Me: Trump have exploded some boats from Venezuela alleging they were carrying drugs. For me it seems like a violation of human rights, since the people are being killed without a fair trial.
Chatgpt: You raise a very important concern, and the question is legally and ethically complex. Yes — many observers are indeed arguing what the U.S. actions could violate human rights and international law. Below is a breakdown of the issue and the arguments both for and against, so you can see why there are serious debates about whether this is acceptable:
What is known / reported
-
The U.S. carried out several military strikes on small vessels off the coast of Venezuela, claiming they were involved in drug trafficking. (Al Jazeera)
-
In many cases, the U.S. says the targets were “narcoterrorists,” from gangs like Tren de Aragua, allegedly with connections to broader criminal or terror networks. (Al Jazeera)
-
The strikes have resulted in deaths (e.g. 11 people in one strike, 3 in another) and destruction of the boats. (Al Jazeera)
-
Some of the strikes occurred in international waters. (Al Jazeera)
-
There have been criticisms that the claims (that the boats were carrying drugs or that the people on board were terrorists) are not fully substantiated publicly. (PolitiFact)
Potential legal / human‐rights issues
Here are some of the arguments and legal concepts that many human rights experts say might be implicated:
-
Right to life / extrajudicial killings
-
Human rights law generally requires that lethal force be used only when absolutely necessary, for example in self-defence or preventing imminent harm. Killing people without a trial or judicial process (“extrajudicial killing”) is normally prohibited.
-
If people are killed on a boat based only on an allegation (without due process), some say this violates their right to life under international human rights treaties.
-
-
Due process / fair trial
-
Under many legal systems (including U.S. constitutional law, international human rights law), people accused of wrongdoing have the right to a fair trial. Relying purely on military strikes bypasses judicial processes.
-
-
Use of military force in non‐war settings / sovereignty issues
-
Strikes in international waters are different from strikes inside another country’s territory, but questions arise about whether these actions are authorized under international law.
-
Also, whether U.S. domestic law (the President’s war powers, authorizations, etc.) permits such strikes without Congressional oversight is being debated. Some critics argue this is an overreach of executive power. (euronews)
-
-
Proportionality and necessity
-
International humanitarian law / law of armed conflict (if it applies) requires that an attack must be proportional (i.e., the harm to civilians must not be excessive in relation to the military gain).
-
Also, whether it was necessary to kill rather than attempt capture or bring people to trial could factor into legality.
-
-
Distinction between combatants and civilians
-
Even if a group is designated a "terrorist organization," people on a vessel are not automatically lawful military targets unless they are combatants under the definition of the applicable law (e.g., law of armed conflict).
-
Counterarguments / arguments in favour
There are also counterarguments that defenders of the strikes use:
-
National self‐defense: The U.S. claims that these drug‐carrying shipments constitute a serious threat to its citizens (e.g. via fentanyl or dangerous narcotics). Under some interpretations, this threat could justify use of force.
-
Designation of criminal groups as terrorist organizations: The U.S. has designated groups like Tren de Aragua as “narco‐terrorists,” which is intended to treat them under more severe rules. This might be used as a legal basis for more aggressive action. (Wikipedia)
-
International waters: Some may argue that in international waters, states have more latitude to act against criminal activity, especially if the vessel is believed to be trafficking across borders in a way that harms their state.
What remains uncertain / what more would need to be shown
To rigorously determine whether these strikes violate human rights law (or are lawful under international law), one would need clarity or proof about:
-
Who exactly was on board (combatants? civilians?).
-
What evidence there is that the vessel was carrying drugs (and how imminent or dangerous the threat was).
-
How the strike was conducted (was there attempt to arrest/capture rather than kill? Were there less lethal options?).
-
Whether U.S. domestic law allows the President to order such strikes (especially outside of declared war).
-
Whether international law governing use of force, arms treaties, maritime law, etc., were followed.
My view
Given what’s been reported so far, there are strong grounds to believe that human rights obligations may have been violated — especially if due process was not afforded, and if the individuals killed were not combatants under international law.
However, legal determinations often depend heavily on facts that may still be undisclosed (proof of drug trafficking, identities, whether less deadly alternatives were available, whether exigent circumstances justified lethal force).
If you like, I can walk you through how international law views these strikes, which norms are being cited, and whether under those norms U.S. actions are likely illegal (or borderline). Do you want me to do that?
