US Strikes on Alleged Drug Smugglers Raise Serious Questions About War Crimes Allegations
The Trump administration's military strikes against alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean have ignited a firestorm of criticism, with many lawmakers and experts labeling them "war crimes."
The most recent revelations about the strikes, including one that killed survivors of an initial attack, have heightened concerns about the legality of the campaign. On September 2, US Navy Adm. Frank "Mitch" Bradley, the commander who oversaw the operation, briefed small groups of lawmakers on the strikes.
However, many Democrats are questioning whether the Trump administration has acted in accordance with international law and congressional authority. Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, President Trump is required to consult Congress "in every possible instance" before introducing armed forces into hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other congressional authorization.
Critics argue that the strikes are part of an unauthorized military campaign against drug cartels in Venezuela, which was not authorized by Congress. The administration claims that the US is in a "non-international armed conflict" with these cartels, but experts say this designation is flawed because the cartels do not meet the definition of organized armed groups under international law.
Designating drug cartels as terrorist organizations does not give the administration the authority to use military force in the same way that it has. Former State Department lawyer Brian Finucane said, "They don't have military hierarchies, don't have the capability to engage in combat operations, and so it's absurd to claim that the U.S. is somehow in an armed conflict with them."
The Trump administration has claimed that the strikes are necessary to stop the smuggling of drugs into the US, which kills tens of thousands of Americans each year. However, critics say this justification is flawed and ignores the fact that domestic law provides a more effective means of addressing these issues.
Lawmakers have called for an "expeditious declassification" of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel opinion justifying the strikes, citing concerns about transparency and accountability. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has also called the second strike a war crime, saying that it violates basic rules of war.
As the debate over the legality of the strikes continues, many are left wondering what laws may have been broken and whether the Trump administration's actions could be considered war crimes under international law.
The Trump administration's military strikes against alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean have ignited a firestorm of criticism, with many lawmakers and experts labeling them "war crimes."
The most recent revelations about the strikes, including one that killed survivors of an initial attack, have heightened concerns about the legality of the campaign. On September 2, US Navy Adm. Frank "Mitch" Bradley, the commander who oversaw the operation, briefed small groups of lawmakers on the strikes.
However, many Democrats are questioning whether the Trump administration has acted in accordance with international law and congressional authority. Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, President Trump is required to consult Congress "in every possible instance" before introducing armed forces into hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other congressional authorization.
Critics argue that the strikes are part of an unauthorized military campaign against drug cartels in Venezuela, which was not authorized by Congress. The administration claims that the US is in a "non-international armed conflict" with these cartels, but experts say this designation is flawed because the cartels do not meet the definition of organized armed groups under international law.
Designating drug cartels as terrorist organizations does not give the administration the authority to use military force in the same way that it has. Former State Department lawyer Brian Finucane said, "They don't have military hierarchies, don't have the capability to engage in combat operations, and so it's absurd to claim that the U.S. is somehow in an armed conflict with them."
The Trump administration has claimed that the strikes are necessary to stop the smuggling of drugs into the US, which kills tens of thousands of Americans each year. However, critics say this justification is flawed and ignores the fact that domestic law provides a more effective means of addressing these issues.
Lawmakers have called for an "expeditious declassification" of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel opinion justifying the strikes, citing concerns about transparency and accountability. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has also called the second strike a war crime, saying that it violates basic rules of war.
As the debate over the legality of the strikes continues, many are left wondering what laws may have been broken and whether the Trump administration's actions could be considered war crimes under international law.
the way us just basically is like "hey we're gonna bomb some people for drugs" without even getting congressional approval 
it's not even that complicated, they're saying it's a non-international armed conflict but nobody knows what that even means...the fact that they killed survivors of an initial attack is straight up messed up 
and what's with designating drug cartels as terrorist organizations to justify military force? that's like saying "oh you're doing bad things so we're gonna kill you" it doesn't work that way 
Man, this whole thing is super sketchy. I mean, we're talking about US military strikes against alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean and Pacific... sounds like something out of a Tom Clancy novel 
. But seriously, if they killed survivors of an initial attack, that's just messed up 
.
. It's like, the War Powers Resolution is one thing, but if you're gonna go to war with cartels in Venezuela, that's a whole different ball game 
.
. I mean, domestic law is there for a reason, and we shouldn't be relying on military force to solve our problems 
.
. We need to know what went down, who was involved, and whether anyone broke any laws 
.
, and if the goal is to stop drug smuggling, it's worth looking into ways to address it. But on the other hand, the way they're doing it raises serious questions about accountability and transparency 
.
. And let's be real, even if you do consider them organized armed groups under international law, that doesn't necessarily give the US the authority to use military force in the same way 
.
, but we need more clarity on what exactly happened here.
. If they're claiming it's a non-international armed conflict, that's just not right. It feels like we're getting into some serious grey area here and I don't think it's being handled well at all 
! But for real though, the whole thing about designating drug cartels as terrorist organizations and then using military force is so problematic 
True talk! It's like, how can you justify war crimes in a country where the rule of law is already super murky?
. But in real life? 
. No drama, no hate, just facts and keeping it real 
.
That just adds fuel to the fire, you know? The fact that these strikes are supposedly aimed at stopping drugs from coming into the US is just a convenient excuse. We all know how flawed that justification sounds. It's like they're trying to cover their tracks and avoid accountability. And what really gets my goat is that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel opinion justifying the strikes is still classified... that's just not right 
. I think it's time for Congress to get involved and figure out if the Trump administration has done everything by the book 
. It's one thing to crack down on drug cartels, but it's another to use military force without a clear authorization from Congress 
.
. And now we're talking war crimes? That's some serious heat 
. I hope someone is really going to dig into this and get some answers about what's really going on here... the lack of transparency is giving me anxiety 
.
.