US Military Strikes in Venezuela Raise Questions About War Crimes Allegations
The Trump administration's military strikes against suspected drug smugglers in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific have sparked intense scrutiny over allegations of war crimes. The latest revelations, including a second strike that killed two survivors, have raised questions about the legality of the US military operations.
Critics argue that the strikes were not authorized by Congress, as required under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which limits the president's ability to wage war without congressional approval. The administration claims that the strikes are part of a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels, but experts say this designation is flawed.
"The claim of a non-international armed conflict is a stretch," says Michael Schmitt, a law professor at the University of Miami. "The US is not in an armed conflict with these groups because they do not have a military hierarchy or capacity to engage in combat operations."
Designating drug cartels as terrorist organizations does not grant the administration authority to use military force in the same way it would be exercised against countries or organized armed groups, according to experts.
"There's nothing magic about calling something a terrorist organization that then gives the president the authority to respond militarily," says Victor Hansen, a former military prosecutor and law professor at New England Law Boston. "If we're not in an armed conflict to begin with, then the whole paradigm, the legal paradigm of the laws that govern an armed conflict, don't apply."
The second strike on October 16, which killed two survivors, has sparked debate about whether it constitutes a war crime. Some lawmakers and military experts say that if the reporting is accurate, this action does indeed violate international law.
"It's hard to find words to describe the horror of what happened," says Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. "I think there's a broad consensus that it's illegal to kill people who are clinging to wreckage."
The Trump administration's characterization of the strikes as an "armed conflict" imposes additional duties and responsibilities on how the strikes are carried out, according to Hansen.
"The president, he wants it both ways," says Hansen. "He wants to call it an armed conflict, but then he doesn't even want to follow the rules of the armed conflict."
As the US military continues its operations in the region, critics are pressing for more transparency and accountability. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has called the second strike a war crime.
"The basic rules of war that are involved here make very clear that you do not strike wounded people in the water in order to kill them," Panetta said. "You basically then are responsible to try to make sure you do everything to try to protect their lives at that point."
The US Southern Command announced another strike on Thursday, killing four in the Eastern Pacific.
The Trump administration's military strikes against suspected drug smugglers in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific have sparked intense scrutiny over allegations of war crimes. The latest revelations, including a second strike that killed two survivors, have raised questions about the legality of the US military operations.
Critics argue that the strikes were not authorized by Congress, as required under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which limits the president's ability to wage war without congressional approval. The administration claims that the strikes are part of a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels, but experts say this designation is flawed.
"The claim of a non-international armed conflict is a stretch," says Michael Schmitt, a law professor at the University of Miami. "The US is not in an armed conflict with these groups because they do not have a military hierarchy or capacity to engage in combat operations."
Designating drug cartels as terrorist organizations does not grant the administration authority to use military force in the same way it would be exercised against countries or organized armed groups, according to experts.
"There's nothing magic about calling something a terrorist organization that then gives the president the authority to respond militarily," says Victor Hansen, a former military prosecutor and law professor at New England Law Boston. "If we're not in an armed conflict to begin with, then the whole paradigm, the legal paradigm of the laws that govern an armed conflict, don't apply."
The second strike on October 16, which killed two survivors, has sparked debate about whether it constitutes a war crime. Some lawmakers and military experts say that if the reporting is accurate, this action does indeed violate international law.
"It's hard to find words to describe the horror of what happened," says Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. "I think there's a broad consensus that it's illegal to kill people who are clinging to wreckage."
The Trump administration's characterization of the strikes as an "armed conflict" imposes additional duties and responsibilities on how the strikes are carried out, according to Hansen.
"The president, he wants it both ways," says Hansen. "He wants to call it an armed conflict, but then he doesn't even want to follow the rules of the armed conflict."
As the US military continues its operations in the region, critics are pressing for more transparency and accountability. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has called the second strike a war crime.
"The basic rules of war that are involved here make very clear that you do not strike wounded people in the water in order to kill them," Panetta said. "You basically then are responsible to try to make sure you do everything to try to protect their lives at that point."
The US Southern Command announced another strike on Thursday, killing four in the Eastern Pacific.
i just read this news and im all like yeah us military strikes are bad and should be held accountable but then again what if these ppl were really smuggling dope and posing a threat to amerika? like is it even fair to assume theyre innocent? 
. Like, what's going on here? These allegations of war crimes are not just some baseless claims, they're backed up by reports from survivors and experts who know what they're talking about. The fact that the administration is trying to justify these strikes as part of a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels is just laughable 
.
.
. We can't just sit back and let them sweep this under the rug. It's time for us to hold our leaders accountable and make sure that they're not perpetuating war crimes in the name of "security".
I mean, can you imagine if it was your family member or friend who got caught in the crossfire? It would be a total nightmare 
Those experts say it's a stretch and that the US isn't even in an armed conflict with these groups 
It's time for them to take responsibility for their actions and make sure we're not violating human rights or international law 
. it's like, if you call something a terrorist organization, does that automatically grant you military power? 
. I mean, how can you just call it an "armed conflict" when they're not even fighting like a country or something? 
It's like the US military is trying to justify what they did by saying they're not in a war, but really they are kinda sorta in a war with these cartels 
. Can't the US just follow some basic rules of war? 
And if it's not an actual war, why are they getting to decide who lives or dies without having to follow some rules?
i'm so frustrated for the people of venezuela and the entire region who are getting caught in the middle of this mess