Legal Dispute Over Military Strikes in Latin America
A top Justice Department lawyer has made a controversial statement regarding the Trump administration’s ongoing military strikes against alleged drug traffickers in Latin America. The lawyer, T. Elliot Gaiser, head of the Trump administration’s Office of Legal Counsel, told lawmakers that the administration is not bound by a decades-old law requiring congressional approval for ongoing hostilities. This claim has sparked significant debate and concern among legal experts and members of Congress.
The 1973 War Powers Resolution was enacted to prevent another prolonged, undeclared conflict like the Vietnam War. It mandates that the president seek congressional approval for sustained military action. However, the administration argues that the current operations do not meet the definition of “hostilities” under the law.
The 60-day clock for the resolution started ticking after the administration informed Congress on September 4 about a strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean. Since then, the administration has conducted multiple strikes, resulting in dozens of deaths. As the 60-day window closes, it remains unclear what the administration will do next.
Gaiser reportedly stated that the administration does not believe the strikes qualify as hostilities and has no intention of seeking an extension or congressional approval. A senior congressional aide expressed concerns, saying, “The administration appears to be blowing through the 60-day limit.”
The administration’s official response emphasized that the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the current situation because it involves “precise strikes” conducted by unmanned aerial vehicles from naval vessels in international waters. According to the official, these operations do not endanger U.S. personnel, thus falling outside the scope of the law.
National Security Experts Challenge the Administration's Interpretation
National security experts have raised questions about the administration’s interpretation of the War Powers Resolution. Brian Finucane, a former legal adviser to the State Department, criticized the administration’s stance, stating that it claims any use of drones or standoff weapons against non-combatants is not considered hostilities. He argued this is a dangerous expansion of executive authority.
Finucane noted that previous administrations, including those of Obama and Trump, have used creative interpretations of the law to avoid the 60-day deadline. However, he pointed out that these actions typically involved conflicts with armed groups, unlike the current situation in Latin America.
The administration’s notification to Congress on September 4 indicated that it believed the strike triggered the War Powers Resolution, requiring congressional approval to continue beyond 60 days. Despite this, there is no sign that the administration is curbing its operations. It has carried out over a dozen strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean, while deploying a significant number of military assets to the region.
Escalation of Military Presence and Potential Targets
The Navy has deployed eight warships in the Caribbean, including several destroyers and two amphibious ships. Additional military assets, such as submarines and special operations vessels, are also present in the region. Aircraft carriers and more destroyers are on their way, with helicopters and bombers frequently operating near Venezuela.
President Trump has suggested that the boat strikes could expand to include land targets, potentially hitting Venezuelan territory. However, when asked directly, he denied considering such actions.
This assertion aligns with Trump’s broader pattern of expanding executive power at the expense of other branches of government. A classified Office of Legal Counsel opinion argues that the strikes advance an important national interest and do not constitute war under the Constitution, thus not requiring congressional approval.
Political Reactions and Concerns
Political leaders have voiced strong concerns about the administration’s approach. Sen. Mark R. Warner (Virginia) criticized the exclusion of senior Democrats during briefings on potential actions against Venezuelan territory. He remarked, “In any normal administration, somebody would be fired for this kind of abuse.”
Sen. Roger Wicker (Mississippi) and his Democratic counterpart, Sen. Jack Reed (Rhode Island), joined in a bipartisan rebuke, highlighting the Pentagon’s failure to provide necessary legal documents and attack orders. House members were frustrated after a classified briefing where officials did not answer basic questions about the legal basis and intelligence supporting the attacks.
Lawmakers have expressed concerns about the targeting criteria used by the administration. Rear Adm. Brian Bennett dismissed the idea that the targeting resembled “signature strikes,” a practice previously used by the CIA. Rep. Sara Jacobs highlighted discrepancies between the administration’s claims about fentanyl and the actual drug trafficking dynamics in the region.
Rep. Seth Moulton warned the administration about the constitutional risks of its expansive use of military force, emphasizing the potential danger to troops and the nation’s democratic principles.
Post a Comment