The US military strike on a suspected Venezuelan drug vessel raises legal questions - Poynter
Briefly

The US military strike on a suspected Venezuelan drug vessel raises legal questions - Poynter
"A U.S. military attack against what officials called a drug-carrying boat from Venezuela is raising questions about the strike's legality. On Sept. 2, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. military had struck the vessel in the southern Caribbean, killing 11 people on board. Moments later, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on X that the boat had come from Venezuela and was being operated by a "designated narco-terrorist organization.""
"Trump later posted on Truth Social what he said was video footage of the strike, saying the boat had been heading to the U.S. and the people on board were members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang that the Trump administration has designated a foreign terrorist organization. (Venezuela counter-argued that the footage was made with artificial intelligence.) The Trump administration has also alleged that Tren de Aragua is under the control of Venezuela's president, Nicolas Maduro."
"Some legal experts said the attack was illegal under maritime law or human rights conventions; others said it contradicted longstanding U.S. military practices. When asked by a reporter Sept. 4 what legal authority the Pentagon had invoked to strike the boat, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said, "We have the absolute and complete authority to conduct that." He did not detail the legal authority used; he said it was done in defense of Americans at risk of being killed by drugs trafficked into the country."
A U.S. military strike on Sept. 2 struck a vessel in the southern Caribbean, killing 11 people. Officials said the boat came from Venezuela and was operated by members of Tren de Aragua, which the U.S. designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The Trump administration released footage it said showed the strike; Venezuela countered that the footage was produced with artificial intelligence. Legal experts raised concerns about maritime law, human rights conventions and established U.S. military practice. Pentagon leadership asserted broad authority for the action and described it as defense of Americans and U.S. national interests.
Read at Poynter
Unable to calculate read time
[
|
]