Last week, the Trump Administration destroyed a Venezuelan boat carrying 11 people it said were members of the Tren de Aragua gang allegedly carrying drugs. The identifications of those killed, the contents of the boat, the actual destination of the boat, and the intel the administration says they had are all still unreported. The boat was reportedly 39 feet long and in cpInternational waters. Congress was not informed ahead of the attack.
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Az.), a Navy veteran, told Axios last week that service members shouldn’t be put in a situation where they are “doing things that are outside of legal boundaries.”
Per Politico:
Many in Washington question the attack’s legality. They are looking for answers as to why the administration elected to fire on the cartel, rather than rounding them up, and some are wary the strike could expand the president’s authority to call upon his war powers. There have also been questions about details of the attack and desire for proof that the boat itself was actually what the administration says it was.
CNN:
International law prohibits the deliberate killing of civilians, even in the context of an armed conflict. Domestic law, meanwhile, prohibits unilateral and premeditated killings of non-military targets.
From Axios:
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” that the move was a “massive expansion of presidential authority against the rules that abide by the use of military force.” He described Trump’s expansions of executive power as “very authoritarian.”
And Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), an Iraq War veteran, argued the military action was “illegal” and that the strike in international waters “opens Americans to a similar action by our adversaries.”
Zoom out: The strike on the vessel that officials said hailed from Venezuela was a major escalation in the president’s brewing feud with the country and its president, Nicolás Maduro, who the administration has labeled a leader of a drug-trafficking terrorist cartel.
While the operation is targeting drug trafficking, potential regime change would be a likely welcome side effect, Axios’ Marc Caputo reported.
What we’re watching: But as the administration touts its military crackdown on drugs, lawmakers are seeking more information about the legal basis for its mission.