By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Here’s a summary:
The Shopping Trends team, separate from CTV News journalists, provides insights and recommendations to consumers. They may receive a commission if purchases are made through their provided links. This independence allows them to focus on curating shopping experiences. More information about their team and practices is available for readers.
Read the original article here
UN experts say U.S. strikes against Venezuela in international waters amount to ‘extrajudicial executions’. This is quite a loaded statement, isn’t it? Essentially, it’s a fancy way of saying “murder,” according to some, and it’s certainly a dangerous escalation of conflict. The news reports that a group of independent United Nations experts have condemned recent U.S. actions against suspected drug vessels in the Caribbean, where at least 27 people have lost their lives.
The justification offered by the U.S., as we understand it, revolves around combating “narcoterrorism” allegedly emanating from Venezuela. Even if we accept the allegations, the UN experts argue that using lethal force in international waters without a clear legal basis violates international law. That’s why they’re using the term “extrajudicial executions.” The idea that a country can simply bomb vessels in international waters, even if they’re suspected of criminal activity, without any due process is troubling.
The UN, of course, has its detractors, and some of the reactions you see online are pretty skeptical of their influence. It’s a fair point to say that the UN doesn’t have the power to enforce its decisions, especially when powerful nations like the U.S. are involved. And, when you think about it, “execution” implies a level of premeditation that may not be entirely accurate here. The whole situation is complex, and the legal framework is murky at best.
The reality is that these strikes are taking place outside of any clear legal framework, and that raises serious questions. “Extrajudicial executions” is a carefully chosen phrase, because it doesn’t quite fit the standard definition of murder. Murder usually requires illegality, or an action that violates established law within a defined jurisdiction, and “malice aforethought.” The jurisdiction is a mess when you’re talking about international waters, and malice can be difficult to define when you’re looking at things like “reckless disregard for life”.
There is a sentiment, however, that the cartels deserve what they get, and that the harm they cause to the U.S. and its citizens justifies a more aggressive response. The argument goes that these drug smugglers, or “narco-terrorists,” have caused more harm than traditional terrorists, and that the U.S. has been too slow to act. Some even suggest that the act of smuggling massive amounts of drugs should be considered a form of chemical warfare.
It seems like there’s also the idea that an American administration going more direct action against cartels is a move in the right direction. There is definitely a sense that the current situation is untenable. And let’s be honest, there is a clear distinction between the actual harm that cartels cause, and the idea of blowing up a random vessel.
But then, the counter-argument comes. If these strikes are taking place, the U.S. needs to provide evidence to back up its actions. And if these boats are being bombed with people on board, the U.S. is not acting in good faith. You have to consider that these individuals are human beings.
There’s the question of whether there’s a middle ground. Can military action be justified, and if so, what are the limits? And the question about a “political goal in mind” is also relevant. Are these people involved for a particular reason, like the IRA bombing in London? If that’s the case, then this would be a clear case of terrorism.
The fact is, even if the U.S. has the evidence, the executions should not be taking place. As an example, there was a case of a boat that was bombed, but the survivor was able to walk away. If that’s the case, these individuals are not worth the military’s time.
The issue is that there has been a lack of transparency and a lack of evidence. Many people believe the law is not on Trump’s side and that the actions are not justified. There is an argument that the U.S. would not do this sort of thing if it were happening inside the United States, so why is this okay?
Ultimately, this whole situation highlights the complexity of international law, the challenges of fighting drug cartels, and the very real human cost of these conflicts.