Key Takeaways
- The Trump administration’s strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats have come under intense scrutiny following the revelation that the first U.S. attack involved multiple strikes, resulting in the killing of two survivors.
- The administration has claimed that it has the legal authority to carry out these strikes, citing the fact that the drugs smuggled by these cartels kill tens of thousands of Americans each year and constitute an "armed attack" against U.S. citizens.
- However, lawmakers and experts argue that the military action targeting the suspected drug smuggling boats is legally dubious and may constitute war crimes, particularly in light of the recent revelations about the second strike.
- The administration’s characterization of the strikes as an "armed conflict" imposes additional duties and responsibilities on how the strikes are carried out, and the alleged intentional killing of defenseless survivors may have crossed a legal line.
- There is growing debate about whether the follow-up strike that allegedly killed two survivors is a war crime, with some lawmakers and experts arguing that it would be "an illegal act" and "completely outside of anything that has been discussed with Congress."
Introduction to the Controversy
The Trump administration’s strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats have been a topic of controversy in recent months. The issue has gained more attention following the revelation that the first U.S. attack on such a vessel involved at least two strikes, resulting in the killing of two survivors. According to a Washington Post report, the first strike left two survivors, and a subsequent strike or strikes killed them. The report also stated that Defense Secretary Hegseth gave a verbal order to "kill everybody" in the September 2 strike in the Caribbean Sea, although Hegseth has not confirmed this.
The Legality of the Strikes
The Trump administration has claimed that it has the legal authority to carry out these strikes, citing the fact that the drugs smuggled by these cartels kill tens of thousands of Americans each year and constitute an "armed attack" against U.S. citizens. However, lawmakers and experts argue that the military action targeting the suspected drug smuggling boats is legally dubious. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president to consult Congress "in every possible instance" before introducing armed forces into hostilities, unless there has been a declaration of war or other congressional authorization. The administration’s claim of a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels is also flawed, as these cartels are not considered organized armed groups under the law of armed conflict.
Congressional Response
Members of Congress, mostly Democrats, have raised questions about the legality of the strikes and warned that a continued campaign against alleged drug smugglers in the region could escalate into war with Venezuela. The Post’s report has further fueled debate about whether the U.S. is committing war crimes. The Republican-led Senate and House Armed Services committees have opened bipartisan investigations into the circumstances of the first attack. Some lawmakers, including Republican Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio, have stated that the action would be "an illegal act" and "completely outside of anything that has been discussed with Congress."
International Law and War Crimes
The alleged intentional killing of defenseless survivors may have crossed a legal line. The Geneva Conventions, which are the core of the law of armed conflict, prohibit targeting civilians or members of the armed forces who are defenseless. The international treaties also require the wounded to be "collected and cared for." The Defense Department’s Law of War Manual says, "it is also prohibited to conduct hostilities on the basis that there shall be no survivors, or to threaten the adversary with the denial of quarter." Experts argue that the Trump administration’s characterization of the strikes as an "armed conflict" imposes additional duties and responsibilities on how the strikes are carried out, and that the president "wants it both ways" by calling it an armed conflict but not following the rules of the armed conflict.
Potential Consequences and Next Steps
There is growing debate about whether the follow-up strike that allegedly killed two survivors is a war crime. Lawmakers and experts argue that the next question is what laws may have been broken, and that largely depends on the laws governing the strikes. If the operation is not an armed conflict, as some experts argue, the actions could constitute murder under domestic law. If the operation is an armed conflict, as the Trump administration suggests, the actions could constitute a war crime. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has called the second strike a war crime, stating that "the basic rules of war that are involved here make very clear that you do not strike wounded people in the water in order to kill them." The U.S. has carried out over 20 attacks on alleged drug smuggling boats since the first strike on September 2, killing more than 80 people. The controversy surrounding these strikes is likely to continue, with lawmakers and experts calling for greater transparency and accountability.