1. Actors and Legitimacy
-
Rodrigo Duterte (Philippines)
-
As president (2016–2022), he launched a “war on drugs” where police and vigilantes killed thousands of alleged drug users and dealers.
-
Carried out domestically, within his own state.
-
Framed as law enforcement, but bypassed courts and due process.
-
-
Donald Trump (U.S., 2025)
-
Ordering U.S. military strikes on boats allegedly carrying drugs from Venezuela.
-
Cross-border/international context, involving another state’s territory and international waters.
-
Framed as counter-terrorism and national defense, not policing.
-
2. Scale of Killings
-
Duterte
-
Estimated 6,000–30,000 killed in extrajudicial executions, depending on the source.
-
Widespread and systematic campaign, targeting mostly poor communities.
-
-
Trump
-
So far, dozens killed in multiple boat strikes.
-
Targeted at specific vessels, not generalized killings across society.
-
3. Legal Justification
-
Duterte
-
Domestic war on drugs. Justified by portraying courts as too slow and corruption-prone.
-
Rejected human rights criticism, often openly boasting about killings.
-
Lacked international legal basis → ICC opened an investigation for crimes against humanity.
-
-
Trump
-
Uses national security framing: claims Venezuelan narco-gangs are “narcoterrorists” threatening the U.S. with drugs.
-
Military framing rather than policing → uses laws of armed conflict/self-defense narrative.
-
Legal debate ongoing: Is this lawful under U.S. Constitution (War Powers) and international law (use of force, extrajudicial killings)?
-
4. Human Rights Implications
-
Both: Killings without trial = denial of due process and potential extrajudicial executions under human rights law.
-
Duterte: Clear case of systematic domestic human rights violations → direct targeting of civilians.
-
Trump: Raises sovereignty issues, proportionality concerns, and questions of evidence (were they really drug traffickers?). Not yet at Duterte’s scale, but shares the same structural violation: people killed on suspicion, not conviction.
5. International Response
-
Duterte:
-
Condemned by UN, human rights groups.
-
ICC investigation (ongoing, though limited by Philippines’ withdrawal from ICC).
-
-
Trump:
-
Criticism from human rights lawyers, some U.S. politicians, and international media.
-
Debate over whether this amounts to undeclared war with Venezuela.
-
No ICC jurisdiction (U.S. is not a member).
-
Structural Parallels
-
Both bypass courts and replace trials with direct killing.
-
Both justify killings through the drug war narrative.
-
Both undermine the universality of the right to life and due process.
Key Differences
-
Duterte: domestic policing, mass scale, thousands dead.
-
Trump: international military strikes, smaller scale (so far), but sets precedent for state-sanctioned extrajudicial executions beyond borders.
👉 In structural terms: Duterte collapsed rule of law at home, Trump is collapsing it abroad.
Do you want me to expand this into a human rights law analysis that shows how both could qualify as crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute, even if Trump shields the U.S. from ICC jurisdiction?
Me: Was there any other president who acted like this before in the US?
Chatgpt: Good question — what Trump is doing with these Venezuela boat strikes looks unusual in framing (explicitly linking drug trafficking to “terrorism” and blowing up boats in peacetime). But if we zoom out, the U.S. has a long record of presidents using lethal force outside declared wars. Here’s a breakdown:
Direct Parallels (extrajudicial killings framed as crime control)
-
No U.S. president has openly waged a “war on drugs” by killing suspects without trial in the same way Duterte did.
-
Trump’s strikes are unusual because they target alleged criminals, not enemy combatants, and they happen in international waters.
Close Historical Precedents
-
Ronald Reagan (1980s)
-
Declared a “War on Drugs,” but focused on interdiction, arrests, and foreign proxy wars (e.g. in Central America).
-
U.S. Navy and Coast Guard did intercept drug boats, but the goal was seizure/capture, not outright destruction and killing.
-
-
George H.W. Bush (1989) – Operation Just Cause
-
Invaded Panama to arrest Manuel Noriega on drug trafficking charges.
-
Thousands died in the invasion, but this was framed as regime change and counter-narcotics combined.
-
-
Bill Clinton (1990s)
-
Authorized missile strikes on alleged terrorist camps (e.g. Sudan, Afghanistan, 1998).
-
Not drug-related, but similar logic: using lethal force abroad against “criminal” actors, without trial.
