation, conflict prevention, and multilateral engagement, ensuring that resources are invested in building stability rather than perpetuating endless wars.

Keep reading

Washington Projects Its Drug Problem Onto Latin America

A big Cadillac limo with Jersey plates was parked down the block. Few locals in East Harlem even owned cars, let alone new ones. Curious, I asked the street kids what’s up. They casually explained that the mafioso come weekly to collect their drug money. Later I found a playground, which served as a veritable narcotics flea market each night. If a blanquito from the suburbs and some third graders could uncover the illicit trade, I wondered why the officials – who plastered the city with “keep New York drug free” signs – couldn’t do the same.

That was in the late 1960s, and I am still wondering why the US – the world’s largest consumer of narcotics, the biggest money launderer of illicit drug money, and the leading weaponry supplier to the cartels – hasn’t resolved these problems.

One thing is clear: the drug issue is projected onto Latin America. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly warned of “evil narco terrorists [trying] to poison our homeland.” Drug interdiction has been weaponized as an excuse to impose imperial domination, most notably against Venezuela.

Since Hugo Chávez was elected Venezuela’s president in 1998 and initiated the Bolivarian Revolution – a movement that catalyzed the Pink Tide in Latin America and galvanized a counter-hegemonic wave internationally – Washington has tried to crush it. In 2015, then-US President Barack Obama accused Venezuela of being an “extraordinary threat” to US national security when, in fact, the opposite was the case; the US threatened Venezuela.

Obama imposed unilateral coercive measures – euphemistically called “sanctions.” Each subsequent administration renewed and, to varying degrees, intensified the sanctions, which are illegal under international law, in a bipartisan effort. But the imperial objective of regime change was thwarted by the political leadership of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in concert with the country’s people and in firm alliance with their military.

Now that draconian sanctions have “failed” to achieve regime-change, President Trump dispatched an armada of warships, F-35 stealth aircraft, and thousands of troops to increase the pressure.

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro responded: “What Washington wants is to control Venezuela’s wealth [including the world’s largest oil reserves]. That is the reason why the US deployed warships, aircraft, missiles and a nuclear submarine near Venezuelan coasts under the pretext of fighting drug trafficking.”

Maduro maintains his country is free of drug production and processing, citing reports from the United Nations, the European Union, and even the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). The Venezuelan president could have also referenced the findings of Trump’s own security agencies absolving him from the charge of directing the Tren de Aragua drug cartel.

And, speaking of collusion with drug cartels, Maduro could have commented on the DEA itself, which was expelled from Venezuela in 2005 for espionage. Regardless, the DEA has continued to secretly build drug trafficking cases against Venezuela’s leaders in knowing violation of international law, according to an Associated Press report.

Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez highlights that the DEA “has known connections with the drug trafficking world.” For example, an investigation by the US Department of Justice, revealed that at least ten DEA agents in Colombia participated in repeated “sex parties” with prostitutes paid for by local drug cartels. In 2022 the DEA quietly removed its Mexico chief for maintaining improper contacts with cartels. This underscores a troubling pattern: DEA presence tends to coincide with major drug activity, but does not eliminate it.

The US “is not interested in addressing the serious public health problem its citizens face due to high drug use,” Maduro reminds us. He points out that drug trafficking profits remain in the US banking system. In fact, illicit narcotics are a major US industry. Research by the US Army-funded RAND Corporation reveals that narcotics rank alongside pharmaceuticals and oil/gas as top US commodities.

Keep reading

Western Countries Downing Russian Drones Over Ukraine Will Mean War With NATO: Medvedev

Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev has once again issued a firm warning to the Western military alliance backing Kiev, saying that if NATO countries begin shooting down Russian drones over Ukraine during the ‘special military operation’, this will put Moscow at war with NATO.

The words come dangerously after the last week has seen Russian drones allegedly breach Polish and Romanian airspace – both NATO member’s along the alliance’s ‘eastern flank’. Moscow has rejected accusations that it intentionally sent these drones, which were by and large ‘decoy’ UAVs amid broader drone waves targeting inside Ukraine.

“Seriously, implementing the provocative idea of Kiev and other idiots to create a ‘no-fly zone over Ukraine’ and allowing NATO countries to down our drones will mean only one thing: NATO’s war with Russia,” Medvedev wrote on Telegram Monday.

He additionally remarked the “powerful European initiative ‘Eastern Sentry’” amuses him as it “seems to be all that remains of the ‘coalition of the willing’.”

Over the weekend, a pair of Russian drones were observed and tracked in Romania’s airspace, near Ukraine’s southern border, the Romanian military said. A pair of F-16s were scrambled, but the pilots refrained from firing on them and they exited back to Ukraine territory.

The former Russian president also made comments aimed at Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur. He is visiting Ukraine. “An Estonian defense minister has arrived in Kiev. He is threatening. The smaller the country, the more aggressive and foolish its leaders tend to be,” Medvedev noted.

All the while, Ukraine has continued its cross-border drone attacks on Russian territory. Belgorod oblast authorities said two women in a village near the border with Ukraine were killed in such an attack Monday morning.

