Blue Press Journal

Tag: Venezuela

  • US Seizes Oil Tanker Off Venezuelan Coast: A Breach of International Law?

    Blue Press Journal – In a bold and unprecedented move, the United States has seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, according to President Donald Trump. The incident has sparked controversy and raised questions about the legality of the action under international law. As tensions between the US and Venezuela continue to escalate, the move has been met with scrutiny from lawmakers and legal experts.

    The seizure, which was carried out by US forces, is seen as the Trump administration’s latest effort to pressure Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who has been charged with narcoterrorism in the US. The US has been building up its military presence in the region, and has launched a series of deadly strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean.

    But was the seizure of the oil tanker a legitimate act, or does it constitute piracy on the high seas? The International Maritime Organization (IMO) defines piracy as “any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft” against a ship or aircraft on the high seas.

    In this case, the US Navy’s seizure of the oil tanker appears to be a state-sponsored act, rather than a private act of piracy. However, the question remains as to whether the action was lawful under international law. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) governs the use of force at sea, and permits the use of naval force in certain circumstances, such as self-defense or with the consent of the flag state.

    In this instance, it is unclear whether the US had the consent of the flag state or whether the seizure was justified as an act of self-defense. Trump’s comment that “we keep it, I guess” when asked what would happen to the oil aboard the tanker, has raised further questions about the motivations behind the seizure.

    Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has expressed concerns that the seizure casts doubt on the administration’s stated reasons for the military buildup and boat strikes in the region. “This action raises more questions than answers,” Van Hollen said.

    Some legal experts have also questioned the legality of the seizure, arguing that it may have violated the laws governing the use of deadly military force. The use of force at sea is subject to strict rules and regulations, and any action that is deemed to be unlawful could have serious consequences under international law.

    The seizure of the oil tanker is a significant escalation of the US’s campaign to pressure Maduro’s government, and has raised the stakes in the region. Venezuela is a major oil producer, and the state-owned oil company sells most of its output to refiners in China. The US sanctions have locked the country out of global oil markets, and the seizure of the tanker is likely to exacerbate the situation.

    As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen if the US will face consequences under international law. The seizure of the oil tanker has added complexity to US-Venezuela relations and raised important questions about state power on the high seas.

  • Legal Lines Crossed? New Details Emerge as Lawmakers Scrutinize U.S. Boat Strikes near Venezuela

    The U.S. military’s intensified campaign against alleged drug smuggling vessels in international waters near Venezuela is now facing rigorous congressional demand for transparency and legal justification. While touted as a crucial counter-narcotics effort, new information revealed to lawmakers this week concerning a specific boat strikes incident—and the broader rules of engagement—has pushed the controversy into urgent national security discussions.

    Lawmakers on key oversight committees learned chilling new operational details about the highly scrutinized September 2 strikes, particularly surrounding the fates of the victims.

    The Revelation: Firing on Survivors

    The military campaign, which began as the first time the U.S. military actively sought to destroy vessels allegedly carrying drugs, but no evidence give, has so far resulted in the destruction of over 20 boats and the deaths of more than 80 people. However, the September 2 incident stands out because of the alarming confirmation that the U.S. military opened fire on individuals who had already survived the initial assault.

    Members of Congress were briefed that after the first strike disabled the vessel, the U.S. military conducted a follow-up action, firing upon two individuals who were reportedly clinging to the wreckage. This revelation immediately complicates the narrative of operational necessity and raises severe questions regarding the standing rules of engagement in non-declared conflict environments.

    The legal underpinnings of President Donald Trump’s military campaign in international waters are now under intense scrutiny and the international community. Democratic lawmakers argue that the lack of clear legal precedent for escalating force in areas where the U.S. has no official combat mandate demands a thorough accounting of the rationale and authorization chain. Clearly congress is the only authority that can declare war, not the president.

    The Admiral’s Testimony

    The key figure in the initial decision-making process, Navy Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley, who ordered the controversial strikes, testified this past week before national security committees. His testimony was central to understanding the operational intelligence that underpinned the decision to use deadly force.

    Crucially, lawmakers were provided with details about the alleged destination and purpose of the targeted vessel. According to sources familiar with the classified briefings, the naval forces believed the boat was not merely carrying narcotics, but was:

    “Heading toward a scheduled link-up with another vessel bound for Suriname.”

    Other reports suggested simply that the vessel was heading south when it was engaged. Regardless of the slight variation in the directional details, these briefings attempted to confirm the high-value nature of the target and the intelligence driving the escalation.

    Seeking Legal Clarity and Accountability

    Lawmakers overseeing the national security apparatus are demanding answers on several fronts: the proportionality of force used, the legal authority governing operations in international drug interdiction, and the adherence to conventions regarding the treatment of survivors and non-combatants.

    The fundamental legal debate centers on whether the expansive counter-narcotics campaign, which involves destroying vessels and resulting in high casualty rates, operates within or beyond accepted maritime enforcement limits.

    The campaign’s destruction of over two dozen vessels and loss of lives heightens the inquiry’s seriousness. The congressional investigation targets not just the tactical error of the September 2 strike but questions the military’s entire posture in this region’s legality and morality.