There's jus ad bellum and jus in bello. As others in this thread have noted, this is a form of hybrid warfare being waged against the US, to which I added that the scope of the smuggling goes far beyond what can be handled by the judicial system. That gives us jus ad bellum.
So if this is warfare, and not law enforcement, jus in bello doesn't require asking for surrender in order to take prisoners. And in this operation as in others, I would have assume that our military is doing what it can to discriminate combatants from non-combatants and that these really are drug boats and not fishermen. That's sufficient for me.
That argument attempts to elevate narcotics smuggling into the realm of warfare — but it misapplies both jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and jus in bello (the law governing conduct in war).
First of all, The President does not have the constitutional right to declare war. Just because he said so does not give him the right to make it so. Only Congress has that power.
Jus ad bellum applies to armed conflict between states or organized armed groups with sustained combat operations — not criminal enterprises. Drug cartels, however violent, do not meet the threshold of an armed attack under Article 51 of the UN Charter. And yes, WE ARER A SIGNATORY TO THIS CHARTER WHICH MEANS WE AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THIS ARTICLE.
Drug smuggling is a transnational crime, not an act of war. Elevating it to warfare risks militarizing law enforcement and eroding legal boundaries between war and peace.
And Hybrid Warfare ≠ Carte Blanche
Hybrid warfare refers to state-sponsored or coordinated campaigns blending conventional, irregular, and cyber tactics — not decentralized criminal smuggling.
Unless Venezuela is proven to be directing and weaponizing narcotics as a strategic tool of war, the hybrid warfare label is speculative and insufficient to justify jus ad bellum. If it is indeed, so, then let’s declare war on Venezuela. So far, we have NOT.
And Even if jus ad bellum were valid (which it isn’t here), jus in bello still constrains conduct: proportionality, distinction, and necessity.
Destroying vessels based on suspicion violates these principles — especially if the crew are civilians and the evidence is circumstantial. Therefore, Strategic resilience requires lawful, evidence-based interdiction — not war logic applied to criminal enforcement.
I’m sorry, but Jus ad bellum is not a blank check for violence. Smuggling is a criminal challenge, not a battlefield. The rule of law must not be sacrificed to rhetorical escalation. If this is indeed war, let Congress declare it as is constitutionally allowed.
The U.S. president cannot legally or morally justify blowing up suspected drug-smuggling vessels simply by declaring a “war on drugs.”
The phrase “war on drugs” is rhetorical, not a declaration of war under U.S. constitutional law. Only Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war (Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution).
Heck, Even under the President’s Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief, lethal force must comply with domestic statutes and international law — including the War Powers Resolution and the UN Charter.
We are NOT at war regardless of what the executive branch says so ( And this isn’t about Trump, it’s about ANY President, Republican or Democrat ).
The Posse Comitatus Act therefore applies, not war laws. The act limits the use of military force in domestic law enforcement.
• The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) allows interdiction and arrest — not destruction — of suspected drug vessels.
• Blowing up a vessel based on suspicion alone would violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments (unreasonable seizure and due process).
And Even if constitutional rights don’t apply directly to foreign vessles in international waters, U.S. government actions abroad must still comply with U.S. statutes (e.g., Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act) and Customary norms of proportionality and necessity.
U.S. actions are still bound by international law, our statutory limits, and strategic norms. Legal immunity is not moral license.