The problem with major newspapers isn't the accuracy of what they report...
This is a good video, but it leaves two things out. First is that the United States hasn't technically engaged with Venezuelan state actors. They've actually taken steps to do the opposite, declaring cartels in the country as FTOs, and they've as of yet failed to act upon the claim that the Venezuelan military and cartels are one and the same. The second is that it doesn't actually matter if the military action is "legal" or not in the eyes of Congress. He mentions the 2/3rd requirement but it's actually only a simple majority to declare it "legal" or "illegal". The veto-proof requirement is necessary to stop the war, but the president can just technically choose to ignore it regardless. He mentions that the administration views the act as unconstitutional and presidents can legally refuse to enforce laws, they believe to be unconstitutional. Regardless, the chances of us going to war with Venezuela in the current political environment and the chances of the President willingly bringing such a case before the Supreme Court are about equal at 0%.
We can and have executed a terrorist in the Red Sea or HOA for posing a “risk to US interests.” Plenty of precedent in places like Syria and Africa of using kinetic strikes on targets who pose little in the way of tangible danger to us.
I can think of a strike in CENTCOM and a strike in Indopacom. Both of which would have some pretty insane optics to the people now screaming about our current actions. Both of those occurred under the Obama admin, neither of them was in the war so to speak that the US was actively paying any attention to, and both went through a pretty thorough and lengthy review to nuance a way to yes. Those like these guys were also labeled foreign terror orgs that acting against our interests and presented some clear danger to it.
From the 10 January 2017 Council on Foreign Relations:
www.cfr.org
Is that the same thing?
From the 10 January 2017 Council on Foreign Relations:
Obama’s Final Drone Strike Data
As Donald Trump assumes office today, he inherits a targeted killing program that has been the cornerstone of U.S. counterterrorism strategy over the past eight years. On January 23, 2009, just three…
The 542 drone strikes that Obama authorized killed an estimated 3,797 people, including 324 civilians…However, many needed reforms were left undone—in large part because there was zero pressure from congressional members, who, with few exceptions, were the biggest cheerleaders of drone strikes…Should President Trump opt for an even more expansive and intensive approach, little would stand in his way, except for Democrats in Congress, who might have newfound concerns about the president’s war-making powers.
That’s just the point, nobody here is claiming that we broke the law in those strikes either. We’re making the point that the sudden cognitive dissonance by people who were completely ok with the Yemeni wedding party strike, Al-Saim, etc were given complete avoidance from every touching the term war crime in discussion by anybody considered to rationally want to discuss the topics if they were even discussed at all in the wider public space. Do you recall a public discussion on the legality of killing prisoners of war? Because that was occurring in 2021, and yes there are circumstances which had occurred to allow for that, but we damn sure weren’t having an argument in the public space on its legality with partisan sides being drawn for the media. We simply weren’t talking about it at all.