A guest reading from Everett Wohlers; he lives in Idaho.
With the reported drone attack on the Venezuelan port a couple of days ago, Donald Trump has made good on the verbal threats and threatening actions against the sovereign territory of Venezuela that he has been making for the past two months. People should understand the legal meaning of that strike under US law, so here is a quick look at that.
First, the Constitution, in Article VI, para. 2, says, "This Constitution . . . and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby. . . ."
Second, the United Nations Charter, which is a binding treaty to which the US is a party, says in Article 2, para. 4, "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. . . ."
Third, UN General Assembly Resolution 3314, dated 14 December 1974, adopts a definition of "aggression" to elaborate on the meaning of the UN Charter provision above. Article 1 of the Resolution says, "Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State. . . ." Article 2 identifies what constitutes aggression as, "The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression. . . ." Article 3 explains in more detail, "Any of the following acts ... shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression: (a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State. . . , (b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State. . . ." Article 5, para. 1 makes clear that excuses for aggression, e.g. drug intervention or the alleged presence of third country forces, will not stand, saying, "No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression." Article 5, para. 2 lays out the significance and consequences of aggression for the aggressor as, "A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility."
It is quite clear that the drone strike on the port is an act of aggression in violation of the UN Charter and that it is subject to "international responsibility." However, the enforcement mechanism for such violations, as laid out in the Charter in Chapter VII, calls for the Security Council to decide how to enforce. In other words, the US veto in the Security Council means that the US and its leadership have impunity with respect to such violations.
The more relevant effect of the violation of the Charter is under domestic law. Because the Charter is "the supreme Law of the Land," a violation of it is a violation of the "Law of the Land," i.e. of US law. While there is no chance that the Department of Justice under Pam Bondi would take any action against such a violation of law by Trump, et.al., a "crime against international peace" would surely qualify as a "high crime" under Article II, section 4, of the Constitution. Would such a crime be sufficient to cause even some of the Republican members of Congress to see the need to hold Trump to account and to join the Democrats in an impeachment and conviction of Trump, et.al., for such high crimes? Probably not. But the mid-terms are in less than a year, and then, who knows?