Trump says that he has goals which most Americans agree with, such as reducing crime, curbing illegal immigration, and addressing drug use. However, there are those who doubt that Trump truly cares about these issues and believe he is using them as an excuse to increase his power. Assuming that Trump genuinely wants to tackle these problems, the issue is that he seems to believe the end justifies the means.
It is undisputed that America has spent years trying to address the plague of drug addiction in the country, with limited success. Over the years, there have been various approaches: from imposing harsh sentences on those who sell or possess narcotics, to shifting toward treatment programs when it became clear that imprisoning addicts was not solving the problem. One can debate which approach is most effective.
Last week, a boat left Venezuela, and the American government claimed it was carrying illegal drugs. Traditionally, the response would be to first determine whether the boat’s destination was the United States. If so, the Coast Guard or Navy would board the vessel, inspect its contents, and, if illegal contraband was found, arrest those onboard. The suspects would then be entitled to due process and a fair trial, with incarceration as the penalty if found guilty.
But that is not what happened this time. Instead, the Trump administration ordered a missile strike on the boat while it was in international waters, killing eleven individuals.
This approach is fraught with serious legal and practical problems.
I am not an expert in international law; however, many legal scholars have stated that there is no legal basis for this kind of action. If the same thing had happened on U.S. soil, it would have been unconstitutional, violating both the right to due process and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Furthermore, if this attack is considered an act of war, it is also unlawful, since only Congress has the authority to declare war.
Trump, in justifying the strike, said it should be viewed as a warning to others attempting to smuggle drugs into the United States. But if that logic is applied broadly, where does it stop? By that reasoning, you could justify killing people attempting to cross the border as a warning to others. You could justify executing anyone suspected of planning a crime to deter similar crimes. The bottom line is this: we cannot kill people without due process or inflict punishments wildly disproportionate to the alleged offense simply because we want to deter others.
The administration’s secondary argument is that the boat carried members of a Venezuelan gang which it has designated as a terrorist organization. Some have even attempted to compare the group to ISIS - a flawed comparison. ISIS seeks to kill Americans and impose its radical ideology globally. By contrast, drug cartels are driven by profit, selling products that Americans choose to buy despite the harm they cause.
There’s also the problem of government error. This is precisely why the Coast Guard, when it suspects a vessel is carrying contraband, requests permission to board and conduct an inspection. Only then can they confirm what’s actually on the boat.
Because that procedure wasn’t followed here, the administration must provide clear evidence that the boat contained illegal drugs, that it was manned by gang members, and that it posed a direct threat to the U.S. As of now, no such proof has been provided. All we have are eleven dead people, a destroyed boat, and the government’s claims.
Consider the reverse scenario: If another country targeted and destroyed a vessel carrying Americans in international waters based on similar suspicions, the United States would be outraged.
Additionally, this type of unilateral action risks damaging cooperation with other countries. International partners may become reluctant to share intelligence about drug smuggling if they believe their information will be used to justify missile strikes without proper verification. Ironically, this could make the drug problem worse.
This is yet another reckless and legally questionable policy from Trump, which undermines America’s standing in the global community and risks escalating conflicts with other nations whose citizens we execute without legal justification. Instead of resorting to such extreme measures, Trump should allow the Coast Guard to do its job and let the judicial system function according to the rule of law.
