WASHINGTON (AP) — Under President Donald Trump, the war on drugs looks a lot like the war on terror.
To support strikes against gangs and drug cartels in Latin America, the Trump administration is relying on a legal argument that gained attention after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that authorized U.S. authorities to use deadly force against al-Qaeda fighters who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
But the criminal groups currently targeted by U.S. attacks are a very different enemy, born in Venezuelan prisons and fueled not by anti-Western ideology but by drug trafficking and other illegal enterprises.
Trump’s use of overwhelming military force to fight these groups and authorize covert operations inside Venezuela to possibly oust President Nicolas Maduro exceeds the limits of international law, legal scholars say. The move comes as President Trump says he is prepared to expand the military’s role domestically, deploying the National Guard to U.S. cities and invoking the nearly 150-year-old Insurrection Act, which allows troops to be deployed only in exceptional cases of civil unrest.
So far, the military has killed at least 27 people. 5 strikes on a boat that the White House announced was carrying drugs.
Strikes — the latest one took place Tuesday. US kills 6 people – Occurred without any legal inquiry or traditional declaration of war from Congress. This raises questions about the legitimacy of President Trump’s actions and the impact they will have on diplomatic relations with Latin American countries, which recall with deep resentment the United States’ repeated military interventions during the Cold War.
US intelligence community are also fighting President Trump’s main claim is that the Maduro regime is collaborating with the Torren de Aragua gang to orchestrate drug trafficking and illegal immigration into the United States.
“You can’t call something a war.”
President Trump’s claim that the United States is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels is based on the same legal authority that the Bush administration used to declare a war on terror after the September 11 attacks. This includes the ability to capture and detain combatants and use deadly force to remove leaders.
However, the UN Charter clearly prohibits the use of force except in cases of self-defense.
“You can’t call something a war to give it war powers,” said Claire Finkelstein, a professor of national security law at the University of Pennsylvania. “No matter how dissatisfied you may be with the methods and results of law enforcement efforts to disrupt the flow of drugs, to suggest that we are in a non-international armed conflict with cartels makes a mockery of international law.”
After 9/11, it was clear that Al Qaeda was actively planning additional attacks aimed at killing civilians. But the cartel’s main ambition is drug sales. And while that would be detrimental to overall U.S. security, it is a questionable justification for invoking war powers, said Jeffrey Cohn, a Texas Tech University law professor who previously served as a senior adviser to the Army on law of war issues.
“In my humble opinion, this is a government that wants to use war powers for a variety of reasons,” Cohn said.
“Even assuming there was an armed conflict with Torren de Aragua, how do we know that everyone on that boat was enemy combatant?” he said. “I think Congress needs to know that.”
President Trump defends air strikes
Asked Wednesday at the White House why the U.S. doesn’t use the Coast Guard to stop Venezuelan fishing boats and seize drugs, Trump said: “We’ve been doing that for 30 years and it’s never been effective.”
The president also suggested that the United States could attack targets inside Venezuela, which could significantly increase tensions and legal risks. So far, the attacks have occurred in international waters, beyond the jurisdiction of any one country.
President Trump said of the drug leak: “We have almost completely stopped shipping the drugs.” “Next time, we will try to stop it on land.”
President Trump was also asked about a New York Times report that he authorized a covert CIA operation in Venezuela. President Trump, who has harshly criticized the 2003 US invasion of Iraq that overthrew Saddam Hussein’s regime, declined to say whether he had given the CIA the authority to remove President Maduro, saying, “It would be ridiculous to answer.”
Since the 1970s, numerous U.S. laws and executive orders have made it illegal to assassinate foreign officials. But by declaring Venezuelans illegal combatants, President Trump may be seeking to circumvent these restrictions and return to the early days when the United States regularly carried out covert regime change missions in countries such as Guatemala, Chile, and Iran.
“If you’re a threat to the United States and you’re waging war, you’re not a protected person,” Finkelstein said.
During Trump’s first term, Maduro was indicted on federal drug charges, including narcoterrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine. This year, the Justice Department denounced Maduro as “one of the world’s largest drug traffickers” and doubled the reward to $50 million for information leading to his arrest.
But President Trump’s focus on Venezuela overlooks the basic facts of the drug trade. This means that the majority of American overdose deaths are caused by fentanyl, which is shipped overland from Mexico. And while Venezuela is a major drug transit zone, about 75% of the cocaine produced in world leader Colombia is smuggled through the eastern Pacific Ocean rather than the Caribbean.
Congress and the ICC were ignored
Under the Constitution, Congress must declare war. But so far, there are few signs that Trump’s allies will push back on his expansionist view that it is his power to go after the cartels that the White House blames for tens of thousands of American overdose deaths each year.
Recently, the Republican-controlled Senate voted against be military strength The Democratic-sponsored resolution would have required the president to seek approval from Congress before any further military strikes.
Despite pressure among some Republicans for a more complete explanation, the Trump administration has yet to provide lawmakers with the basic evidence to prove it. boat People targeted by the U.S. military were in possession of drugs; Two U.S. officials familiar with the matter he told the Associated Press. Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine said in a secret briefing this month that he and other members of the Senate Armed Services Committee were also denied access to the Pentagon’s legal opinion on whether the airstrike complied with U.S. law.
Legal backlash is also unlikely to sway the White House. Finkelstein said the Supreme Court’s decision, which stemmed from a 1973 attempt by Democratic lawmakers to sue the Pentagon to stop the Vietnam War from expanding into neighboring Laos and Cambodia, set a high bar for any legal challenge to military orders.
Meanwhile, relatives of Venezuelans killed in boat attacks face their own hurdles following several high court decisions narrowing the scope of foreign nationals who can sue in the United States.
The military attack took place in international waters and opened the door for the International Criminal Court to launch an investigation similar to war crimes investigations into Russia and Israel, but like the United States, the International Criminal Court does not recognize the court’s authority.
But the Hague-based court was thrown into turmoil over the sexual misconduct investigation, and the lead prosecutor was forced to resign. U.S. sanctions over the indictment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have also hampered its efforts.
