Background on the Strikes
The article examines the Trump administration’s decision to carry out military strikes against boats off Venezuela’s coast, which it claimed were tied to narcotics trafficking. Officials justified the attacks by labeling the targets as “unlawful combatants” in a self-declared “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels.

Legal and Ethical Concerns
Critics argue that the administration overstepped its authority and acted without clear legal justification. They point out that the U.S. provided little to no evidence proving the targeted boats were involved in drug trafficking. Legal experts warn that using wartime powers in this context stretches international and constitutional limits, potentially setting a dangerous precedent for future military actions.

Impact on U.S. Foreign Relations
Beyond the legal debate, the strikes risk worsening tensions between the United States and Latin American nations. Observers note that militarizing anti-drug operations could undermine regional stability and strain diplomatic relations, especially with Venezuela and its neighbors.

Calls for Oversight and Accountability
David Helvarg concludes with calls for greater transparency and congressional oversight of such military actions. Critics insist that any use of force outside declared war zones must be scrutinized to ensure it aligns with both U.S. law and international norms.

Read the full article on The Hill.