A few weeks ago, your humble columnist took issue with the Trump administration’s legal rationale for the ongoing U.S. military campaign against drug traffickers in the southern Caribbean. At that time, there was very little information to go on. President Donald Trump and his advisers generally kept their constitutional arguments close to the chest; when members of Congress asked for more information, the White House either demurred or delivered some generic case about why the president has the unilateral power to wage war against the cartels and anyone associated with them.
However, since that time, the Trump administration has gotten a bit more specific with their legal case. This comes as the U.S. military continues to strike boats allegedly transporting drugs in the Caribbean and the east Pacific Ocean. At the time of writing, 15 U.S. strikes have destroyed 16 vessels and killed 64 people. Some administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have gone beyond the drug issue to focus on ousting Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, a man the White House depicts as so brutal, corrupt and threatening to U.S. interests in the Western Hemisphere that he must be deposed.
The good news is that lawmakers responsible for overseeing the various U.S. national security agencies are finally starting to get the details they’ve demanded. The bad news is that the Trump administration’s legal justification for the military campaign off the coasts of Venezuela and Colombia is shoddy at best and embarrassingly myopic at worst.
Author
