The U.S. military conducted a strike on an alleged Venezuelan drug vessel in international waters, resulting in the deaths of three individuals. President Trump claimed the action targeted “violent drug trafficking cartels,” and the attack was recorded with evidence of cocaine and fentanyl. The strike followed an earlier attack that killed 11, escalating tensions and drawing condemnation from Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who vowed to defend against U.S. “aggression.” Legal experts raised concerns about the legality of the initial attack under international law, and Venezuela responded by flying fighter jets over a U.S. Navy destroyer.
Read More
The U.S. military conducted another strike against a Venezuelan drug cartel vessel in international waters, resulting in the death of three individuals. President Trump stated the target was a violent drug trafficking cartel threatening U.S. interests and provided a video of the event, though details on the evidence were scarce. This strike follows a prior similar action, as the U.S. has a significant military buildup in the southern Caribbean, including aircraft and warships. The Trump administration has indicated further strikes may occur and claims self-defense as justification, while the Venezuelan government, accused of involvement, has accused the U.S. of seeking regime change.
Read More
Venezuela’s interior minister refuted claims that the 11 individuals killed in the US military strike were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, asserting investigations revealed they were not drug traffickers. US officials confirmed the vessel was fired upon after changing course and heading back to shore. This has led to concerns among US lawmakers, with some questioning the legality of the action and the administration’s justification, particularly regarding the use of military force for law enforcement. The White House maintains the individuals were “narco-terrorists” and that the President acted within the laws of armed conflict, while Venezuela has responded with increased military readiness and has increased military defenses.
Read More
Following a U.S. military strike in the Caribbean, Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello condemned the action, refuting President Trump’s claim that those killed were “narcoterrorists.” Questions about the legality of the strike have emerged, particularly after reports that the vessel was turning back before it was attacked. The incident highlights the potential for escalating tensions, given increased U.S. military deployments near Venezuela as part of anti-drug operations, which Caracas views as a threat to its sovereignty. The U.S. has defended its actions, while lawmakers and analysts have raised concerns about the lack of justification and the potential for further destabilization in the region.
Read More
According to two American officials, the U.S. military destroyed a boat off the coast of Venezuela with an initial strike, followed by a follow-up attack that killed those on board. The boat was under surveillance and appeared to turn toward shore before being struck, possibly by drones operated by Special Operations Command (SOCOM). The Trump administration has offered no evidence to support the assertion that the targeted individuals were “narcoterrorists,” and some officials, including Senator Rand Paul, have expressed concerns about the legality of the strike, given the lack of due process. A former State Department lawyer stated the U.S. is asserting the power to engage in the premeditated killing of people outside of armed conflict.
Read More
The UK government has determined that Israel is not committing genocide in Gaza. This position marks a shift from the prior stance, which deferred the decision to the courts. This new stance was made after the UK’s Foreign Secretary held an emergency meeting to discuss the Israel-Iran conflict. The updated assessment reflects the UK’s evolving understanding of the situation.
Read More
The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is currently considering formally annexing a significant portion of the occupied West Bank. Such a move, widely considered a breach of international law, risks inciting outrage throughout the Arab world. Annexation could also undermine President Trump’s efforts to achieve peace in the region. However, it might provide Netanyahu with a political advantage among Israeli voters.
Read More
Evidence indicates that Russian forces are deploying chemical weapons in Ukraine, violating international laws. Investigations have identified several Russian units, including motorized rifle brigades and drone detachments, utilizing RG-Vo gas grenades against Ukrainian troops. Intercepted communications and video footage reveal the 114th and 136th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigades’ involvement, with documented requests for grenade deliveries. Furthermore, the Scientific Research Institute of Applied Chemistry and other entities are supplying the components for these weapons, despite international sanctions.
Read More
A recent U.S. military strike on a boat in the Caribbean, resulting in the deaths of 11 people, has sparked controversy and raised concerns regarding its legality. High-ranking officials and legal experts have deemed the attack a potential violation of international law, citing the lack of legal justification for using military force against civilians, even if they are suspected of criminal activity. The Trump administration’s actions, including designating certain groups as “narcoterrorists” and firing top military lawyers, have been seen as paving the way for such actions. Despite claims of self-defense and defense of national interests, critics argue that the strike lacked proper authorization and could escalate conflicts in the region.
Read More
In a recent decision, Brazil’s Supreme Court asserted that foreign legislation does not have jurisdiction within its borders, effectively nullifying US sanctions against one of its justices. The ruling was made after the United States, through the Magnitsky Act, sanctioned Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who is overseeing the trial of former President Jair Bolsonaro. The Brazilian court declared that foreign court decisions can only be enforced in Brazil through approved international cooperation mechanisms. This decision, though not explicitly referencing the Magnitsky Act, is interpreted by some as invalidating its application in Brazil, a move already contested by the US government.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker