> By designating Tren de Aragua as a “foreign terrorist organization” (a label previously reserved for groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS), the administration gave itself cover to start using military force, even though these are not wartime enemies. They are criminals.
I don't really understand this. Do you need to designate wartime enemies as foreign terrorist organisations? It sounds like nonsense, but it would be good to get clarify from someone more informed than I.
I think it's mostly a rhetorical thing because Americans have been conditioned to respond to this word in a particular way, and Congress has completely ignored their duty to reign in the executive's use of the military during the last few decades.
Calling it a drugboat is just allowing their assumptions to colour everything. And calling bombing civilians "one step closer to bombing civilians" is technically correct, but disingenuous.
I don't really understand this. Do you need to designate wartime enemies as foreign terrorist organisations? It sounds like nonsense, but it would be good to get clarify from someone more informed than I.