The Trump administration is under scrutiny for its military actions targeting suspected drug traffickers in the Caribbean and Pacific regions. Recent briefings revealed that officials do not know the identities of those killed in these strikes, raising serious legal and ethical questions.
Uncertainty Surrounding Boat Strike Casualties
Since September 2, the U.S. military has conducted strikes against boats purportedly involved in drug trafficking. Over 60 civilians have reportedly been killed in these operations. Congress was informed that the Department of Defense fails to meet the evidence standards required to justify holding or prosecuting survivors from these attacks.
Legal Justifications and Controversies
- The administration claims it is engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” against designated terrorist organizations (DTOs).
- President Trump has cited Article II constitutional authority to justify the actions, stating he is acting in self-defense under international law.
- The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has provided classified opinions to support these military strikes.
However, experts have criticized these operations as possible extrajudicial killings. Military law prohibits targeting civilians who do not pose an imminent threat, including individuals labeled as suspected criminals.
Representative Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) highlighted that the administration does not plan to seek congressional authorization akin to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which was issued for counterterrorism actions stemming from the 9/11 attacks. She described the strikes as unjustifiable killings, asserting, “We are not in an armed conflict with these cartels. And so this is just murder.”
Details of the Military Operations
Three individuals have survived the strikes but have not faced charges. Officials admitted they could not hold or try these individuals due to insufficiency of evidence. Jacobs mentioned that identification of victims was deemed unnecessary for carrying out these military actions.
Critics, including legal experts and Congress members, have raised alarms regarding the administration’s classification of attack survivors as “unprivileged belligerents.” This term, traditionally associated with non-state armed groups, has led to further legal confusion as it implies these individuals lack the protections that come with prisoner of war status.
Concerns from Lawmakers
In a recent briefing led by Pentagon officials, military lawyers were unexpectedly withdrawn, prompting concerns from lawmakers about the justification of the strikes. Representative Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) emphasized that the rationale for these operations appears inadequate when scrutinized.
Senator Mark Warner criticized the administration for its lack of transparency with Congress regarding the strikes and called for the immediate release of the legal justifications and details about targeted organizations.
Looking Ahead
The Pentagon has withheld critical information regarding the DTOs involved in these operations for nearly two months. There is speculation that several DTOs may be active, although specific numbers have not been verified by all lawmakers involved. Concerns about legality and protocol continue to escalate as the administration navigates this contentious issue.
