The proper action then would be to declare war, and announce that the airspace is no longer safe for civilian use.

The whole "oh yes, our military is active, but we aren't at war, and yes, the president tweeted about that" spiel is just untenable and ridiculous.

▲

CrossVR 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They can't declare war, that would require approval from congress. They're relying on the post-9/11 authorization granted to the president to use the military to go after terrorists and those that harbor them.

That is why this administration is leaning heavily into calling the drug traffickers "narco-terrorists" and calling fentanyl their "weapon of mass destruction". They're covering their ass legally so they can invade another country without congressional approval.

▲

neom 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/alie...

This is what they're using, the legal theory is basically tren de aragua cartel and their drugs is an "invasion" of the USA and is "sufficiently connected" to the Venezuelan government to trigger the act's wartime powers.

▲

armada651 12 hours ago | parent [-]

The only powers this act grants is the power to deport foreign nationals without due process, it does not grant them any powers to militarily invade another country.

▲

neom 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Just to be clear, not my theory: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/12/09/venezuela...

	▲	CrossVR 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Those military actions are on international waters. There is no legal theory even on the fringes for invading another country using that act.

▲

estearum 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To be clear, the post-9/11 AUMF is "specific" to people affiliated with the perpetrators of 9/11. Obviously a nexus can be drawn between a gigantic array of people to the perpetrators of 9/11, and this feature has been abused for decades now, but the Venezuelan situation clearly does not actually (or even allegedly) have any nexus whatsoever to 9/11 and so is clearly not authorized by the 2001 AUMF.

	▲	armada651 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, it wouldn't hold up in any reasonable court, but all they really need is to give congress some excuse to not intervene and pretending this falls under the 9/11 AUMF is good enough. And once the U.S. is at war with Venezuela not even a court order from the supreme court is going to be able to reverse that.

▲

whiddershins 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

congresss did not declare war for any of the post wwii wars.

	▲	mattmaroon 13 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		While technically true, they did give authorization to both Iraq and Afghanistan as well as others.
	▲	15 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	armada651 13 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Even without a deceleration of war, any use of the military requires congressional approval unless it falls within some authorization congress has already granted.

▲

wartywhoa23 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Welcome to the Brave New World (Order) of post-truth, post-law and special military operations.