U.S. Military Strikes Boat in Controversial Drug Operation

The U.S. military engaged in a controversial operation, opening fire on two individuals clinging to the wreckage of a boat allegedly involved in drug trafficking. This incident, which occurred on September 2, 2023, has drawn significant attention from congressional lawmakers who are demanding further investigation into the legal justifications behind the military’s actions in international waters near Venezuela.

Lawmakers from national security committees were briefed this week by Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley, who confirmed that the military had targeted the boat, which was believed to be carrying cocaine. The attack marked the first instance of the U.S. military destroying vessels linked to drug trafficking, a campaign that has reportedly resulted in the destruction of more than 20 boats and the deaths of over 80 individuals.

During the briefing, Adm. Bradley indicated the rationale for the strikes, stating that the military aimed to ensure that the bales of cocaine on board could not be retrieved by cartel members. He described the scene as two shirtless individuals, at one point waving, floating on a piece of the wreckage until missiles struck, killing them. Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, expressed deep concern over the incident, emphasizing the implications for human rights and military engagement rules.

In contrast, Sen. Tom Cotton, the Republican chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, argued that the individuals’ actions constituted a continued threat, justifying the military’s response. The conflicting perspectives highlight the contentious nature of the operation and the varying interpretations of the engagement rules.

The legal framework supporting this military action has come under scrutiny. According to lawmakers, the Trump administration’s legal opinion categorizes drug trafficking as a terrorist threat, allowing military engagement under the same rules that govern counterterrorism operations. This marks a significant departure from the traditional view, which typically designates drug-related offenses as matters for law enforcement agencies such as the Coast Guard, rather than the military.

Democratic lawmakers have called for the public release of the approximately 40-page legal opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that underpins the military’s operations. Sen. Jack Reed voiced concerns about the implications of such broad definitions and the potential for misuse of military force.

This legal opinion, which was classified until recently, was signed on September 5, 2023, three days after the strikes. Lawmakers are particularly interested in understanding the orders and instructions that guided the operations. Adm. Bradley acknowledged that he had not read the entire legal opinion himself and that military lawyers were not fully briefed until mid-November.

The scrutiny of the operation extends beyond the legal framework; lawmakers are also questioning why Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was not present during the second strike and what specific instructions were communicated to military officials. The armed services committees are seeking the written execution order for the operation, which would clarify the rules of engagement.

As investigations continue, the U.S. military announced another strike on a vessel believed to be carrying drugs, resulting in the deaths of four individuals and bringing the total death toll to at least 87. The developments surrounding these military actions represent a significant moment for U.S. military operations under President Trump, as lawmakers press for accountability and clarity amidst growing concerns regarding compliance with international law and the protection of human rights.