Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth approved a missile strike on a Venezuelan vessel suspected of carrying ‘narco-terrorists’ and a large supply of narcotics on Sept. 2. Alarming footage of the boat strike sparked outrage from members of Congress and the public alike, with concerns rising as strikes have increased in recent months.
With new information that Hegseth approved a second strike intended to kill survivors of the initial Sept. 2 attack, members of Congress have begun to call for a hearing on the boat strikes. If these actions by the administration and the military are proven to be true, this behavior stands in direct opposition to the internationally recognized laws of armed conflict and signals a disturbing future for U.S. military operations and foreign relations.
Operations conducted to intercept drug trafficking into the U.S. are typically handled by the U.S. Coast Guard and Drug Enforcement Agency, while the boat strike on Sept. 2 was carried out by SEAL Team 6, a departure from the norm that raises questions and concerns. Concrete information on the status of the people on board the ship, and any credible footage of the strike, has yet to be released by The Pentagon or the president, instead using the blanket term ‘designated terrorist organization’ to legitimize the strikes.
If the ship contained innocent civilians, and if the second strike designated to kill survivors truly occurred, these actions would be in violation of international humanitarian law and should serve as a warning for the future of foreign policy throughout the remainder of President Trump’s term.
According to the United Nations’ High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, “the intentional use of lethal force is only permissible as a last resort against individuals who pose an imminent threat to life,” but based on what little information the administration and The Pentagon have provided, these actions cannot be justified. This marked a change in military operations, along with the withholding of information and undoctored footage by the administration, leaving the future of the U.S. military’s adherence to the provisions of the laws of armed conflict uncertain.
As the White House remains confident in the legality and necessity of these strikes to ensure national security, a further investigation into the strictures of international human rights is required. According to military lawyers and leading Democrats, “there is no U.S. law that explicitly authorizes the U.S. Navy to attack or sink ships at sea outside of a congressionally authorized war or valid self-defense situation.”
This overstep of sovereignty and legal military intervention by the Trump administration should come as disturbing, as Trump’s consolidation of power in the executive has now allowed for the breaching of U.S. domestic law and internationally recognized human rights.
As a founding member of the UN and co-creator of the laws of armed conflict as we now understand them, the United States should serve as the vanguard for global adherence to international humanitarian law, not as criminals. As Congress seeks transparency on the events that occurred during the Venezuelan boat strikes, they should work to redress any violations of human rights and reorient the laws of armed conflict as the central foundations upon which all U.S. military action should be based. If the current administration’s clouded perception of legality regarding the laws of armed conflict continues, irrevocable damage may be done across the international community.
