Can a president order a military strike on a boat allegedly carrying drugs? What power does he have, and how does US law square with international rules? These are questions swirling after US President Donald Trump ordered a military strike on a vessel in the Caribbean on Tuesday, killing 11 people.
The US president while announcing the destruction of the boat, said that it belonged to the Tren de Aragua cartel , which he has branded a terrorist organisation, and was carrying narcotics destined for the US.
Unlike past American strikes ordered by previous presidents, this case raises thorny questions over presidential power, legality and international norms.
Presidential power to use force
According to a report from Reuters, the US Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but it makes the president commander-in-chief. In past, presidents of both parties have leaned on that role to order limited strikes overseas without formal approval from Congress.
However, the Office of Legal Counsel, according to Reuters, has argued that such unilateral action is legal if it serves the national interest and isn't explicitly barred by Congress. Also, if it doesn't rise to a level of full-scale war. And, this is how the past presidents have justified their order of strikes against several terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, ISIS, or Houthis militants.
Why is this case different?
Coast Guard, under civilian law enforcement powers, is responsible for drug interdiction, and the Venezuelan boat wasn't shown attacking US ships or personnel. If Coast Guard officers had been shot from the Venezuelan boat during efforts to stop it, they could have used lethal force in self-defence.
Trump, here, released a video footage that showed military airstrikes obliterating the speeding vessel. What is noteworthy is that his own administration offered no evidence of an imminent threat, no claim that the boat was armed. It also didn't provide identification of a high-value terror target onboard.
According to Reuters, Legal experts argue that this shifts the strike into far murkier territory, closer to an extrajudicial killing than a defensive act.
What about international law?
The UN Charter says that member states must avoid using force against others, except in self-defence. To counter this, Trump may contend that the attack was an act of "anticipatory self-defence," as he tied Tren de Aragia to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
But this will look weak under international law, if Trump fails to provide of an imminent threat or past attacks on the US.
Now, what adds to the complexity is: if the destroyed boat carried a national flag, the strike could legally be considered an attack on that country's territory — a major escalation. The administration hasn't said whether the vessel was flagged.
The US president while announcing the destruction of the boat, said that it belonged to the Tren de Aragua cartel , which he has branded a terrorist organisation, and was carrying narcotics destined for the US.
Unlike past American strikes ordered by previous presidents, this case raises thorny questions over presidential power, legality and international norms.
Presidential power to use force
According to a report from Reuters, the US Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but it makes the president commander-in-chief. In past, presidents of both parties have leaned on that role to order limited strikes overseas without formal approval from Congress.
However, the Office of Legal Counsel, according to Reuters, has argued that such unilateral action is legal if it serves the national interest and isn't explicitly barred by Congress. Also, if it doesn't rise to a level of full-scale war. And, this is how the past presidents have justified their order of strikes against several terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, ISIS, or Houthis militants.
Why is this case different?
Coast Guard, under civilian law enforcement powers, is responsible for drug interdiction, and the Venezuelan boat wasn't shown attacking US ships or personnel. If Coast Guard officers had been shot from the Venezuelan boat during efforts to stop it, they could have used lethal force in self-defence.
Trump, here, released a video footage that showed military airstrikes obliterating the speeding vessel. What is noteworthy is that his own administration offered no evidence of an imminent threat, no claim that the boat was armed. It also didn't provide identification of a high-value terror target onboard.
According to Reuters, Legal experts argue that this shifts the strike into far murkier territory, closer to an extrajudicial killing than a defensive act.
What about international law?
The UN Charter says that member states must avoid using force against others, except in self-defence. To counter this, Trump may contend that the attack was an act of "anticipatory self-defence," as he tied Tren de Aragia to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
But this will look weak under international law, if Trump fails to provide of an imminent threat or past attacks on the US.
Now, what adds to the complexity is: if the destroyed boat carried a national flag, the strike could legally be considered an attack on that country's territory — a major escalation. The administration hasn't said whether the vessel was flagged.
You may also like
Girish Mathrubootham steps down as executive chairman of Freshworks; to focus on his VC firm Together Fund
Lando Norris made thoughts clear on new team-mate replacing Oscar Piastri at Italian GP
The terrifying truth about Rachel Reeves and why Starmer is too scared to sack her
Arsenal allowed £47m of talent leave for just £260k on transfer deadline day
US detains some 450 workers in Hyundai-LG battery plant site raid in Georgia
