Sponsor Advertisement
U.S. Declares "Non-International Armed Conflict" with Drug Cartels

BREAKING: U.S. Declares "Non-International Armed Conflict" with Drug Cartels

President Trump has informed Congress that the U.S. is in a non-international armed conflict with drug cartels, following military strikes on smuggling vessels. This declaration aims to leverage wartime powers, framing cartel members as terrorist-linked and "unlawful combatants."

In a significant escalation of the United States' war on drugs, President Donald Trump has formally notified Congress that the nation is now engaged in a "non-international armed conflict" with international drug cartels. This announcement follows a series of targeted military actions against drug-smuggling operations in the Caribbean, which the administration has identified as being conducted by terrorist-affiliated organizations.

The declaration, which was made through a confidential memo to lawmakers on Thursday, seeks to establish a robust legal foundation for the use of military force against the cartels. By invoking international law, the administration claims the right to expanded wartime powers, including the targeting of cartel operatives as "unlawful combatants" who may be targeted even when not posing an immediate threat and detained indefinitely without trial if captured.

This shift in strategy was unveiled after the Pentagon briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee behind closed doors on Wednesday. During this session, officials presented the legal justification for the recent strikes and fielded questions from lawmakers regarding the legality and scope of the military's actions.

The Trump administration's approach draws on terminology from international law, specifically the concept of a "non-international armed conflict," a category traditionally applied to insurgencies or civil conflicts rather than engagements with sovereign nations. The memo from President Trump underscores the growing sophistication and militarization of the drug cartels, stating that they "operate with impunity" and have "the financial means, sophistication, and paramilitary capabilities needed."

However, this new stance has not been without controversy. Democratic members of Congress have raised concerns that the military strikes may contravene the War Powers Act, which mandates that any military action not expressly authorized by Congress must be limited or ceased. Historically, presidents from both parties have found ways to work around the Act, as seen in Obama's airstrikes in Libya in 2011 and Clinton's direction of NATO's Kosovo campaign in 1999.

The administration's designation of cartels as terrorist organizations and the subsequent military actions have sparked debate over the extent of Congress's role in authorizing such measures. During Wednesday's classified briefing, some senators were left unsatisfied with the lack of clarity regarding the specific terrorist groups considered central to the conflict, as Pentagon officials could not provide a definitive list.

The administration has framed the strikes as acts of "self-defense," claiming that the laws of war authorize the United States to eliminate traffickers associated with cartels classified as terrorist groups. This interpretation of "non-international armed conflict" has evolved since its original application to civil wars and has been broadened post-9/11 when President George W. Bush declared war on al-Qaeda.

The legal underpinnings of this doctrine were challenged when applied to al-Qaeda, with some scholars arguing that the group was more of a criminal organization than a military adversary. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the conflict with al-Qaeda did constitute a war, thus permitting the indefinite detention of its operatives.

In the context of Trump's memo, the legal rationale for defining narcotics trafficking as a use of force under international law remains to be fully articulated. Nevertheless, the document posits that the cartels are directly responsible for tens of thousands of American deaths each year due to illegal drug trafficking.

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly has defended the president's actions, stating, "The President acted in line with the law of armed conflict to protect our country from those trying to bring deadly poison to our shores, and he is delivering on his promise to take on the cartels and eliminate these national security threats from murdering more Americans."

The first operation under this new campaign took place on September 2, when U.S. forces attacked a drug-smuggling speedboat linked to Venezuela's Tren de Aragua gang, previously designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. The strike resulted in 11 fatalities.

Advertisement

The Flipside: Different Perspectives

Progressive View

While the threat posed by drug cartels is undeniable, the Trump administration's declaration of a "non-international armed conflict" raises serious concerns about the erosion of congressional oversight and the potential for unchecked executive power. The War Powers Act exists to ensure that military action is subject to democratic scrutiny, and bypassing this process sets a dangerous precedent.

The administration's labeling of cartel members as "unlawful combatants" and the subsequent military strikes without clear congressional authorization represent a troubling expansion of wartime powers. This move risks further militarizing America's approach to drug trafficking, a complex issue that also requires attention to public health, addiction treatment, and international cooperation.

The use of military force against cartels should not be taken lightly, as it can have far-reaching implications for civil liberties and international relations. The lack of transparency regarding the specific terrorist organizations targeted and the legal rationale for these strikes is concerning. It is imperative that the administration provide clarity and engage with Congress to ensure that any actions taken are within the bounds of U.S. and international law.

Furthermore, historical instances of presidents circumventing the War Powers Act do not justify its continued disregard. Each instance should be examined critically, and the act's principles should be upheld to maintain the balance of power and prevent the executive branch from overreaching.

In conclusion, the progressive viewpoint emphasizes the need for a comprehensive and measured approach to

Conservative View

The Trump administration's decisive action against international drug cartels is a necessary response to the escalating threat these organizations pose to national security. The president's memo rightly identifies these groups as unlawful combatants, reflecting the harsh reality that cartels have evolved into paramilitary forces. By leveraging wartime powers, the administration is taking a firm stance to safeguard American lives and uphold sovereignty.

Historically, the War Powers Act has been a point of contention, yet it is clear that past administrations have also taken necessary steps to protect the nation without explicit congressional authorization. The president's decision to target these cartels is in line with actions taken by predecessors from both parties who have faced similar threats to national security.

Critics of this approach often fail to recognize the gravity of the situation. The cartels' increasingly militarized operations, evident in their sophisticated weaponry and vast financial resources, necessitate a response that goes beyond traditional law enforcement tactics. It is a matter of defending the country's borders and citizens from what is unequivocally an armed attack by non-state actors.

Moreover, the administration is not without legal precedent. The Supreme Court's ruling on the conflict with al-Qaeda set a clear example that non-state actors posing a significant threat to the United States can be treated as wartime adversaries. Therefore, the president's assertion that the cartels' actions constitute an armed attack against the United States is a legitimate interpretation of international law.

In conclusion, the administration's stance is a justified and pragmatic response to a dire security challenge. The president's actions are rooted in a strong legal framework that prioritizes the safety of American citizens and the integrity of the nation's borders.

Common Ground

Areas of agreement between perspectives.