Strikes Without War, Executions Without Trials: Trump’s Venezuela Escalation Raises Alarms

Drone Warfare by Executive Whim

According to recent reports, at least six boats allegedly connected to the drug trade have been destroyed by U.S. drones off the Venezuelan coast, killing 27 people. No trials. No evidence publicly presented. No congressional approval. Just smoke on the horizon and silence from the people who are supposed to check this kind of unilateral action.

And let’s be clear: if these deaths occurred inside U.S. territory, there’d be uproar. If Biden or Obama had done this, the right would be in flames. But Trump’s doing it under the flag of “law and order,” and too many are staying quiet.

This is not a partisan issue—it’s a constitutional crisis masquerading as a foreign policy win.

Rand Paul: The Lone Constitutionalist

Rand Paul isn’t perfect, but when it comes to foreign policy, he’s often the only adult in the room. His recent comments to Piers Morgan hit all the right chords: if Congress hasn’t declared war, the President doesn’t get to start one—especially by blowing up people on foreign soil under dubious pretexts.

“There is no fentanyl made in Venezuela. Not just a little bit, there's none being made. These are outboard boats that, in order for them to get to Miami, would have to stop and refuel 20 times,” Paul said.

He’s not just nitpicking geography here—he’s exposing the lie. This isn’t about stopping fentanyl. It’s about flexing muscle in a region D.C. elites have long considered their personal chessboard. Paul is calling out the absurdity of pretending that flimsy drug war logic justifies military action.

Due Process: An Endangered Concept

Paul also nailed the broader issue: drug interdiction is a law enforcement matter, not a military one. You don’t kill people suspected of smuggling drugs—you arrest them, try them in court, and follow the rule of law.

“Interdicting drugs has always been an anti-crime activity where we don't just summarily execute people—we actually present evidence and convict them,” Paul rightly stated.

Since when did drug suspects become enemy combatants? Since when did we decide that being on a boat in international waters earns you a drone strike instead of a fair trial?

Trump’s Dangerous Ambiguity

Meanwhile, Trump’s response to whether the CIA was authorized to “take out” Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was classic deflection:

“That’s a ridiculous question for me to answer. But I think Venezuela is feeling the heat.”

That’s not a denial. That’s a warning. Trump may be trying to play the psychological war card here—hoping a few explosions will rattle Maduro’s regime—but the line between “psychological operations” and undeclared war is razor thin. And this isn’t just saber-rattling. According to internal sources, there are real talks of land operations targeting Venezuelan territory.

Land operations? Without a war declaration? On whose authority?

"If We Don’t Blow Up Boats Off Miami…"

Paul’s biting comparison drives the point home: if a smuggling boat were spotted off the coast of Miami, would we send a drone to obliterate it without warning? Of course not.

We’d intercept it. Board it. Arrest the crew. Investigate. That’s how due process works.

So why does it change when the boat is near Venezuela?

Because it’s convenient. Because no one in Washington wants to be the guy who said “no” to a flashy military show.

The Real Agenda: Regime Change, Again

Let’s not pretend this is just about narcotics. The whispers are already out: this is about weakening the Maduro regime, possibly even laying the groundwork for a coup or U.S.-backed replacement.

It’s Libya 2.0, with oil-rich Venezuela in the crosshairs.

The same playbook: create chaos, call it liberation, and leave the people to clean up the mess while D.C. slaps each other on the back.

Libertarian Perspective: The Empire Strikes First

This entire operation is a case study in why libertarians oppose centralized, unchecked power—because once you give a president the keys to kill without oversight, the Constitution becomes a formality, not a restraint.

Let’s break it down:

1. Constitutional Authority? None.

The President has zero constitutional authority to wage war unilaterally. These strikes are war actions—not border security, not defense. The War Powers Resolution doesn’t apply here because there’s no imminent threat to the U.S.

2. Due Process? Obliterated.

Drug smuggling is a crime. Crimes are tried in court. These people were killed without charges, without trials, without oversight. That’s state-sponsored execution, not justice.

3. National Security? Laughable.

There’s no evidence Venezuela is the source of fentanyl flooding U.S. streets. Paul’s right: the logistics alone make the idea laughable. These are propaganda strikes, not strategic ones.

4. Foreign Policy Consequences? Guaranteed.

Blowback is real. Every time we blow something up without accountability, we breed more instability, more resentment, and more enemies. We've learned nothing from Iraq, Syria, or Libya.

Conclusion: War Without Oversight Is Tyranny

This isn’t about Trump vs. Paul. It’s about liberty vs. power, law vs. chaos, the Constitution vs. empire.

Every American—left, right, or center—should be screaming from the rooftops about this. Because if the government can wage war without your consent, and kill people without trial, then who is really in charge?

We’re being conditioned to accept undeclared wars, secret strikes, and permanent surveillance. It’s all part of the same machine. A machine that doesn’t care who’s president—only that it keeps running.

Don’t let this pass in silence. Call it what it is: executive overreach, foreign adventurism, and a mockery of the rule of law.

Want to Be Ready When This Machine Turns Inward?

Download “Seven Steps to Protect Yourself from Bank Failure” by Bill Brocius and learn how to shield your savings, prepare for systemic collapse, and stay two steps ahead of the empire: