Justice Department Faces Scrutiny Over Legal Stance on Strikes Against Venezuelan Boats

A coalition of former federal ethics advisors is advocating for an inquiry within the Justice Department regarding the legal framework used to justify American military actions in South American waters.

This former group of officials, which includes ethics advisors from previous administrations, has formally requested the Justice Department's internal watchdog to assess whether the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) breached their ethical obligations in crafting guidance that permits unilateral lethal action against foreign civilians, allegedly involved in drug trafficking.

Among the signatories are Norm Eisen, Richard Painter, and Virginia Canter, who have previously served Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton in ethical advisory roles. Their correspondence references a classified opinion issued by the Justice Department's OLC on November 12, asserting that U.S. military personnel undertaking attacks against boats suspected of drug trafficking in Latin America would not face prosecution.

In their pursuit of a comprehensive investigation, the ex-officials expressed alarm over the OLC's opinion, which essentially appears to provide the government with carte blanche to target and kill foreign civilians, raising serious questions of legal ethics.

Congress and Legal Justification for Military Strikes

Top lawmakers from the Intelligence Committees of both congressional chambers are anticipated to receive a detailed explanation from government representatives about the military operations and their legal foundations. Since September, over 20 attacks have been executed on suspected drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, resulting in more than 80 fatalities.

The Trump administration has continually defended these operations as both necessary and legitimate, characterizing the situation as a 'non-international armed conflict' with drug cartels designated as terrorist threats by the U.S. These groups, responsible for vast drug distribution, pose a lethal danger to American citizens, per the administration's stance.

Former President Trump underscored this position on October 22, citing the deadly impact of the drugs as justifying the legal basis for military action.

Controversy Over Definition of Armed Conflict

Legal scholars have expressed skepticism towards the administration's argument, particularly questioning the assertion that the U.S. is engaged in a 'non-international armed conflict.' They argue that drug cartels do not meet the criteria of organized armed entities under international conflict laws.

The former ethics officials have also challenged the conclusion that the U.S. is in conflict with the drug cartels, stating that even in a military scenario, civilian casualties would breach both international and domestic legal standards. They questioned the objectivity and competence behind the OLC's conclusion.

Calls for Departmental Oversight

The Justice Department has not yet responded to CBS News' request for a statement.

Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have additionally sought clarity from the Justice Department concerning its legal logic behind these military actions. Senators Welch and Durbin have urged for transparency and requested detailed briefings.

The group of ex-ethics leaders is advocating for an examination by the Justice Department's internal review body, which is responsible for maintaining the high ethical standards of its attorneys.