Trump’s Cartel War: DOJ Memo Cites Self-Defense, Not Overdoses

A classified legal opinion from the U.S. Justice Department has unveiled a distinct rationale for the administration’s aggressive boat strikes against drug cartels in the Caribbean, a justification that starkly contrasts with President Donald Trump’s public statements on the matter. While Trump has consistently framed these lethal operations as an effort to curb overdose deaths, the internal legal argument within the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) posits the strikes as an act of collective self-defense on behalf of regional allies.

According to three individuals with direct knowledge of the administration’s internal legal strategy, the OLC’s analysis hinges on an unproven premise: that drug cartels are actively engaged in armed conflict against the security forces of allied nations, such as Mexico. This violence, the legal argument asserts, is financed through cocaine shipments. Consequently, the strikes are deemed to target these cocaine consignments, and any fatalities resulting from the operations – whether cartel members or civilians – are to be classified as enemy casualties or collateral damage, rather than murder.

A Divergent Legal Framework

This line of reasoning forms the bedrock of a confidential OLC opinion, offering the most comprehensive explanation to date for how the United States has satisfied the conditions for employing lethal force in these operations. However, this legal interpretation represents a significant departure from the narrative Trump has presented to the public. The President has, on numerous occasions, discussed the 21 strikes that have claimed the lives of more than 80 individuals, consistently portraying them as a direct response to the opioid crisis and a means to prevent overdose fatalities.

A White House official, responding to inquiries, clarified that President Trump’s public remarks were not intended to constitute a legal argument. Nevertheless, the President’s statements have remained the sole public explanation for the US’s use of missile strikes in the Caribbean, even as the underlying legal justification is fundamentally different and largely unknown to the public.

Unprecedented Claims and Expanding Operations

The administration’s legal analysis also introduces an unprecedented and, to many, dubious claim. It suggests that drug cartels are utilizing cocaine proceeds to wage wars against state security forces, rather than primarily to generate profit. This assertion runs contrary to the widely held understanding of how criminal organizations typically operate, which is generally focused on financial gain. If true, it would mark the first instance the U.S. has advanced such a claim in justifying military action against drug trafficking groups.

Amid this unfolding revelation, a Justice Department spokesperson issued a statement affirming that, “These operations were ordered consistent with the law of armed conflict.” The Pentagon, when contacted for comment on the matter, did not provide a response. This newly articulated rationale from the administration gains heightened significance as the military campaign against drug cartels shows clear signs of substantial expansion, making the legal underpinnings of such operations more critical than ever.

The divergence between the public narrative and the internal legal justification underscores a crucial aspect of the ongoing U.S. efforts to combat drug trafficking in the Caribbean, highlighting the complex interplay between policy, public messaging, and the law of armed conflict.

Source: The Guardian