A staunch defense of controversial military actions in the Caribbean recently echoed from the Reagan library, delivered by a prominent voice asserting the President’s authority to employ force “as he sees fit.” The focus: a series of lethal strikes against suspected drug-smuggling vessels, operations that have resulted in over 80 deaths since September.
The justification, as presented, hinges on a dangerous connection – the claim that these traffickers aren’t simply criminals, but collaborators with designated terrorist organizations. Comparisons were drawn to al-Qaida, painting a picture of any group attempting to infiltrate the United States with illicit drugs as a legitimate military target, subject to being sunk without warning.
This defense arrives amidst a growing storm of legal and political challenges. The administration maintains these strikes are lawful under the laws of armed conflict, citing links to groups like Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua and Colombia’s ELN. However, legal scholars strongly dispute this, pointing out the absence of a declared war and the lack of direct attacks on American interests.
Yet, domestic U.S. law doesn’t necessarily demand a formal declaration of war for the use of lethal force against terrorists. Congress can authorize action through legislation, and the President possesses inherent self-defense authority. This legal framework forms the core of the administration’s argument.
Critics have raised serious concerns about due process, highlighting that those targeted were never convicted of crimes and that the evidence supporting the terrorist designations remains shrouded in secrecy. A common argument also points to the primary route of fentanyl into the U.S. – Mexico – rather than the Caribbean.
The rebuttal is stark: conviction isn’t a prerequisite for neutralizing a terrorist threat. The specter of 9/11 was invoked, reminding that those responsible for unimaginable devastation hadn’t been tried and convicted, yet lethal force would have been unequivocally justified. Similarly, the administration argues, the evidence supporting terrorist designations doesn’t need to be public to validate the use of force.
Tensions dramatically escalated following reports of a second strike on September 2nd, allegedly ordered to eliminate survivors clinging to debris. The claim, attributed to anonymous sources, suggested a directive to “kill everybody.” This accusation was vehemently denied.
Testimony from the admiral overseeing the operation, delivered in closed-door briefings to lawmakers, offered a different account. He stated there was no “kill them all” order issued, and that all individuals aboard the targeted vessel were pre-approved for lethal action based on intelligence assessments.
This previously undisclosed detail significantly alters the narrative, particularly concerning the second strike. The admiral revealed that each person had been individually identified and validated as an authorized target under the President’s campaign against narco-terrorist vessels.
The admiral testified that he received orders to eliminate everyone on the approved list, destroy the drugs, and sink the boat, all while operating within the bounds of U.S. and international law, with the oversight of military legal counsel. The vessel, officials stated, carried cocaine and was linked to a cartel designated as a terrorist organization.
The initial strike involved a precision airburst munition, resulting in nine fatalities and capsizing the vessel. Two survivors were observed for over thirty minutes, deemed uninjured and not surrendering. Concerns arose that cocaine bundles remained secured within the overturned hull, potentially recoverable.
A nearby vessel, suspected of being a rendezvous point, was identified but not authorized for engagement. The admiral then authorized further strikes, reasoning that the survivors remained lawful targets, the drugs were still present, and the vessel could potentially float or drift.
While intelligence later suggested the cocaine was destined for Europe or Africa, the admiral maintained the drugs themselves represented a threat. He firmly denied issuing or receiving any unlawful orders and insisted the operation was fully compliant with the law.
