"The legal analysis rests on a premise for which there is no immediate public evidence that the cartels are waging armed violence against the security forces of allies like Mexico, and that the violence is financed by cocaine shipments. As a result, according to the legal analysis, the strikes are targeting the cocaine, and the deaths of anyone on board should be treated as an enemy casualty or collateral damage if any civilians are killed, rather than murder."
"That line of reasoning, which forms the backbone of a classified justice department office of legal counsel (OLC) opinion, provides the clearest explanation to date how the US satisfied the conditions to use lethal force. But it marks a sharp departure from Donald Trump's narrative to the public every time he has discussed the 21 strikes that have killed more than 80 people, which he has portrayed as an effort to stop overdose deaths."
The Trump administration has framed its Caribbean boat strikes against drug cartels as collective self-defense on behalf of regional allies, asserting cartels wage armed violence financed by cocaine shipments. A classified Office of Legal Counsel opinion argues the strikes target the cocaine, so fatalities aboard should be treated as enemy casualties or collateral damage rather than murder. That legal rationale differs from public presidential statements portraying the strikes as aimed at preventing overdose deaths. The Justice Department asserted the operations were ordered consistent with the law of armed conflict. The premise lacks immediate public evidence and represents a significant shift in justification.
#collective-self-defense #drug-cartels #office-of-legal-counsel #use-of-lethal-force #caribbean-operations
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]