pull down to refresh
I’m not ignoring you. Your points don’t supply the missing piece: legal authority for strikes + executing a U.S. warrant inside another sovereign state.
Panama/Noriega is history, not a standard; an indictment isn’t cross-border authority; human rights abuses aren’t, by themselves, a stated legal basis for unilateral force.
So name one mechanism and cite it:
1. Host-nation consent (who/when/where), or
2. Congressional authorization (which statute/AUMF), or
3. Self-defense tied to a specific imminent armed attack (what evidence/timeline).
If you can’t point to 1–3, then the claim is simply: the U.S. can do this because it has the power and it’s been done before.
reply
Why do you keep ignoring points I am making? Why aren't you looking at key points I mention? Its classic dodging points that address what you want.
The U.S. used narco-terrorism charges against Noriega and it fulfilled the imminent threat. Also with recent prisoner swaps prisoners have stated they were kidnapped from countries like Columbia and brought into the Venezuela where they were beaten, starved, plus numerous other human rights abuses so what is your legal basis for what imminent death?
Until you do go ahead and spam away in the comments with copy and pasted talking points.