Key Takeaways:
- The Trump administration has defended the follow-up strike on a drug boat that killed survivors, citing the objective of ensuring the complete destruction of the boat.
- The Pentagon had internal legal approval to conduct the strike, with a secret Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo blessing the strikes.
- The OLC memo argues that the US can use lethal force against unflagged vessels carrying cocaine, as the cartels use the proceeds to fund violence.
- The memo also states that the fact that anyone on board would likely die from a strike does not make a boat an improper military target.
- The administration’s explanation fits the confines of the OLC memo, providing a plausible legal justification for the strike.
Introduction to the Controversy
The Trump administration has come under fire for its handling of a follow-up strike on a drug boat that killed survivors on September 2. In response to criticism, administration officials have defended the action, citing the objective of ensuring the complete destruction of the boat. According to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, Adm Frank Bradley, who oversaw the operation, directed the second strike to sink the boat, which was carrying cocaine. Leavitt stated that Adm Bradley worked within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States was eliminated.
The Legal Justification
The administration’s defense of the strike is based on a secret OLC memo that argues it is permissible for the US to use lethal force against unflagged vessels carrying cocaine. The memo states that the cartels use the proceeds from cocaine sales to fund violence, and therefore, the US can destroy the cocaine on the boats to choke off the cartels’ money supply. This reasoning is based on the idea that the cartels are in an "armed conflict" with allies in the region, and as part of collective self-defense, the US can take action to disrupt their funding. The OLC memo also states that the fact that anyone on board would likely die from a strike does not make a boat an improper military target.
Criticisms of the OLC Memo
The OLC memo has been criticized by outside legal experts, who argue that there is little public evidence to support the notion that the cartels are using drugs to finance armed violence, rather than the other way around. Additionally, the memo’s reasoning has been questioned, with some arguing that it stretches the limits of international law and the laws of armed conflict. Despite these criticisms, the Trump administration’s explanation fits the confines of the OLC memo, providing a plausible legal justification for the strike. This justification is likely to be reprised by Adm Bradley when he appears before lawmakers on Thursday morning.
The Administration’s Shifting Narrative
Until this week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had been unclear about the intention behind the second strike. At various points, he suggested that it was permissible to summarily kill people as long as they were affiliated with cartels. However, this narrative has shifted, with Hegseth now stating that the second strike "sunk the boat and eliminated the threat." This shift in narrative has been seen as an attempt to downplay Hegseth’s involvement in the strike and to provide a more palatable explanation for the administration’s actions.
The Laws of Armed Conflict
The OLC memo’s reasoning is based on the laws of armed conflict, which dictate what constitutes a legitimate military target. For instance, a military factory known to be sustaining an army would be generally regarded as a legitimate military target. However, the workers at the factory would be considered civilians unless they were part of a fighting force, and therefore, it would be illegal to kill them. The memo’s argument that the boat was a legitimate military target because it was carrying cocaine has been questioned, with some arguing that this stretches the limits of international law.
Conclusion and Implications
The Trump administration’s defense of the follow-up strike on the drug boat has sparked controversy and raised questions about the limits of international law and the laws of armed conflict. While the administration’s explanation fits the confines of the OLC memo, it has been criticized by outside legal experts and lawmakers. The implications of this incident are far-reaching, with potential consequences for the administration’s handling of similar situations in the future. As Adm Bradley prepares to appear before lawmakers, it is likely that the administration’s actions will come under increased scrutiny, and the legality of the strike will be debated further.