Legal Concerns Regarding US Action Against Drug Cartels: A Summary
A โขlegal โคexpert is raising serious concerns about โthe Biden AdministrationS justification for using force against Mexican drug โcartels. The โขcore โฃof โthe issue revolves around the administration’sโ claim, recently communicatedโ to Congress, that the US is engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with these cartels.
The expert argues this designation is legally problematic on multiple fronts. Firstly, even if one accepts the Administration’s claim of armed conflict, actions taken against cartel members would still likely constitute murder and potential war crimes under both international โฃandโฃ US โdomestic law. This is because the law of armed conflictโ doesn’t grant blanket permission to kill; it still requires adherence to specific rules of engagement.
Secondly, โthe expert findsโค the Administration’s reasoning for invokingโ this โฃ”armed conflict” designationโ inconsistent andโข factually weak. Initially,the justification centered on equating drug โขimportation to an armed attack,allowingโข for self-defense. later,โ the claim shifted to aโ broader โ”non-international armed conflict” โขstatus. โฃ
To qualify as such a conflict,a non-stateโฃ actor must demonstrate aโข notable level of association – command structure,resupply capabilities,operational planning – andโค the violence must reach a certain intensity. The expert โbelieves the cartels, asโ they currently operate,โข don’t โmeet these criteria. โThey are fragmented, often rivals, and โlack the cohesive structure seen in groups likeโฃ Al Qaeda. Furthermore,โ the Administration’s relianceโ on the indirect effects of drug use โas justificationโ for โthe intensityโฃ of violence isโข deemed too tenuous.
The expert โขalso points out a conflictโค between the legal justifications โคbeing used. The Administration is simultaneously relying on Office of โขLegal Counsel (O.L.C.) opinions that allow the President โคto use militaryโ force for limited, nationally-interested actions and claiming an ongoing armed conflict, which implies a broader and potentially indefinite engagement. โ
While acknowledging that a “non-international armed โขconflict” scenario isn’t โขtheoretically unfeasible,the expert concludes the โขAdministration has not presented sufficient factual โขevidence to supportโฃ its legal analysis โand that the current situation appearsโ more akin to aโ law enforcementโ matter than a state of war.
