889bd89bfClaimThe United States has long considered drug trafficking between Latin America and the U.S. to be a policing issueAgreeDisagree
889bd89bfClaimDrug trafficking into the U.S. could be a geopolitical tool used to attack the country from withinAgreeDisagree
889bd89bfClaimThe Trump administration's military strikes on suspected drug vessels circumvented the ethical and legal safeguards of the Drug Enforcement AdministrationAgreeDisagree
889bd89bfClaimActions against drug trafficking may be unpleasant but are sometimes necessary to achieve resultsAgreeDisagree
889bd89bfClaimThe scale of deaths from fentanyl and other drug trafficking in the U.S. has become serious enough to warrant military involvementAgreeDisagree
889bd89bfClaimTo use the military for drug strikes, the US president would need to get congressional approval or have new legislation passedAgreeDisagree
889bd89bfClaimExisting efforts to stop drug trafficking into the U.S. have been unsuccessful, making escalation of the response necessaryAgreeDisagree
889bd89bfClaimThe military's role is to intervene when policing is no longer sufficient to handle a serious problemAgreeDisagree
889bd89bfClaimUS politics are currently stable enough to mitigate the risks of increased government powerAgreeDisagree
889bd89bfClaimA deadlocked U.S. Congress may have made it impossible to get legal approval for the military strikesAgreeDisagree
889bd89bfClaimFennel deaths have drastically decreased after U.S. military strikes on suspected drug-trafficking vesselsAgreeDisagree
889bd89bfClaimThere are legal disagreements and court cases involving the executive branch regarding military strikes on drug-trafficking vesselsAgreeDisagree
889bd89bfClaimThere is no legislative mechanism for the US president to invoke to use the military for drug strikesAgreeDisagree
889bd89bfClaimThe Trump administration bypassed the Drug Enforcement Administration to conduct military strikes on suspected drug trafficking vesselsAgreeDisagree