The first shot in the United States' nascent war against illegal drug smugglers remains shrouded in mystery.
President Donald Trump announced the strike on September 2 in a statement. post on social networks. According to him, on board were eleven narco-terrorists belonging to the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, who were transporting illegal drugs and “headed to the United States.”
Two months later, the Trump administration has not provided evidence to support most of these details. Were the boat and its crew connected to Tren de Aragua? Were there any illegal drugs on board? Was he heading to the USA? Or did America just destroy a ship full of innocent civilians?
Why did we write this
The Trump administration says it has legal justification for killing alleged “narco-terrorists.” That's why many experts, including conservatives, remain skeptical about what the administration has shared so far.
Meanwhile, strikes continue: 19 to date, resulting in 76 deaths, according to public reports.
“All of these decisive strikes have been directed against the narco-terrorists who U.S. intelligence confirms have brought deadly poison to our shores, and the President will continue to use every element of American power to stop the flood of drugs into our country,” White House press secretary Anna Kelly said in a statement.
The administration says the strikes are legal because the United States is in armed conflict with drug trafficking groups it calls foreign terrorist organizations. Drug overdoses, the administration says, have killed more Americans than al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.
No one disputes that illegal drugs smuggled into the United States harm Americans. But many legal experts – even those who appreciate Trump's more serious approach to the drug threat – believe he is using his war powers in illegal ways.
“There was no armed attack. There is no organized armed group. [and] there is no armed conflict,” says Rebecca Ingber, a Cardozo Law School professor and former State Department legal adviser.
“Under international law, we would call the targeted killing of suspected criminals extrajudicial killing, and under US domestic law, murder,” she adds.
Legal justification for strikes
The government says its legal basis for the strikes was clarified in a secret opinion from the Justice Department's legal counsel. Experts say the strikes are legal because cartel drug trafficking poses an immediate threat to Americans. This view applies to a broader range of cartels than those the Trump administration has publicly designated as terrorist organizations. according to CNNwho first reported the existence of the conclusion.
But legal experts say that's a weak justification for what is essentially an air campaign against seemingly defenseless ships that the government claims, without evidence, to carry drugs into the United States.
“There is no doubt that these drug gangs are smuggling drugs into the United States. There is also no doubt that these illegal drugs are causing tragedies in the United States,” says Jeffrey Corn, director of the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech University.
But “the existence of armed conflict is not based on some harmful commodity being brought into your country. It is based on the existence of hostilities, hostilities in a very pragmatic sense,” he adds.
Administration officials stressed that each strike was carried out after careful intelligence gathering.
“Targeting decisions are deliberate, based on comprehensive assessments and vetted through established procedures,” a Pentagon official who was not authorized to speak on the record said in an email.
IN comments Last month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told the media that the approval of each strike “goes through a very strict process.”
“Hundreds of boats go through there every day and there are a lot of strikes that we walk away from… because they don't meet the criteria,” he added.
It's understandable that the government may want to keep some details of intelligence collection confidential, experts say, but previous administrations have been more forthcoming about U.S. military operations abroad. The Obama administration quickly released details of the operation that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011. President George W. Bush ordered a bipartisan investigation that produced a public report detailing the intelligence failures that precipitated the 2003 Iraq War.
Donald Trump/Truth Social/Reuters
Repatriation of survivors raises questions
One of the strikes raises particularly pressing questions about the legality of the current conflict in the United States.
On October 16, Trump announced that a semi-submersible vessel had been hit in the Caribbean. Four “narco-terrorists” were attacked, but two survived. The survivors were soon repatriated to their home countries of Ecuador and Colombia “to be detained and prosecuted,” Trump said.
It seems unlikely that or man However, he will be subject to prosecution in his home country. The speed with which the US surrendered the two survivors also casts doubt on the administration's assertion that America is at war with the drug cartels, Professor Korn said.
“In what war do you capture enemy operatives and send them home?” he says.
The episode suggests the administration believes it has enough evidence to justify killing people in international waters, but not enough evidence to hold them accountable in court, Professor Ingber said.
“If we had clear evidence of a crime – the kind of evidence of terrorism that would be enough to target and kill these people – we would [detain and] chase them. The president decided not to do either,” she adds.
“This suggests that at least some voices within the administration recognize that their legal theories will not hold up in court.”
It is also unclear who exactly a “narco-terrorist” is. Terrorist groups are generally defined as having political motives, while cartels are driven by the desire to make money. There is also the fact that only small amounts Fentanyl, which Trump has repeatedly said was on the targeted boats, is being smuggled out of South America.
“Corroded” fences
Voices expressing concern about such issues typically come from the army of defense lawyers at the Pentagon and the White House.
But earlier this year, the Trump administration fired senior military lawyers, known as judge advocates general, serving in the Army, Navy and Air Force. The administration has made similar firings of lawyers and agents seen as Trump opponents. Ministry of Justice And FBI. After the JAG was fired in February, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters he didn't want lawyers to create any “obstruction to the orders being issued by the commander in chief,” Military.com reported at that time.
However, experts say JAGs should provide checkpoints when the president issues legally questionable orders to the military.
The administration “wants [lawyers] who will have to prove their political loyalty to the president,” says Professor Korn.
They appear to have “created the conditions for there to be no criticism of her views within the system,” he adds. “Traditional fences have been destroyed.”
In recent decades, these checks within the executive branch have become the primary means of ensuring that a president is using war powers lawfully, experts say. Courts in recent decades have supported Congress in giving broad deference to the president in military matters. Although the Constitution gives only Congress the power to declare war, legislators have not officially done so since World War II. A sweeping resolution passed by the House and Senate authorizing the use of military force after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks is still on the books, but has been criticized for giving too much discretion to the president and lacking oversight mechanisms.
The Republican-controlled Senate voted largely along party lines last week to block a resolution that would have required congressional authorization for a U.S. strike on the Venezuelan mainland, although some Republicans joined Democrats in I ask the administration give more detailed information about the legality of strikes. Trump administration officials told Congress last week they have no current plans or legal basis for ground strikes on Venezuela, CNN reported.
Since 9/11, the United States has taken a more ambiguous and overt approach to warfare as its enemies have shifted from sovereign nations to more stateless individuals and secret organizations.
While that has shifted more power to the president, his supporters say it is necessary to respond to a faster-changing threat landscape. Critics say it has given the president too much power and led the United States into costly, forever wars that alienate some Americans and their allies.
Professor Korn is in the first camp. He said he was an early and strong proponent of “a very pragmatic interpretation of armed conflict.” He agrees with the administration's decision to designate drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.
“And it’s good that the president has shown great determination to stem the flow of illegal drugs,” he adds.
But, he notes, this expansion of criminal counterterrorism laws does not indicate or justify the claim that the United States is in armed conflict with these groups.
“When a nation orders military personnel to commit lethal acts, they have a right to expect legal and moral clarity, but I don't think they have that right now,” he says.
“It's tragic because somebody has to give the order to attack and somebody has to pull the trigger and watch the result. And they have to live with it for the rest of their lives.”
Editor's note: This article, originally published Nov. 10, was updated Nov. 11 to include two additional strikes on shipping in the Pacific announced by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after publication.
