Legal and Ethical Scrutiny of U.S. Military Strikes in the Caribbean
Dec, 3 2025
The Pentagon's evolving narrative has drawn criticism from legal experts and government officials, who argue that the focus on military terminology obscures the humanitarian implications of these actions. Sarah Harrison, a former associate general counsel at the Pentagon, stated that the strike amounted to a summary execution of incapacitated individuals, which contradicts the Pentagon's Law of War Manual that prohibits targeting incapacitated persons.
Since the initiation of these operations, the military has conducted at least 21 strikes, resulting in the destruction of 22 boats and the deaths of at least 83 civilians. Critics, including bipartisan lawmakers, have raised concerns that these actions may constitute illegal extrajudicial killings, as the military is prohibited from deliberately targeting civilians who do not pose an imminent threat. In contrast, law enforcement typically addresses suspected smugglers through arrest rather than lethal force.
The legal and ethical implications of these strikes have intensified following reports that military commanders executed a second strike on survivors, allegedly following Hegseth's directive to ensure no one was left alive. Hegseth has denied ordering the targeting of survivors, while the administration has not provided evidence to substantiate claims that the targeted boats were involved in drug trafficking.
In response to the controversies, the family of a Colombian fisherman killed in a U.S. strike has filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, alleging that his death constituted an extrajudicial killing. This incident has prompted a bipartisan group of lawmakers to introduce a War Powers Resolution aimed at restricting military actions against Venezuela without congressional approval.
The scrutiny surrounding these military operations reflects broader concerns about the implications of U.S. military actions in regions heavily affected by drug-related violence and poverty. Critics argue that labeling drug cartels as terrorist organizations can justify aggressive military actions that overlook the complexities of the socio-economic conditions driving individuals to engage in such activities. The ongoing discourse highlights the tension between national security measures and the humanitarian consequences of military interventions.