The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the Lawfare podcast, become a material supporter of Lawfare at

patreon.com slash lawfare. That's patreon.com slash lawfare.

Also, check out Lawfare's other podcast offerings, Rational Security, Chatter,

Lawfare No Bull, and The Aftermath.

The idea that we did not have effective control, the U.S. military versus what is the equivalent

of a fishing vessel, right, that we did not have effective control over the U.S. military versus what is the equivalent of a fishing vessel, right, that we did not

have effective control over these circumstances sufficient, that we could have done something

differently is, you know, farcical. And so, you know, I think we're, I think they are creating

the textbook case for why international human rights law should apply to these circumstances.

It's the Lawfare podcast. I'm Benjamin Wittes, editor-in-chief of Lawfare, with Lawfare Senior

Editor Scott R. Anderson and Professor of Law at Cardoza Law School, Rebecca Ingber.

Presidential authority in this area is a little bit of a one-way ratchet.

Once it does something, it creates a precedent future presidents may rely on.

And the way you can chip away with that is really criticizing it and being very public about the problems with it.

And so I do think there's value to that and reasons to keep talking about it.

Does it mean the president's going to be stopped in this one case or be able to account in this one case?

Very unlikely. Today we're talking about the U.S. strike on that alleged drug boat traveling

from Venezuela, the president's authority to use lethal force outside of armed conflict and more.

Guys, I want to start just with what we know about what happened.

So Scott, get us started.

A boat went boom in the Caribbean.

...