The U.S. military’s recent action against 11 alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers has sparked significant debate regarding the legality and ethical implications of using military force in law enforcement situations. Then-President Donald Trump personally ordered the operation to occur in international waters in the Caribbean Sea. The suspects were on a boat at the time.
Following Trump’s orders, the military wiped out the organization, which Trump had called “terrorists.” Unlike the incident discussed above, this action was taken during Trump’s administration. It calls into question the appropriateness of such military action within a dynamic that is typically managed by law enforcement agencies. Opponents maintain that the operation exceeds the war powers by illegal use. They want it treated as a domestic law enforcement problem, the usual response to that.
Earlier this year, Senator Marco Rubio cautioned against allowing military strikes like this one to become a new, stable strategy. He ominously concluded, “This is going to be repeated.” That statement should sound familiar if you have been paying attention to similar events in other countries. A salient example is the hardline, anti-drug warfare approach of Rodrigo Duterte, former President of the Philippines. Duterte’s response, a “war on drugs,” was to treat the drug problem as an armed conflict. The resulting war on drugs has resulted in the extrajudicial killings of at least 30,000 individuals — predominantly from poor neighborhoods. The International Criminal Court has filed charges against Duterte for his actions. He is currently in detention in The Hague, pending his trial.
The U.S. military’s operation against the alleged traffickers raises legal concerns, particularly since there was no evidence indicating that the suspects were engaging in combat or firing at U.S. forces at the time of the incident. Critics such as Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, have labeled the military’s actions as a misapplied use of war rules. Roth continued, underlining the dangers of mixing military operations with law enforcement.
Senator Lindsey Graham’s initial response was bold as well. He went on to tweet, “I hope America’s adversaries are watching & now understand there’s a new sheriff in town.” Among them, many U.S. officials have been pushing for a stronger approach to counter foreign threats. This clarification is telling of their surging I-told-you-so-ness.
Secret Trump Decree • The military was never acting without authorization. This declaration authorized the Pentagon to conduct combat operations against named Latin American drug trafficking organizations. This decree designated certain cartels as terrorist groups. Consequently, it legitimized the use of military force in circumstances that would traditionally fall under domestic law enforcement.
As conversations about this event still rage on, it is important to focus on the global perspective that the event is a part of. The deployment of military force in this context runs afoul of existing legal frameworks. It further establishes a dangerous precedent for future action. The integration of military operations and law enforcement duties will have devastating repercussions at home and abroad.