[T}he President, under his authority as Commander-in-Chief, has a right under exigent circumstances to eliminate imminent threats to the United States, and that’s what he did yesterday in international waters, and that’s what he intends to do. We’re not going to sit back anymore and watch these people sail up and down the Caribbean like a cruise ship. It’s not going to happen. It’s not going to happen anymore. They’re not going to bring drugs into the United States. We’re going to stop them. I know a lot of presidents have talked about doing it; this President is not a talker, he’s a doer. He’s going to do it.
What was Mexico's response to this? At the joint presser, Mexico's Foreign Affairs secretary said:
We have, as many of you may know, some basic principles in our constitution that rule our foreign policy. These principles are clearly stated in article 89 of our constitution, and some of them are very clear: self-determination. We believe in self-determination. Nonintervention. Peaceful solution of controversies. All countries are legally equal. We believe in cooperation for development, and so on. So these principles are the ones that really rule our foreign policy, and we are going to stick to them because that’s our mandate, and of course those have been also the instructions I have received from President Sheinbaum.
Shorter version: Mexico is not giving an inch when it comes their sovereignity. If the U.S. blows up a boat in Mexican waters, there will be hell to pay. Goodbye "implementation" force. Mexico is going to grab the free goodies: training, technology equipment, and all the "shared intel" the U.S. is offering, right up until the day the U.S. crosses the line. Mexico will then punt and say, bye-bye, we told you about Article 89.
Marco continued his anti-fentanyl strong man trip to Ecuador today. He also announced two Ecuadorian gangs were added to the narco-terrorist sanctions list: Los Choneros and Los Lobos.
The document, identified as 2025-17067, states that the Attorney General and Secretary of the Treasury, "concluded that there was sufficient grounds to apply Section 219 of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. This law allows armed groups or drug trafficking networks to be designated as terrorist threats, which opens the door to economic sanctions, asset freezes, immigration restrictions, and greater intelligence sharing between agencies."
Where does it say extra-judicial killings are allowed in the absence of Congress declaring war?
Again, this is an open thread, all topics welcome.
Update: See the latest open thread starting with Bad Bunny. I've deleted many comments here for the reasons expressed in that thread. I am not done, this is an hours long process, as they have to be deleted individually and the entire thread reloaded. I am keeping comments here closed.
Response to Coast in Comment 83: I did not write the "karma" comment you referred to. It is absolutely a violation of this site's policy and that comment and about 25 others have now been deleted.
TalkLeft has had a constant policy during its 23 year existence that we do not speak ill of the dead on the occasion of their death.
As I point out in the new "Bad Bunny" open thread, I am not willing to get doxxed or put on some anonymous hater's list for comments posted by others. I am in the process of deleting them.
Apparently, all we are allowed to comment on is how violence is never the answer to political disagreements.
I haven't had to use "time-outs" here for more than a decade. But if necessary I will now since everyone has been informed that comments may not be posted here criticizing Kirk's views, or which contain snark or criticism of him, including references to his past statements.
Thank you all for understanding.
