Latest News

Was the US attack on a Venezuelan vessel, which resulted in the death of a man, legal?

On Tuesday, the U.S. Military killed 11 people on a vessel that was in the Caribbean. President Donald Trump claimed that the vessel carried illegal drugs and belonged to the drug cartel that he had designated as a terrorist group responsible for killings in the United States.

Here is an overview of the legal basis for the attack.

PRESIDENTIAL POWER OF USE OF MILITARY

According to the Constitution, Congress has the power to declare a war, but it is the president who is in charge of the armed services. Presidents from both parties have carried out military operations overseas without the approval of Congress.

According to a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel that provides advice to Presidents, presidents have justified limited military force when it was in national interest and wasn't restricted or war-like.

WHERE THE ATTACK PERMITTED BY US LAW

Presidents generally order attacks against enemy combatants or terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, or militants like the Houthis, who attacked U.S. ships in Yemen.

The use of military forces in Tuesday's assault is a first. Trump claimed in a post on social media that the boat was carrying illegal drugs, and it would be the U.S. Coast Guard's responsibility to intercept them. Legal experts say that if the Coast Guard was fired on when they tried to stop the boat, then the Coast Guard would have been justified in defending itself.

Trump however posted on social media a video that appeared to show an air strike destroying a boat speeding by. The administration failed to provide any proof that the United States were under imminent attack, or that the vessel was armed. They also did not identify the targets of the terror attack on the boat, as previous presidents did in similar attacks. Trump's claim that the Tren de Aragua cartel was operating the boat does not mean the drug cartel is at war with America in the same manner as other terror organizations, such as al Qaeda.

Legal experts say that many people will see the attack as extrajudicial murder because the victims on the boat are civilians.

What about international law?

In order to achieve international peace and stability, the Charter of the United Nations requires that members refrain from using or threatening force against other nations. The charter recognizes that member states have a right to self-defense. Trump claimed that Tren de Aragua, which is under Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's control, was controlled by the United States.

Legal experts say that this does not meet international law, as there is no evidence of an imminent attack by Tren de Aragua or of past attacks. Venezuelan officials also denied that the group was active in Venezuela. International law is still a subject of debate for legal experts, who said that the right to self-defense in relation to non-state actors was a controversial issue.

Officials in the Trump administration said that the vessel was located in international waters. However, if the vessel had been flagged by a country then the attack would have occurred within its territory. This would be a major escalation. Officials from the administration have not confirmed if this vessel is flagged.

Who can challenge the legality of an attack?

Some opponents may not challenge the attack, given that Venezuela's government and Tren de aragua have been declared international pariahs. Pentagon officials said that this could change if there are more attacks.

Members of Congress criticized the attack, and lawmakers placed limits on the use of force by the president. In recent decades, Congress has ceded its war-making powers to the president.

The legal challenges to the authority of the president to execute the strike in the U.S. courts will probably face high hurdles. U.S. court generally defers to the president in matters of foreign affairs and security.

Families of victims could bring civil lawsuits in the United States for damages, but it would take years and be very expensive. Legally, such attacks carry the risk that the government will kill an American. Anwar al Awlaki was a U.S. born al Qaeda militant. The Obama administration claimed it had the right to kill him because he posed a continuing imminent threat. U.S. lawsuits were filed after the deadly drone strike. The attack can be challenged before an international tribunal such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. This has led some countries to acknowledge past abuses, even though the United States was not a member of the court.

Legal experts say that while the attack may not result in successful legal challenges, Washington's international relations could be soured and it would become more difficult to work with other countries to implement drug and immigration policies.

(source: Reuters)