CITIZENS NEWS

Justice Department defends US military strikes on drug vessels, but critics raise constitutional alarms about due process

By ljdevon // 2025-11-14

The relentless fight against drug cartels is a righteous cause that commands broad public support, but recent actions by the U.S. military are casting a long shadow over the very principles of justice the nation claims to defend. While the intention to dismantle narcotics networks is clear, the method of using lethal military force against suspected drug-trafficking vessels, without arrest or trial, invites a troubling question. Has the pursuit of security begun to erode the foundational right to due process, a right enshrined to protect every individual from the unchecked power of the state? The Justice Department's move to legally shield troops involved in these deadly strikes suggests a concerning shift toward a battlefield mentality in a domain traditionally governed by strategic Coast Guard missions, law enforcement training, and judicial oversight. Key points:

• The U.S. Justice Department has issued a legal opinion justifying military strikes on suspected drug-trafficking boats and providing immunity for personnel.
• These operations have resulted in dozens of fatalities, bypassing traditional law enforcement interdiction and prosecution.
• Legal experts and international allies are raising alarms that these actions may violate international law and set a dangerous precedent.
• The core conflict pits the goal of disrupting drug flows against the constitutional guarantee of due process for all accused individuals.

The constitutional foundation at risk

At the heart of the American justice system lies the Fifth Amendment, which plainly states that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This is not a conditional right reserved only for citizens on U.S. soil; it embodies a principle of fundamental fairness that defines the nation's legal character. The current policy of authorizing lethal force against suspected traffickers based on intelligence, rather than after a judicial proceeding, effectively replaces the gavel of a judge with the crosshairs of a drone. This creates a scenario where the federal government assumes the roles of investigator, judge, jury, and executioner, all in a single, fatal stroke. Where is the line between a justified military engagement and an extrajudicial killing when the suspects are not uniformed soldiers of a recognized nation but individuals accused of a crime?

From policing to a militarized war on drugs

Historically, the U.S. approach to maritime drug interdiction has been led by the Coast Guard, an agency equipped to board vessels, seize contraband, and detain suspects for prosecution in federal court. This process, while arduous, operates within a framework of law that presumes innocence until guilt is proven. The recent shift to airstrikes, resulting in at least 76 deaths according to reports, represents a dramatic militarization of this effort. The Trump administration's declaration of a "non-international armed conflict" against drug cartels is the legal linchpin for this new strategy, but critics argue it stretches the definition of armed conflict beyond recognition. This reclassification transforms a criminal justice challenge into a military one, thereby invoking rules of engagement that sidestep the protections of the criminal justice system. If any boat can be sunk on suspicion alone, what prevents this power from being misapplied? The precedent set is a dangerous one, suggesting that the government can designate any criminal enterprise as a combatant and suspend constitutional safeguards. The international community is watching with unease. Allies like France have openly expressed concern that the U.S. actions risk breaching international humanitarian law. This external scrutiny mirrors a necessary internal debate. A government that can gun down suspected criminals without due process is a government that has taken a profound step away from its own constitutional moorings. The desire to see drug lords brought to justice is righteous, but that justice must be administered by the courts, not by missile fire. The rule of law is what separates a civilized society from the very lawlessness it seeks to combat. Ensuring that the fight against drugs is conducted within that legal framework is not an obstacle to victory; it is the definition of what we are fighting to preserve. The pursuit of safety must not come at the cost of the principles that make the nation worth defending. Sources include: YourNews.com Verdict.Justia.com Enoch, Brighteon.ai

immunity security Constitutional rights human rights Justice Department militarization drug war government overreach rule of law due process Fifth Amendment Coast Guard drug trafficking international law cartels liberty legal opinion military strikes precedent extrajudicial killings