Trump’s 'unlawful combatants’ designation sparking legal firestorm 

President Donald Trump says the United States is in a non-international armed conflict with some

Central and South American drug cartels. So what does that mean and why are so many

military legal experts crying foul? In the last few weeks, the United States military blew up

at least four suspected drug boats, killing at least 20 people. In a document sent to Congress

President Trump said everyone killed was an unlawful combatant taking part in a non-international

armed conflict, or NIAC. The designation typically describes a situation when violence occurs between

a country and a non-state actor, or between two non-state actors. The United Nations says in order

for a situation to be considered an NIAC, it must meet two criteria. The non-state party must be

organized with a unified central command structure and the violence between the parties must be

sufficiently intense. In terms of what's happening today, the administration is using the language

when they say unlawful combatants in an armed conflict. They're using the language that's

codified in the international law of armed conflict and under the same legal auspices that

the Bush administration used after 9-11, particularly because this administration has designated cartels as a foreign terrorist organization. That gives them lawful right

to go after, at least lawful right from an American perspective, to go after these organizations who

the administration has said is in armed conflict with the United States. And there's actually a lot

of freedom, if you will, or there's a lot of space for that action. As a result of those recent

changes, the president is essentially moving the mission of international drug interdiction in the

region from a law enforcement duty, typically performed by the Coast Guard with military support

to more of a direct military operation governed by military rules of engagement. Retired admiral

and former Democratic Congressman Joe Seastack says the move puts sailors in a difficult position

I done drug interdictions down there We always had a lead debt a law enforcement detachment from the Coast Guard aboard Now we might have launched our helicopter and in order to interdict them we had the capability to shoot the rudder so that it couldn steer any longer It would

make it easy then for the Coast Guard debt to go aboard. And then the process always for them

if they found them, was that they would be arrested, and they'd have due process and go

to a trial. That's the way it is. And it's primarily that because these are civilians

And if there's one thing we learn, and it's actually in the handbook, the commander's handbook

for the law of naval operations, is that we don't attack civilians. I thought when I read about this

that this was wrong to do that. President Trump and his secretary of defense

Pete Hegseth, obviously don't see it the same way. By calling them unlawful combatants

the White House is putting these suspected drug smugglers in the same class as al-Qaeda or ISIS

terrorists. Instead of drone strikes, IEDs, or armed assaults, though, this current enemy's

weapon of choice is drugs. You have to think of it this way. Every one of those boats is

responsible for the death of 25,000 American people and the destruction of families. So when

you think of it that way, what we're doing is actually an act of kindness. But we did another

one last night. Now we just can't find any. You know, it's the old story. We're so good at it

that there are no boats. In fact, even fishing boats, nobody wants to go into the water anymore

Sorry to tell you that, but we're stopping drugs coming into America, if that's okay

We're stopping drugs at a level that nobody's ever seen before. Last year, we lost, I believe, 300,000 people

And that's not talking about the destruction to families. That figure of 300,000 dead Americans that President Trump is using to partly justify

designating cartel members as unlawful combatants is greatly exaggerated, though. The Centers for Disease Control says the U.S. actually saw a drop in overdose deaths last year

with just over 80,000 Americans dying. That's down almost 27% from the year before

Critics of the new designation say putting a new label on an old problem does not transform the problem itself or grant U presidents or the military expanded legal authorities to kill civilians

I think it's nonsense. And I say that because it's also harmful. What prevents someone from

making in a foreign country a similar decision about something else? I mean, one might say we

have 100,000 car accidents every year. Do we sue? Do we go after the automobile companies

I don't know that's a stretch, but you truly are changing some accepted international and national definitions of what hostilities are

And I think that's wrong. And I think it's harmful. And I believe this because where does it take you to the next step

Does that mean that we can go after them in a foreign country like Venezuela? Can we strike them here

It opens the door to that if this is accepted, let's say, by the Supreme Court as a new definition

Something you said there about the rules of, you know, if we change the rules and these are the Supreme Court accepts these new rules for unlawful combatants, are we allowed to strike them here

I mean, in your mind, what and obviously we're postulating here. But if we change those rules, does that free up local law enforcement to, you know, shoot combatants on site because we're at war with them

Well, that kind of might just turn that slightly and say, does that legalize the military to do that

Because now they have become a law enforcement, so to speak, force here in America

And if there's anything our founding fathers did not want to have was have a military, you know, they didn't want to have a standing army

And you will raise militias when you needed them. And appropriations could only be given for I believe it was two years for the army for the support of anything because they want to make sure that we did not go that

And I think this is does not bode well because of the ramifications

those that we haven't talked about probably or thought about today that it opens up

Look, you can sit back and say, yeah, but they're just bad guys. But no, once you just go after them because they're a bad guy, unfortunate consequences can occur

Look, we went after Saddam Hussein. And what did we do We created ISIS and we took away the blocking tackle on Iran So no longer did they have to worry about Saddam Hussein and they could go about mischief in the Middle East

People have to understand that militaries can stop a problem. We don't fix them

Another problem the military cannot fix is the issue of a lack of trust between the White House

and its critics over the justification for authorizing the strikes on at least

four suspected drug boats so far. From an intelligence officer standpoint, why are we seeing

the final act of destruction, but not the lead up and the proof that says

these guys are who we say that they are? Yeah. And so it's a great question. And because I'm

not directly involved, I just got to speak from experience as an example. But yes, my assumption

would be that they're using classified means in order to collect the information. Anytime that

we're doing intelligence collection, even if it's related to law enforcement, but particularly the

military, the ICE, overseas, a lot of our sources and methods are classified. And so it's a challenge

then to present the quote-unquote evidence or the information that we're going to use to target

these individuals and then put it out into the public space because we don't want anyone to know

how we're gathering this information, right? They could be coming from human sources. They could be

coming from technical means that we don't want China to know about, those types of things. So

I understand, though, in a free democracy, how that is a challenge. I understand why, you know

the American people are like, listen, this is an open society here. If you're going to make

these claims that these are bad people, then you owe it to us to show us why you think they're bad

people and you're making these decisions. I get that from a conceptual standpoint, right? But from

a national security standpoint, it's really, really hard to do. As of publication, most of

the military actions aimed against the cartels labeled as foreign terrorist organizations

has taken place at sea in international waters. And while it's certainly causing tensions

all of that will get ramped up even more if the strikes start taking place on land

President Trump says he may consider such actions in the future, a move which will no doubt

ignite plenty more legal discussions and potential courtroom battles. For more reporting like this, download the Straight Arrow News app today