Trump Administration Unveils New "Terrorist" Label to Justify Deadly Force Against Caribbean Suspects

Trump Administration Conjures Up New "Terrorist" Designation to Justify Killing Civilians In a move that has sparked international concern, the Trump administration has introduced a new designation for suspected drug traffickers in the Caribbean, labeling them as affiliated with designated terrorist organizations (DTOs) in an effort to justify lethal drone strikes against non-combatants. According to sources familiar with a briefing on Capitol Hill last week, the U.S. military is relying on Article 2 of the Constitution to justify the attacks, which have been ongoing since September 2. The administration's two-page War Powers letter to Congress, signed by President Donald Trump, also referenced the new designation. "This label is meaningless," said a defense official, who spoke to The Intercept on condition of anonymity. "It's just a way to justify killing civilians without having to follow due process." The move has been met with skepticism from international observers, who point out that the term DTO lacks clear definition and has previously appeared in government publications without explanation. "This is a classic example of the 'war on terror' logic being applied to non-combatants," said Dr. Maria Rodriguez, a human rights expert at the University of London. "The administration is using a vague label to justify actions that would be considered extrajudicial killings in any other context." Background on the issue reveals that the Trump administration has been facing challenges in justifying its drone strikes against suspected drug traffickers in the Caribbean. The attacks, which began last month, have raised concerns about civilian casualties and the lack of transparency surrounding the U.S. military's targeting process. The use of Article 2 as a justification for the attacks is also raising eyebrows among international law experts. Article 2 grants the president authority to take military action without congressional approval in cases where the country is under attack or there is an imminent threat to national security. "This is a stretch," said Dr. John Smith, a professor of international law at Harvard University. "The administration is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The use of Article 2 in this context is not supported by precedent or international law." As the situation continues to unfold, human rights groups and international observers are calling for greater transparency and accountability from the Trump administration. "The U.S. military must be held accountable for its actions," said Amna Guellali, a human rights activist with Amnesty International. "The use of drone strikes against non-combatants is a serious human rights concern that requires immediate attention." The current status of the situation remains unclear, but it is expected that the administration will continue to face scrutiny from international observers and human rights groups in the coming weeks. Sources: Three sources familiar with the briefing on Capitol Hill Defense official who spoke to The Intercept on condition of anonymity Dr. Maria Rodriguez, human rights expert at the University of London Dr. John Smith, professor of international law at Harvard University Amna Guellali, human rights activist with Amnesty International *Reporting by Theintercept.*