UPDATE: Ongoing bipartisan investigations are raising urgent questions about the legal justification for the U.S. military’s recent strikes on alleged drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific. As scrutiny intensifies, experts warn that the Trump administration’s framing of these attacks as acts of self-defense could have serious implications.
The controversy erupted following a September 2 strike near Venezuela, where a subsequent attack reportedly killed survivors. This incident has drawn immediate congressional attention, leading to hearings aimed at understanding the legality of such military actions.
Legal experts, including CU Boulder law professor Maryam Jamshidi, argue that the designation of drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) does not provide the U.S. government with the authority to carry out lethal strikes. Jamshidi stated, “The FTO designation was intended for those engaged in acts like hijacking and sabotage. It doesn’t justify killing anyone.”
Despite this, the Trump administration contends that suspected drug traffickers are classified as enemy combatants, thereby justifying military action on the grounds of national security. As of now, U.S. Southern Command confirmed that 87 individuals have been killed in 22 strikes since operations began in September.
On Thursday, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth directed another strike that resulted in four deaths, raising alarms among lawmakers about transparency and accountability. Jamshidi emphasized the broader implications, stating, “The White House claims expansive authority for unprecedented military actions against civilian boats in international waters, which is concerning for everyone.”
The congressional investigations are ongoing, with Admiral Frank M. Bradley scheduled to brief top lawmakers about the military operations. This situation remains fluid, and the outcomes of these hearings could significantly impact U.S. military policy moving forward.
As developments unfold, the debate over the legality of these strikes continues to intensify, making it imperative for citizens to stay informed. The implications of these actions not only affect U.S. foreign policy but could also redefine the rules of engagement in international waters.
Stay tuned for more updates on this critical issue as we monitor the evolving situation.
