Democrats Question Legality of Boat Attacks in South America

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are raising concerns about the legal basis for a series of boat attacks in South American waters, suggesting these actions may violate several laws, including those prohibiting assassinations.

In a letter spearheaded by Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vermont), it’s highlighted that the Trump administration is leaning on a legal review from the Justice Department. This review hasn’t been fully disclosed to the public, although some media have noted its existence.

The White House argues that airstrikes beyond U.S. waters are necessary to stop drugs from entering the country. However, President Trump admitted that one such strike resulted in the death of a “lifelong fisherman,” leading to murder charges from Colombian President Gustavo Petro. So far, 57 fatalities have been reported.

The lawmakers pointed out, “According to this opinion, the president can label someone a criminal or associate them with criminal activities, thereby granting himself the role of judge, jury, and executioner based solely on that claim.”

While acknowledging the dire consequences of drug trafficking for American families, they stressed that the President’s actions toward suspected traffickers must still align with the law.

These lawmakers argue that the attacks breach various laws, including military law. One statute categorizes murder within the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States” as a felony, a definition the lawmakers suggest includes the high seas. They also claim the strikes violate a Reagan-era executive order against assassination by U.S. personnel.

The U.S. Military Justice Act (UCMJ) also prohibits unlawful killings, but it creates a dilemma for service members who may face criminal charges either for following potentially unlawful orders to kill or for disobeying their superiors, as noted by the lawmakers.

The letter urges Attorney General Pam Bondi to provide a comprehensive explanation of the legal review surrounding these operations and what measures the Department of Justice has taken to ensure compliance with the law.

While the Justice Department acknowledged receipt of the letter, it offered little insight into the legal implications of the attacks.

Officials maintained, “These operations were conducted in accordance with the laws of armed conflict.”

Democratic legislators contended that the attacks not only overstepped U.S. law but could also infringe upon the Geneva Conventions, potentially qualifying as a war crime due to the prohibition against unnecessary force.

The lawmakers remarked, “Based on the administration’s own words and public reports, alternatives such as arrest or interdiction seem to have been viable if a real threat existed.”

Some Republicans have also critiqued the Trump administration’s decision not to interdict the ships. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) pointed out that the U.S. Coast Guard often fails to uncover drugs during ship inspections.

“You can’t simply adopt a strategy of exploding ships without even knowing who’s aboard,” Paul stated during a recent TV appearance.