On Tuesday’s episode of Fox News Channel’s The Will Cain Show, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) raised serious constitutional concerns over the Trump administration’s military strike on a Venezuelan boat alleged to be carrying drug traffickers.
Paul warned the move set a troubling precedent. “If this is a new policy, realize that off of Miami, a dozen ships will be interdicted today. They will be stopped, boarded, and searched. Some of them will have drugs, some of them won’t. The reason we board them before we blow the crap out of them is some of them don’t have drugs,” he explained.
Drawing an analogy to domestic law enforcement, Paul added: “Let’s say there’s a house in your neighborhood and they’re all selling fentanyl, and thousands of people are dying, and you’re just so mad. Do you go over there and just kill them or burn them? No, you go to a judge and you get a warrant and you do that. We have an interdiction program.”
Cain pressed back, suggesting the difference was that Paul’s example involved American citizens on U.S. soil. But Paul didn’t let it go: “No, we’re talking about ships off of Miami. We’re talking people speeding along off of Miami. Are we going to just simply blow them up? No, we’re not. I mean, if we were, that would be extraordinary. That would be extraordinary to blow up ships.”
The Kentucky senator went further, questioning the strike’s relevance to U.S. security. “The outboard boat was 2,700 miles away. How do we know it was coming to the U.S.? So they may be selling drugs to Trinidad. Is it our job?” Paul asked.
Cain countered that the U.S. is the primary destination for drugs flowing out of Central and South America. But Paul again pushed back: “You don’t think anybody in the Caribbean is using drugs? What if they’re selling the drugs in Trinidad? Are we now the police for Trinidad? Are we going to blow up every boat? It’s just insane. You can’t blow up any ship that you think might have drugs on it.”
Cain praised Paul’s consistency on constitutional principles but pointed to the administration’s justification—that the traffickers had been designated a foreign terrorist organization and were importing chemicals killing tens of thousands of Americans.
Paul was unmoved: “But not by Congress—not by Congress, by the president. That’s not constitutional. Under the Constitution, Congress must declare war.”
The exchange highlights a longstanding debate inside the conservative movement itself: balancing America’s security-first responsibilities with a strict adherence to constitutional limits on executive power. Paul’s warnings underscore a core principle often forgotten in Washington—protecting the homeland from dangerous enemies must never come at the expense of the rule of law.
Okay, I’ll bite – what would Rand rather do – let the cartels inflict even MORE damage to the Republic? Perhaps he needs to rethink what a ‘clear and present danger’ truly is.
I’m not advocating extra judicial actions but a line has to be drawn somewhere. I always go back to a line early in “Dirty Harry” as to why the Inspector shot a suspect in an alley. If ya don’t remember that line, rewatch the movie. Yes that was holly weird but the point is still valid.