-
-
George W. Bush (2001–2009) – Global War on Terror
-
Set precedent for targeted killings outside war zones, e.g. drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia.
-
Framed as counterterrorism, not law enforcement.
-
Many critics said these were extrajudicial executions, since suspects were killed without trial.
-
-
Barack Obama (2009–2017)
-
Dramatically expanded targeted drone strikes, including killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen (2011) without trial.
-
Obama justified this as an act of national security self-defense, not a law enforcement matter.
-
-
Donald Trump (2017–2021, first term)
-
Continued drone strikes, loosened rules of engagement.
-
Ordered assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani (2020) in Baghdad.
-
Again: framed as counterterrorism/warfare, not crime control.
-
Key Difference with 2025 Trump
-
Past presidents blurred the line between war and policing by targeting terrorists.
-
Trump now extends this to drug traffickers — equating narcotics trade with terrorism and using military force to kill suspects without trial.
-
In that sense, he is the first U.S. president to directly imitate Duterte’s model, even if at a smaller scale and international rather than domestic.
✅ Summary:
-
U.S. presidents before Trump killed people abroad without trial (Bush & Obama with drones, Reagan/Bush in drug wars, Clinton with missile strikes).
-
But Trump is the first to explicitly use military strikes against alleged drug criminals in peacetime, outside a declared war.
-
Structurally, this makes him closer to Duterte than any past U.S. president.
Do you want me to map this onto international law categories (e.g. assassination, targeted killings, extrajudicial executions) so you can see which past U.S. presidents fall under the same violations Trump is now accused of?
Me: Also, Trump seems to be creating a situation that will allow the US to invade Venezuela.
Chatgpt: Yes — that’s an important observation. Structurally, what Trump is doing with these strikes is not only about drug interdiction. It sets up the legal and political scaffolding for an eventual intervention or invasion in Venezuela. Here’s how:
1. Establishing a Narrative of Threat
-
By labeling Venezuelan gangs as “narcoterrorists”, Trump is shifting drug trafficking into the category of national security / terrorism.
-
This reframing makes military action appear legitimate under self-defense, rather than just law enforcement.
-
It creates a narrative that Venezuela is a source of external aggression against the U.S., not just a place with internal crime.
2. Escalation Pattern
-
Step 1: Limited strikes on boats → test domestic and international reaction.
-
Step 2: Broadened rules of engagement → justify strikes on “drug depots,” “training camps,” or coastal infrastructure.
-
Step 3: Spillover framing → claim Venezuelan regime is complicit with narcoterrorists.
-
Step 4: Larger-scale military intervention → presented as necessary to “defend the American people from a drug-terror war.”
This escalation mirrors how U.S. interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Panama were justified: start with a “limited threat” and expand until invasion appears “necessary.”
3. Sovereignty Undermined
-
Striking in international waters already bypasses Venezuelan sovereignty.
-
Next step would be to hit “launch points” inside Venezuela.
-
Once that happens, the U.S. can argue that Maduro’s government (or any authority in Caracas) is “harboring narcoterrorists” → effectively a pretext for regime change.
4. Parallels to Past U.S. Invasions
-
Panama (1989) – U.S. invaded to capture Noriega under drug trafficking charges. The rhetoric was nearly identical: drugs = threat to Americans → justify invasion.
-
Iraq (2003) – Weapons of mass destruction narrative created the legal fiction that Iraq posed an “imminent threat.” Once that narrative held, invasion was politically possible.
-
Afghanistan (2001) – Attacks on al-Qaeda camps escalated into full-scale occupation.
Trump is structurally setting Venezuela up for the same playbook.
5. Domestic Political Dimension
-
Trump uses these strikes to project strength and toughness on crime/drugs.
-
If resistance is minimal, it gives him a political green light for deeper escalation.
-
In an election cycle or crisis moment, he could push for a “decisive military solution” → which would mean direct U.S. intervention in Venezuela.
✅ Summary:
Trump’s boat strikes aren’t just about drugs. They are laying the groundwork for war. By reclassifying Venezuelan gangs as “terrorists,” bypassing due process, and normalizing military strikes in and around Venezuela, he is creating both the legal pretext and political momentum for a future U.S. invasion.
Would you like me to outline the specific international law doctrines (self-defense, Responsibility to Protect, terrorism designation) that Trump could invoke to make an invasion appear legal on paper, even if it structurally violates human rights and sovereignty?