The U.S. military's authority to engage drug smuggling vessels in international waters has become a contentious issue, particularly in light of recent military strikes against such vessels. These boats, commonly referred to as 'go fasts,' are utilized by traffickers to transport significant quantities of narcotics, with some operations reportedly moving cargoes valued at up to $70 million along the Colombian coastline. The vessels are typically around 40 feet long and designed for speed and evasion, often transferring large amounts of cocaine to semi-submersible craft for further transport to markets, including the United States.

The legal framework governing actions against these vessels is established by both U.S. law and international law. The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act of 1986 permits military engagement with drug smuggling boats, while international law treats vessels without a national flag similarly to pirates, thus lacking protections typically afforded to flagged ships. This legal status implies that actions taken against such vessels do not constitute war crimes, as they are not recognized as having state protection.

However, the discussion surrounding these legalities has been polarized. Critics, including some political factions and rights organizations, argue that the focus on military enforcement may overlook broader social issues related to drug trafficking and its impact on communities. A coalition of U.S. rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights, has filed a complaint under the Freedom of Information Act to compel the Trump administration to release documentation outlining the legal justifications for its military strikes against suspected drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean.

These organizations contend that the administration's rationale for these strikes, which claims an 'armed conflict' with international drug cartels, warrants close examination. They argue that drug cartels do not meet the legal criteria to be classified as terrorist organizations, as defined by laws governing warfare with nonstate actors. Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, criticized the administration for allegedly distorting legal principles to justify its military actions, emphasizing the need for transparency regarding the government's rationale.

The military has conducted at least 22 strikes on suspected drug boats, resulting in numerous fatalities. A September strike faced backlash after a second strike targeted survivors of the initial attack, raising further concerns about the legality and effectiveness of such actions. Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona questioned whether these military actions enhance American safety, highlighting the potential for unlawful killings.

Daphne Eviatar, director for security and human rights at Amnesty International USA, stated that all strikes in this campaign are illegal under both domestic and international law, asserting that none of the victims posed an imminent threat to life. The ongoing debate reflects a tension between national security interests and humanitarian considerations, particularly regarding the individuals involved in the drug trade and the broader implications for affected communities.