Bloomberg Law Are Boat Strikes Legal & Right to Counsel
Oct 8, 2025
Matthew Waxman, a national security law expert and Columbia Law professor, dives into the legality of U.S. strikes on Venezuelan drug boats, discussing claims of self-defense and potential legal challenges. Meanwhile, Paul Callan, a former Manhattan prosecutor, tackles Supreme Court questions about attorney-client communication during testimony breaks, differentiating permissible advice from potential coaching. Both guests illuminate the intersection of law, national security, and ethics in the judicial system.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Armed Conflict Claim Expands War Power
- The Trump administration labels drug cartels as participants in an "armed conflict" to justify military targeting.
- Treating cartels as enemy soldiers expands presidential war powers but raises legal uncertainty under the law of armed conflict.
Self-Defense Requires Armed Attack
- Self-defense under international law normally requires an actual or imminent armed attack.
- Strikes on distant drug vessels supply no clear imminent-attack predicate, weakening a self-defense justification.
Land Operations Face UN Charter Limits
- Using force on another state's territory needs consent or a clear armed-attack justification under the UN Charter.
- Absent evidence Venezuela directed attacks or consented, land operations would face steep legal hurdles.