News|Donald Trump‘War on terror’ defence of Trump boat strikes doesn’t hold water: ExpertsTrump allies liken the bombing of alleged drug vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific to Obama’s drone killing campaign.

The United States government, under President Donald Trump, has been conducting military strikes on boats in Latin America, invoking the "war on terror" narrative. These actions have raised significant legal and ethical questions.

Legal experts argue that there is no armed conflict in Latin America that would justify such strikes under international law. The strikes, which reportedly have resulted in numerous casualties, lack congressional authorization and have been classified as extrajudicial killings by critics.

Supporters of the strikes have compared them to former President Barack Obama's drone campaigns against suspected terrorists. However, rights advocates and analysts highlight that the current actions are more aggressive and lack the legal framework that was previously used.

The Trump administration has designated certain drug organizations as "foreign terrorist" entities and declared synthetic drugs like fentanyl as "weapons of mass destruction." These designations could potentially broaden the scope of military actions both abroad and domestically.

John Walsh from the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) argues that drug cartels lack the characteristics of combatants, emphasizing that their primary interest is in profit rather than conflict with governments.

Jessica Dorsey from Utrecht University points out issues with the internal processes used to justify military actions, suggesting that these processes enable rather than constrain executive power.

Critics, including legal scholars, warn of the potential for expanded executive authority without adequate oversight, leading to unchecked military actions. Calls have been made for the release of the legal justifications for these strikes to ensure transparency and accountability.

Based on reporting by Al Jazeera.