US Military Conducts Lethal Attacks on Alleged Drug Smugglers, Justifying Killings as 'War on Narcotics'
In a secret memo, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel has justified lethal attacks by US military personnel on alleged drug smugglers in Latin America. The memo claims that narcotics on these boats are lawful military targets because their cargo generates revenue for cartels whom the Trump administration claims are in armed conflict with the US.
According to sources, the memo argues that the sales of drugs constitute a "revenue-generating target theory" that makes the civilians aboard these boats collateral damage, whose deaths would be excused through a proportionality analysis tied to the military advantage gained by the attack.
However, experts say this reasoning is faulty and appears to have been crafted to suit a political decision already made by the White House. They claim that such theories have been employed before, but only in contexts of actual armed conflicts against true belligerents like the Taliban.
Critics argue that the US military is deliberately targeting civilians who do not pose an imminent threat of violence, which is a significant departure from standard practice in the long-running US war on drugs. The Trump administration continues to justify these actions as part of Operation Southern Spear, a campaign to defend the homeland and remove narco-terrorists.
Despite this, senior defense officials have expressed concerns about the legality of these strikes, with one official describing the memo as "insane." Experts say that good faith reliance on the memo would be a significant hurdle to prosecution by future administrations.
The implications are severe. The Trump administration's actions appear to be eroding democratic norms and undermining the rule of law. Critics warn that this is not hyperbole, citing examples such as court orders being ignored, MAGA loyalists in charge of the military and federal agencies, and news outlets being banned or investigated.
As the US grapples with its role in the global conflict against narcotics trafficking, it's clear that the Trump administration's actions are pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable. The consequences for democracy and human rights will depend on how this crisis unfolds.
In a secret memo, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel has justified lethal attacks by US military personnel on alleged drug smugglers in Latin America. The memo claims that narcotics on these boats are lawful military targets because their cargo generates revenue for cartels whom the Trump administration claims are in armed conflict with the US.
According to sources, the memo argues that the sales of drugs constitute a "revenue-generating target theory" that makes the civilians aboard these boats collateral damage, whose deaths would be excused through a proportionality analysis tied to the military advantage gained by the attack.
However, experts say this reasoning is faulty and appears to have been crafted to suit a political decision already made by the White House. They claim that such theories have been employed before, but only in contexts of actual armed conflicts against true belligerents like the Taliban.
Critics argue that the US military is deliberately targeting civilians who do not pose an imminent threat of violence, which is a significant departure from standard practice in the long-running US war on drugs. The Trump administration continues to justify these actions as part of Operation Southern Spear, a campaign to defend the homeland and remove narco-terrorists.
Despite this, senior defense officials have expressed concerns about the legality of these strikes, with one official describing the memo as "insane." Experts say that good faith reliance on the memo would be a significant hurdle to prosecution by future administrations.
The implications are severe. The Trump administration's actions appear to be eroding democratic norms and undermining the rule of law. Critics warn that this is not hyperbole, citing examples such as court orders being ignored, MAGA loyalists in charge of the military and federal agencies, and news outlets being banned or investigated.
As the US grapples with its role in the global conflict against narcotics trafficking, it's clear that the Trump administration's actions are pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable. The consequences for democracy and human rights will depend on how this crisis unfolds.
I mean, come on... A secret memo justifying lethal attacks on civilians who happen to be smuggling narcotics? That's not a war, that's just bad journalism 
and worst of all, it's a huge step back for democracy 
. I mean, can't we just focus on actual national security threats instead of using this 'war on narcotics' as an excuse to attack anyone who gets in the way? 
It's like they're trying to justify whatever they want and then blame it on some obscure memo 
. And don't even get me started on the fact that senior defense officials are expressing concerns about the legality of these strikes... it's like, hello, basic human rights 101 
. We need better than this, folks 
this all feels super shady to me... i mean, can you imagine if we started justifying attacks on civilians in our own country? like, what's next? targeting people at protests or something? the idea that it's okay to kill people who are just trying to make a living seems really messed up to me. and i'm not even talking about whether or not the war on drugs is a good idea, but like... isn't there a better way to handle this than just resorting to violence? 
like whats going on with this memo? who gives permission to send a war zone into a civilian boat thinking its gonna generate revenue for cartels? 
news to me that you can kill people who arent even actively fighting u guess thats what happens when you have a war on drugs and not a real war 
We gotta be careful not to let our government start playing God and deciding who lives or dies based on politics. And what's with the "war on narcotics" being used as a legit reason for this? It's like they're trying to spin a narrative that doesn't make sense in reality. 
I mean, who needs a memo to justify killing people when you can just say "War on Narcotics" and get away with it? Sounds like the US military has finally figured out their own motto: "We'll shoot first and worry about the law later" 
No thanks! 
This memo is super sketchy - it's like they're trying to justify a war on civilians 
. I'm not buying it - it sounds like they've crafted this reasoning to fit their own agenda, and it has nothing to do with protecting the public or upholding the law 
. The fact that senior defense officials are worried about the legality of these strikes just shows how far we're willing to go to justify our actions 
. We need to draw a line here and make sure our military is respecting human life, not using it as a collateral damage 
. It's gotta stop before it's too late. We need to make some noise about this and hold our leaders accountable 
.
. But what really gets me is that it's not even about the issue of narcotics trafficking itself - it's about using war as a means to control and intimidate people, rather than genuinely addressing problems 
. And when we normalize this kind of behavior, where do we draw the line between right and wrong? 
I think what's important here is that we start having some tough conversations about what it means to be a just and fair society 
. We need to make sure our values aren't being sacrificed at the altar of convenience or expediency 
.
. The fact that some officials are worried about the legality of it all just shows how messed up this whole thing is 
. The whole thing reeks of politics over people 
some shady dealings 
! This is a slippery slope 
and I don't like where it's leading 
. Can we please just focus on the people, not the profits? 
. It's like they're creating their own rules and expecting everyone to follow suit 
.