US Justice Department memo on boat strikes fundamentally diverges from Trump's narrative, shifting focus from overdose deaths to collective self-defense.
The US administration has been framing its recent naval attacks on cartel-transporting boats as a legitimate act of self-defense for its regional allies, rather than a direct effort to combat the opioid crisis. This assertion marks a stark departure from President Donald Trump's earlier explanations, which emphasized the fight against overdose deaths.
According to three people familiar with the Justice Department's internal legal analysis, this new rationale relies on an unproven premise that drug cartels are using cocaine shipments to finance armed violence against the security forces of US allies in Mexico and Colombia. The strikes are allegedly aimed at disrupting these alleged operations, which could justify the use of lethal force.
However, Trump has publicly maintained that his administration's objective is to curb the flow of illicit drugs into the United States, not necessarily to target the cartels' financing mechanisms directly. This disparity highlights a crucial divergence between the public narrative and the actual justification for the naval attacks.
Critics argue that the collective self-defense argument lacks concrete evidence and may be an overreach of executive authority. Martin Lederman, a former OLC deputy assistant attorney general during the Obama and Biden administrations, expressed skepticism about this theory, citing the absence of identified states engaging in armed conflict with cartels and insufficient proof of their involvement.
The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo appears to sidestep these concerns by focusing narrowly on whether military force was a lawful policy option. This raises questions about the administration's willingness to scrutinize its own intelligence findings and evaluate the legitimacy of its claims regarding cartel activities.
As tensions between the US and Latin American governments continue, it remains to be seen how this shift in justification will impact the region's security dynamics and the broader effort to combat organized crime.
The US administration has been framing its recent naval attacks on cartel-transporting boats as a legitimate act of self-defense for its regional allies, rather than a direct effort to combat the opioid crisis. This assertion marks a stark departure from President Donald Trump's earlier explanations, which emphasized the fight against overdose deaths.
According to three people familiar with the Justice Department's internal legal analysis, this new rationale relies on an unproven premise that drug cartels are using cocaine shipments to finance armed violence against the security forces of US allies in Mexico and Colombia. The strikes are allegedly aimed at disrupting these alleged operations, which could justify the use of lethal force.
However, Trump has publicly maintained that his administration's objective is to curb the flow of illicit drugs into the United States, not necessarily to target the cartels' financing mechanisms directly. This disparity highlights a crucial divergence between the public narrative and the actual justification for the naval attacks.
Critics argue that the collective self-defense argument lacks concrete evidence and may be an overreach of executive authority. Martin Lederman, a former OLC deputy assistant attorney general during the Obama and Biden administrations, expressed skepticism about this theory, citing the absence of identified states engaging in armed conflict with cartels and insufficient proof of their involvement.
The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo appears to sidestep these concerns by focusing narrowly on whether military force was a lawful policy option. This raises questions about the administration's willingness to scrutinize its own intelligence findings and evaluate the legitimacy of its claims regarding cartel activities.
As tensions between the US and Latin American governments continue, it remains to be seen how this shift in justification will impact the region's security dynamics and the broader effort to combat organized crime.
This is getting weird, they're now using 'self-defense' as a cover for war. 
. I mean, if we're really claiming that cartels are financing armed violence against our allies' security forces, how do we know that's actually true? 
We need some solid proof before we start talking about lethal force and taking lives 
. And what about the thousands of people who die from opioid overdoses every year? Don't they deserve some action too? 
I'm just worried that this whole thing is getting lost in the rhetoric and we're missing an opportunity to really address the root causes of these problems 
.
US military strikes on cartel boats are all about self-defense now? Like, that doesn't sound like Trump's original plan at all 
They used to say it was all about curbing overdoses 
, but now it's more like a big game of "let's disrupt their cash flow" 
This collective self-defense thing is sketchy 
We need to see some solid evidence before we can get on board with this new narrative 
It feels like there are too many holes in this "collective self-defense" excuse for me. I mean, if we can't even figure out what's going on with these cartels and how they're funding the violence, how can we be sure that using military force is the right answer? 
...I mean, if they're really going after cartel-transporting boats, shouldn't we at least have some solid proof that these cartels are indeed funding armed violence against Mexican/Colombian security forces? It seems to me like a convenient narrative shift. And what's with the collective self-defense argument? Doesn't that just sound like a fancy way of saying "we're gonna start shooting and hope for the best"? 
It's not exactly filling me with confidence in our administration's approach to this whole thing...
! I'm not sure about this new narrative 
? Not convinced 
, and that OLC memo just dodges the issue 
.
, then what's the real goal here? 
? Not sure I trust this 'cartel-financing' theory either 
.
... just saying it looks like a bit of a PR spin 
. Can we get to the bottom of this? 
I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not but I think its kinda cool that the US administration has finally changed their story about why they attacked those cartel boats. Like, it was super confusing when Trump said one thing and then later said another, so at least now everyone knows what's really going on 
We need more evidence than just "we think so" 
.
) to justify military action that might be more aggressive than intended. Collective self-defense is a legit concern, but let's not forget our allies' security forces are trained for all sorts of threats, not just cartel-related ones 
.
.
instead of actually dealing with the root issues 
my cousin's friend's brother was a smuggler like 5 years ago and he said the cartels were more like family businesses than anything else, you know? how can we trust that this is even true tho? anyway, this shift in narrative is so suspect it feels like they're trying to cover their own tracks i'm low-key worried about what's going down in mexico lol
. I mean, Trump said he's fighting opioid deaths, but now it's all about disrupting cartel financing? That sounds like a convenient excuse to me 
. Can't we just get some straight answers from our leaders for once? 