Maroc - NEWSDAY.CO.TT - A la Une - 17/Jan 03:52

AG falls short onUS boat strikes

THE EDITOR: Kindly permit space to express concern about recent statements by the Attorney General regarding US military strikes on boats allegedly involved in drug trafficking out of Venezuela. The AG has publicly assured the nation that these strikes are “consistent with international law,” yet no factual or legal foundation has been disclosed to justify such a definitive conclusion. The public has not been told where these vessels were located at the time of the attacks (high seas, Venezuelan waters, another state’s maritime zone), what evidence existed of drug‑trafficking activity, whether warnings were issued, or how many people were killed and of what nationality. Without these basic facts, the country is being asked to accept, on faith alone, that controversial uses of lethal force by a foreign power comply with complex rules of international law. Equally troubling is the reliance on an anonymous “international legal expert,” whose opinion the AG invokes but refuses to publish or even summarise in any meaningful way. In effect, citizens are told: “an expert has advised me that this is lawful, but I cannot reveal either the expert or the reasoning.” This falls well short of the standard of transparency that should govern decisions which may engage TT’s international responsibilities, its bilateral relations, and the right to life of its nationals. Legal opinions obtained at public expense, on matters of such grave importance, should not be treated as state secrets unless there is a compelling and clearly articulated reason. There is also a striking internal inconsistency. On the one hand, it has been reported that two TT citizens were allegedly killed in one of the strikes. On the other, the AG states that he does not know whether any national was killed, yet he is still prepared to certify the overall legality of the operations. How can the lawfulness of lethal force be credibly assessed without clarity on who was targeted, under what rules of engagement, and with what safeguards for civilians and non‑combatants? Issues of distinction, proportionality, and necessity are not abstract legal niceties; they go directly to whether human lives were taken arbitrarily. When pressed on the absence of due process, the AG reportedly declined to explain how summary destruction of vessels and loss of life can be reconciled with the rule of law paradigm under which TT normally addresses crime. This silence is deeply unsatisfactory. If the strikes are characterised as law‑enforcement operations against suspected criminals, then standards of necessity, last resort, and some form of judicial oversight become central. If they are framed as part of an armed conflict, then citizens deserve to know on what basis our government accepts that a “war‑like” situation exists justifying such measures, and whether TT is, even indirectly, a party to that conflict. The AG has stated that he has “done (his) job,” which he defines as ensuring that the republic acts in accordance with law. Respectfully, that job cannot be considered complete until there is (1) a serious, evidence‑based assessment of the facts; (2) a reasoned explanation, grounded in treaty law, customary international law and the law of the sea, of how those facts meet the relevant legal tests; and (3) appropriate disclosure to Parliament and the public, save for genuinely sensitive operational details. If the legal opinion on which the AG relies genuinely supports his conclusion, then it should withstand the disinfecting light of public scrutiny. FAZIR KHAN St Augustine The post AG falls short onUS boat strikes appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.