Former Federal Ethics Officials Call for Investigation into Justice Department’s Legal Opinion on Military Strikes
A bipartisan group of former federal ethics officials has requested an internal investigation into the Justice Department’s legal opinion that justified U.S. military strikes on suspected drug-running boats in the waters off South America. The ex-officials, including Norm Eisen, Richard Painter, and Virginia Canter, who served as ethics counsels for Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton, sent a letter to the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility on Tuesday.
The letter cited a November 12 report in the Washington Post, which revealed that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel authored a still-classified opinion finding that personnel taking part in military strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats in Latin America would not be exposed to future prosecution. The group’s request for a formal inquiry stated that the result of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion is “shocking and certainly raises the most profound legal ethics concerns.”
Background on the Military Strikes
The Trump administration has consistently defended the military strikes as necessary and lawful, telling Congress in September that the U.S. is in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels it has designated as terrorist organizations. The administration claims that the drugs smuggled by these cartels kill tens of thousands of Americans each year and constitute an “armed attack” against U.S. citizens. However, legal experts have cast doubt on the administration’s argument, stating that the claim of a “non-international armed conflict” is flawed because drug cartels are not considered organized armed groups under the law of armed conflict.
The military has carried out more than 20 strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific since the beginning of September, killing more than 80 people. Congressional leaders and top lawmakers on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees are expected to receive a briefing from top administration officials on the military strikes and their legal rationale.
Criticism and Concerns
Eisen, Painter, and Canter questioned the administration’s determination that the U.S. is in armed conflict with the suspected drug cartels, stating that “the U.S. is not in a non-international armed conflict. And even if we were, the murder of civilians would still be a violation of both international and domestic law.” They also expressed concerns that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion was not prepared independently, objectively, and competently.
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have also sought information from the Justice Department about its legal opinions on the military strikes. In a letter to the agency, Sen. Peter Welch and Sen. Dick Durbin wrote: “These recent strikes raise numerous questions about whether the Department provided adequate legal guidance to those involved in ordering, planning, and carrying out the killings.”
Civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the New York Civil Liberties Union, have filed a lawsuit in federal court in New York seeking the public release of the OLC memo being used to justify the boat strikes and other documents related to the campaign.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding the military strikes and the Justice Department’s legal opinion has sparked a heated debate about the use of lethal force against civilian foreign nationals. As the investigation and lawsuit unfold, it remains to be seen whether the administration’s actions will be deemed lawful and justified. For more information, visit Here
Image Source: www.cbsnews.com
