photo #8835540

“Chuck Schumer voted ‘Yes’ for the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act of 1986 authorizing the military to fire on drug-smuggling boats. The House approved it 392–16 and the Senate approved it 97–2.” Since that overwhelmingly bipartisan vote — in which almost all Democrats in Congress supported the bill — the United States government has established and retained a comprehensive legal framework that gives the President, the military, and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) broad jurisdiction and authority to interdict, board, seize, and, when required, use force against maritime narcotics traffickers, even on the high seas, under certain conditions. • The 1986 Act (as part of the larger Anti‑Drug Abuse Act of 1986) extended U.S. jurisdiction over vessels suspected of trafficking controlled substances — including foreign-flagged, stateless, or “unflagged” semi-submersible vessels — making such maritime trafficking a federal crime.  • Under federal law (Title 14, U.S. Code § 522), the Coast Guard has explicit authority to board, search, seize, inspect, arrest — and to employ necessary force — against vessels violating U.S. law on the high seas or within waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction. • The law also authorizes cooperation with the military: Title 10, U.S. Code § 124 assigns the Department of Defense (DoD) the lead role in detection and monitoring of aerial and maritime drug transit — enabling navy and aerial surveillance in support of interdiction efforts. • Title 10, U.S. Code § 279 further authorizes Coast Guard law-enforcement personnel to be assigned aboard U.S. naval vessels, effectively transforming Navy assets into law-enforcement platforms when engaged in drug-interdiction operations under U.S. law.Given this legal and operational framework: • When U.S. intelligence identifies a vessel as part of a known cartel or trafficking network — even if on the high seas or in international waters — and that vessel uses evasive, unflagged, or submersible/semisubmersible craft, the U.S. has lawful authority to intercept, board, and seize or detain the vessel and its occupants under federal law. • If traffickers resist, flee, attempt to evade, or engage in hostile behavior — which is common in high-risk narcotics operations — the Coast Guard (and naval units under Coast Guard command) may use force as authorized by law to compel compliance, protect lives, and prevent contraband delivery. • In light of the massive public-health and national-security threat posed by international narcotics trafficking (including trafficking of deadly substances or precursors), using the full scope of lawful maritime enforcement — including aggressive intervention — is not only justified but necessary to safeguard the nation.Therefore, the same legislation and statutes that nearly all Democrats in 1986 supported give the U.S. government today a clear, lawful, and robust basis for strong maritime interdiction and enforcement. All six currently serving Democratic members of Congress who were already in Congress back in 1986 VOTED YES on the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement provisions were passed: • Sen. Ed Markey (D–MA) • In Congress since 1977 (U.S. House 1976–2013; U.S. Senate 2013–present).  • Sen. Ron Wyden (D–OR) • In Congress since 1981 (U.S. House 1981–1996; U.S. Senate 1996–present).  • Sen. Chuck Schumer (D–NY) • In Congress since 1981 (U.S. House 1981–1999; U.S. Senate 1999–present).  • Rep. Steny Hoyer (D–MD) • In the U.S. House since 1981 and still serving (Maryland’s 5th District).  • Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D–OH) • In the U.S. House since 1983 and still serving (Ohio’s 9th District).  • Sen. Dick Durbin (D–IL) • In Congress since 1983 (U.S. House 1983–1997; U.S. Senate 1997–present). Criticism or resistance to aggressive enforcement — while ignoring those statutory foundations — amounts to selective hypocrisy.#Congress #politics #washingtondc#Government #BreakingNews #accountability #FactCheck