US Justifies Overseas Strikes With 'Secret' Legal Opinions
CNN reports that the US is using classified legal opinions to justify strikes against drug cartels, particularly those linked (conveniently) to Venezuela. This 'legal' maneuver, echoing past assertions of broad presidential war powers, bypasses congressional oversight and international law. Remember how the Bush administration used secret memos to justify torture? Or how 'unclassified'
intelligence on WMDs led to Iraq? The playbook is disturbingly familiar: label a threat, classify the 'legal' rationale, and unleash military force without public debate. One might wonder if these 'legal' opinions also cover the hundreds of US military bases globally, or the drone strikes that routinely hit civilian targets. When the legal justification is a state secret, it raises questions about
accountability, transparency, and who, exactly, defines 'threats' and 'legality' in the first place. The 'War on Drugs' abroad, much like the 'War on Terror,' often serves as a convenient umbrella for asserting dominance and projecting power, regardless of local sovereignty or human cost.