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.
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.