US 'drug boat' strikes don't just cross a line, they're legally indefensible

The following article was originally published in USA Today. Read the original here.

When the United States began sinking boats on suspicion of drug trafficking – with no warning, no arrests and no evidence recovered – we crossed a line. These so-called narco-terrorist strikes may be politically popular, but they are legally indefensible.

Now, reports indicate that the British government has stopped sharing intelligence with Washington, DC, over fears that the U.S. operations violate international law. If true, one of America’s oldest allies is signaling what many of us who served in uniform already know: Justice and lasting security cannot be achieved through lawlessness.

For more than two decades, the U.S. Coast Guard’s HITRON program has proved that there’s a better way. Helicopter-based marksmen disable engines on fleeing drug boats, allowing suspects to be arrested, evidence recovered and intelligence exploited.

More than 1,000 vessels have been stopped this way, without deliberate loss of life. It is effective, lawful and consistent with both our national values and our obligations under the law of the sea.

The only flaw is that we have not assigned enough ships and aircraft to this effort. This new approach – destroying boats outright and killing the occupants – abandons that model and the principles behind it. In addition, it sets a frightening example for other nations throughout the world.

Rules of engagement in armed conflict

In any legitimate military or law enforcement operation, rules of engagement exist to ensure that force is necessary, proportionate and discriminate. These rules are designed to protect innocent life, preserve evidence and maintain compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict – the body of international law that governs when and how force may be used.

The supposed justification, that these boats pose a “clear and present danger” to Americans, falls apart under scrutiny.

The Wall Street Journal reported a secret memo invokes an unsubstantiated “chemical weapons” threat to justify these strikes. Even if the report is correct, this is not a recognized basis under the Law of Armed Conflict, nor is it the kind of imminent threat required for a president to employ lethal force without congressional approval.

In addition, it appears to be lacking in factual basis, as government assessments have shown this is not a route for trafficking fentanyl.

Under the Law of Armed Conflict, deadly force is lawful only when an imminent armed threat exists. Drug traffickers, however violent or corrupt, are not conducting military attacks against the United States and are not interested in deliberately killing their “customers.” Under criminal law, force must be the minimum necessary to compel compliance, not missiles or munitions that leave no survivors.

To put it plainly: Calling drug smugglers “terrorists” or claiming without evidence that they are transporting chemical weapons does not create a state of armed conflict. It creates a constitutional problem.

'Narco-terrorist' labeling and acting without Congress is executive overreach

President Donald Trump’s unilateral decision to conduct lethal strikes outside a declared conflict raises profound constitutional questions. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress, not the chief executive, the power to declare war and authorize the use of military force.

Labeling narcotics traffickers as “narco-terrorists” and launching missile strikes without congressional authorization or judicial oversight stretches executive power beyond its legal bounds.

The Founding Fathers understood the dangers of allowing a president to wage undeclared wars. So did the framers of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires that military action be tied to either congressional notification/approval or legitimate acts of national self-defense. Neither applies here.

And now the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group has entered the Caribbean Sea – a breathtaking escalation for an operation the White House still insists is merely law enforcement. Carrier groups are sent to deter hostile states or prepare for war. To deploy one without congressional authorization pushes the United States closer to an undeclared conflict with no debate and no plan.

This is especially true with regard to Venezuela, which, at best, plays a minor role in the cocaine trade.

This is not a partisan debate; it is a constitutional one. The rule of law, not political convenience, must govern how America wields lethal force.

The law of unintended consequences applies here

Operationally, these strikes make America less safe. By destroying the vessels and everyone aboard, we eliminate not only the evidence of what those boats were actually doing, but also the intelligence that could be gathered from arrests and interrogations. In doing so, we lose legitimacy – the very currency that sustains international cooperation.

For decades, U.S. counternarcotics operations in the Caribbean have relied on allied intelligence and collaboration. The United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, Colombia and others have operated alongside American forces under clear legal frameworks that respect sovereignty and the rule of law.

When our actions appear unlawful or indiscriminate, that trust erodes. If Britain no longer believes that our operations meet international legal standards, others will not be far behind – and the United States will be left chasing shadows without allies or credibility.

Worse yet, autocratic regimes will see this as an invitation to stretch the bounds of international law even further in order to strike at their perceived enemies.

Fentanyl isn't coming from Venezuela

Trump's administration argues that these strikes will save lives by cutting off the flow of drugs killing Americans. The data presents another story.

Nearly 70% of overdose deaths involve fentanyl, not cocaine. And fentanyl isn’t coming from Venezuela or small “go-fast” boats. It’s coming from Asia, through Mexico, by land.

Killing alleged traffickers in the Caribbean will not stop overdoses in Ohio, but it will erode the moral credibility that has long defined the United States as both powerful and principled.

We also must not ignore the impact on our service members. They perform best when the mission is clear and lawful. When the legal justifications for lethal campaigns, especially when the targets are unarmed, are cloudy at best, constantly shifting and widely decried, we dishonor our men and women in uniform.

Justice is not achieved through explosions. It’s achieved through evidence, law and accountability. We can be tough on traffickers without becoming what we claim to oppose.

When America trades the rule of law for the illusion of strength, it doesn’t just sink boats. It sinks its own legitimacy.