GOP Rep. Bacon talks Trump’s ‘unlawful combatants’ designation
President Donald Trump recently sent a memo to Congress outlining military actions his administration has taken against suspected drug smugglers in the Caribbean. Trump said he determined the U.S. is in a non-international armed conflict with certain narco-terrorist organizations, and their members were considered “unlawful combatants.”
The change in designation and its potential impact have led to some controversy on Capitol Hill and amongst military and legal scholars. However, Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., thinks the president would have more support for military action against the cartels if he’d include Congress in the war planning.
Straight Arrow News spoke with Bacon. The following is an excerpt from the discussion. It has been edited for timing and clarity.
Cautious support
Ryan Robertson:
Congressman, first question I had for you today: These suspected drug smugglers being labeled as “unlawful combatants” — you served in the Air Force for 30 years, you’ve been a Congressman for 10. How do you view that label of unlawful combatants on some of these suspected smugglers?
Rep. Don Bacon:
Well, I’ve grappled with it a little bit. I’m not a lawyer. If I was President Trump, I would make sure this was well researched by the attorney general and the legal team around them to make sure it got right. We also have to make sure that these boats are indeed narco boats that are shipping drugs and are not accidentally misidentified, because that would be terrible.
That said, it’s not a big stretch to go from going against al-Qaida and other terrorists and then looking at these folks who killed 100,000 Americans a year. So, I’m inclined to be supportive of the policy because I lost, you may know, I lost three brothers from drugs and alcohol. So, I know a lot of people in Omaha that died from fentanyl or their families, right? And so, I tend to be supportive of it, but it’s not a clear-cut policy thing for me. It’s stretching the norms once again.
Including Congress
RR:
What could the president do to earn your full-fledged support in this kind of military operation? What would it take for you to be like, “Yes, we’re doing it the right way now?”
DB:
Well, take it to Congress in the end, because you know, we have the War Powers Resolution. So if he’s going to continue going against these narco boats, we should do a War Powers Resolution, and it should be voted on by Congress. And I think this would give it legitimacy, to do it that way. Like I said, we’ve gone against terrorists, but the Congress voted on it, right? We did that in 2001, and then we did it again in 2003 when we expanded it with Iraq.
I don’t think it’s a big stretch to go from terrorists to people running drugs in our country, killing 100,000 people a year. But I do think Congress should vote on it and probably use the War Powers Resolution as a vehicle to do so.
More wars ahead?
RR
With that, I mean, critics are going to hear that and say, “That’s going to open up the opportunity for another ‘forever war.'” We just got out of Afghanistan not too long ago as a result of the 2001 attacks. So what’s your response to, you know, if Congress votes on it and War Powers Resolution is passed, what would Congress do or what would you hope Congress does — because I know your time is running short in the House — but what would you hope that the body would do to make sure that it’s not another forever war at the expense of the American taxpayers?
DB
Well, I don’t think we should be going into Venezuela, or at least any kind of ground operation. But I think if we’re strictly interdicting boats and try to interdict the drugs coming to our country, I already believe that some of the gangs or the narco organizations out there are probably rethinking how they’re getting drugs in our country. Because you hit three boats and they’re like, you know, “We don’t want to die here doing this.” Some of this is deterrence. So you go after a few, and then maybe you can stop these shipments from coming in.
A lot of these boats go into Guatemala, Honduras and they go up through Mexico. So, going after the drug routes, I think, is good. I think it’s 100,000 people a year dying. You think about it, we lost 58,000 people in Vietnam over 10 years, and we’re losing 100,000 every year right now from this. And so I think there will be general support for us taking a stronger action. But I think it should involve Congress, once again.
What if the intel was wrong?
RR
If it’s determined and this is, you know, we’re postulating at this point, but if it is determined that the president did not have all of the ducks in the row and that some of these boats had civilians on them that were not running drugs, what recourse is there? Is there any recourse at that point?
DB
Well, he would lose all support for this if that happens. And I think Congress would have to take action in the other direction to prevent or to say we don’t support it. We’d cut funding for it. No, he’s got to have good intelligence here. This better be 100% locked and loaded, that you got the right people shipping in here, whether it’s cocaine or fentanyl, whatever it may be. And he’s got to have that right.
You know what, we can’t afford to have what happened under Joe Biden in the last days of Afghanistan, where they misidentified that terrorist and they hit a family. That was terrible. No, that’s been swept under the rug. It was a terrible mistake that ended a lot of innocent people’s lives that day. We can’t afford to have that happen here.
Action required
RR
Congressman, I really appreciate your time today. Is there anything else that you’d like to add, a question I didn’t ask that you feel like needs to be answered?
DB
No, it’s a complicated question and I’m giving you a nuanced answer. I wish it was just 100% black or white. I’ve had to grapple with this. When I was in combat and I commanded five times, we always had a lawyer. I don’t believe in just giving stuff to a lawyer and them making a decision. You come up with a policy, a thing that you want to do, then you make sure it’s legal, that you’re not crossing some kind of line. And I just think this here’s — the attorney general and the lawyers got to study this very carefully to make sure we have it right. And I’m not a lawyer. So, my gut tells me when you’re losing 100,000 people a year, we have to take action.
The post GOP Rep. Bacon talks Trump’s ‘unlawful combatants’ designation appeared first on Straight Arrow News.
Ella Rae Greene, Editor In Chief
