President Donald Trump's airstrikes against civilian boats in international waters are raising the alarm of lawyers who work within the Department of Defense.
According to the Wall Street Journal, "The concerns are around the justification for the strikes themselves, as well as the legal implications for the U.S. military personnel involved in the operations, the people said. Some defense officials and career military lawyers have provided written and verbal legal opinions to decision makers inside the Pentagon, but believe they are being ignored or deliberately sidelined, according to one of the people."
So far, the administration has publicly revealed two such airstrikes on ships near Venezuela, killing several people on board both.
Trump, along with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have claimed that the ships in question were being operated by drug cartels trafficking illegal narcotics to the United States, and posed an imminent national security threat that required military action. But there is little to no legal precedent under international law for treating such a vessel as a military target.
"Inside the Defense Department, some officials have concerns about the decision to jump straight to the use of lethal force, without prior warning, when the standard rules of engagement for dealing with cartels has been to interdict them," noted the report. "It is one thing to use lethal force against terror groups in the Middle East, where the military has relied on congressionally approved authorization for using force, but a different situation entirely when dealing with Latin American based cartel members, one person said."
Even some Republican lawmakers are opposed to this, with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) questioning, “How do we know it was coming to the U.S.? Are we going to blow up every boat? It is just insane.”
And even John Yoo, the former George W. Bush administration legal official who provided the justification for the now-discredited torture program at Guantanamo Bay, said of the strikes, “There has to be a line between crime and war. We can’t just consider anything that harms the country to be a matter for the military. Because that could potentially include every crime.”
All of this comes as Trump looks to expand the use of the military for his political goals, including deploying it to major U.S. cities that oppose his immigration agenda.