Three other people were injured and a vehicle was destroyed, following a night where anti-air defenses were able to intercept six of the inbound drone wave.

The hawks keep pushing for more muscle and present delusional views on the current status of the conflict…

Keep reading

US Bombs Another Boat Near Venezuela

The US military on Monday bombed a boat near Venezuela and killed three people, according to a statement released by President Trump on Truth Social.

President Trump claimed without providing evidence that the boat was carrying drugs and that the three people who were killed were “narcoterrorists.” He made similar claims about the first US military strike on a boat near Venezuela that occurred on September 2, which he said killed 11 “narcoterrorists.”

The president also posted a video that purported to show the Monday strike. It showed what appeared to be a boat that was drifting at sea, followed by an explosion.

“This morning, on my Orders, US Military Forces conducted a SECOND Kinetic Strike against positively identified, extraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels and narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility,” Trump said. “The Strike occurred while these confirmed narcoterrorists from Venezuela were in International Waters transporting illegal narcotics (A DEADLY WEAPON POISONING AMERICANS!) headed to the US.”

The president also signaled that more US strikes on boats in the region were coming. “BE WARNED — IF YOU ARE TRANSPORTING DRUGS THAT CAN KILL AMERICANS, WE ARE HUNTING YOU!” he wrote.

The second US bombing in the region came after the Venezuelan government said that personnel from a US warship boarded a Venezuelan tuna boat that was in Venezuelan waters. Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil said 18 armed US troops were on the vessel for 18 hours, a claim that hasn’t been confirmed by the US military.

“Those who give the order to carry out such provocations are seeking an incident that would justify a military escalation in the Caribbean,” Gil said.

While Trump and other US officials claim the military action and pressure on Venezuela’s government is about drug trafficking and a response to overdose deaths in the US, fentanyl doesn’t come from or through Venezuela, and the majority of the cocaine that is transported to the US comes through the Pacific, not the Caribbean. Gil said that the real purpose of the US operations was for the US to “persist in their failed policy” of regime change in Venezuela.

The Venezuela policy is being largely driven by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has long pushed for regime change in Venezuela. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on Monday called out Rubio in response to the US boarding the tuna boat, calling him a “lord of death and war.”

Keep reading

Pentagon Barred Senior House Staffers From Briefing on Venezuela Boat Strike

The Department of War is thwarting congressional oversight of the Trump administration’s attack on a boat off the coast of Venezuela earlier this month.

Senior staff from House leadership and relevant committees were barred by the Office of the Secretary of War from attending a briefing on the attack last Tuesday, according to three government sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The military cited “alternative compensatory control measures” — the term for enhanced security procedures designed to keep information under wraps — as the reason.

The War Department has attempted to conceal numerous details about the attack that killed 11 people in the Caribbean, including the fact that the vessel altered its course and appeared to have turned back toward shore prior to the strikes. Men on board were said to have survived an initial strike, The Intercept reported last week. They were then killed shortly after in a follow-up attack.

“I’m incredibly disturbed by this new reporting that the Trump Administration launched multiple strikes on the boat off Venezuela,” Rep., Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., a member of the House Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations, said of The Intercept’s coverage. “They didn’t even bother to seek congressional authorization, bragged about these killings — and teased more to come.”

A very small number of Senate and House staffers, mostly from the Armed Services committees, received highly classified briefings about the attack last Tuesday, after the military delayed the meeting for days. Staff for key members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which oversee war powers, were conspicuously absent.

Keep reading

Turkey wary of Israeli threat following airstrike on Hamas in Qatar

An Israeli strike on a meeting of Hamas officials in Qatar has cast a cloud of growing concern across Turkey that it could be the next target.

Turkish Defense Ministry spokesman Rear Adm. Zeki Akturk warned in Ankara on Thursday that Israel would “further expand its reckless attacks, as it did in Qatar, and drag the entire region, including its own country, into disaster.”

Israel and Turkey were once strong regional partners, but ties between the countries ran into difficulties from the late 2000s and have reached an all-time low over the war in Gaza sparked by the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack in southern Israel. Tensions also have risen as the two countries have competed for influence in neighboring Syria since the fall of Bashar Assad’s government last year.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been a long-standing supporter of the Palestinian cause and of the Palestinian militant group Hamas. The Turkish president has criticized Israel, and particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with strident rhetoric since the start of the Gaza war, accusing Israel of genocide and likening Netanyahu to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.

Hamas officials regularly visit Turkey and some have taken up residence there. Israel previously accused Turkey of allowing Hamas to plan attacks from its territory, as well as carrying out recruitment and fundraising.

Erdogan is close to Qatar’s leaders and Turkey maintains strong military and commercial ties to the emirate. He is due to travel to Qatar this weekend for an Arab and Muslim leaders’ summit.

After Israel’s attacks on the territory of Iran, Syria, Yemen and now Qatar, Ankara is bound to be concerned by Israel’s ability to freely use the airspace of neighboring states.

Keep reading