The U.S. military's authority to engage drug smuggling vessels in international waters has come under scrutiny, particularly in light of recent military strikes targeting these operations. Known as 'go fasts,' these drug smuggling boats are often used by traffickers to transport significant quantities of narcotics, with some operations reportedly moving cargoes valued at up to $70 million along the Colombian coastline.

These vessels, typically around 40 feet long and equipped with high-capacity engines, are designed for speed and evasion. A crew member from one operation described the intense experience of navigating these boats, which often involves 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 rooted in both U.S. law and international law. The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act of 1986 allows military engagement with drug smuggling boats, and under international law, vessels that do not fly a national flag are treated similarly to pirates, lacking protections typically afforded to flagged ships. This legal status means that actions taken against such vessels do not constitute war crimes, as they are not recognized as having state protection.

However, the legality of recent military strikes has been challenged. 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 justifying these military actions. The groups argue that the administration's rationale, which claims an 'armed conflict' with international drug cartels, does not meet the legal criteria for warfare with nonstate actors. They contend that drug cartels do not operate as organized armed groups engaging in sustained armed violence against the U.S. government.

The Trump administration has defended its military actions, asserting they are lawful and necessary to combat drug cartels. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt criticized opposition from Democratic leaders, framing the strikes as a response to the ongoing drug crisis. However, these strikes have resulted in numerous fatalities, raising concerns about their legality and effectiveness. Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona has questioned whether such actions enhance American safety, particularly following a controversial strike that targeted survivors of an initial attack.

Critics, including human rights advocates, have labeled these military actions as unlawful killings, emphasizing the need for transparency regarding the government's rationale. Daphne Eviatar, director for security and human rights at Amnesty International USA, stated that the strikes 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.