Fact check: What are the differences in international law between targeting terrorists and targeting narco-terrorists?

1. Summary of the results

The differences in international law between targeting terrorists and targeting narco-terrorists are complex and multifaceted ^[1]. International law requires that states respect human rights and the rule of law in counter-terrorism efforts, and that counter-terrorism measures comply with international human rights law, refugee law, and humanitarian law ^[1]. The definition of terrorism is not yet comprehensive, but existing declarations and treaties define certain acts and core elements, and states have an obligation to prevent and deter future terrorist attacks and to prosecute those responsible ^[1]. The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols contain rules limiting the barbarity of war and protecting people who do not take part in the fighting ^[2]. The US strike against alleged Venezuelan drug smugglers has been described as a major escalation in how the US approaches Latin American criminal organizations, with dubious legal practices ^[3]. The United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT) provides information on international cooperation to combat terrorism, but does not specifically address the differences in international law between targeting terrorists and targeting narco-terrorists ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Some key context that is missing from the original statement includes the importance of international cooperation in combating terrorism, as highlighted by France's experience in combating terrorism ^[5]. Additionally, the FBI's approach to investigating and combating terrorism could provide valuable insights for understanding the legal and operational considerations involved in targeting narco-terrorists ^[6]. Alternative viewpoints include the idea that designating drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations may not be the most effective way to combat drug trafficking and could lead to unintended consequences ^[7]. The US administration's justification for the strike under domestic US law remains murky, and the action may be seen as a performative and gratuitous use of military power ^[3]. The Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) provides information on the implementation of Security Council resolutions related to counter-terrorism, including the protection of human rights and the rule of law ^[8]. The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) provides information on sanctions and counter-terrorism efforts, including the designation of foreign terrorist organizations and the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions ^[9].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement may be misleading in implying that there is a clear and straightforward distinction between targeting terrorists and targeting narco-terrorists in international law ^[1]. In reality, the differences are complex and multifaceted, and depend on a range of factors, including the specific circumstances of each case and the applicable laws and treaties ^[1]. The statement may also overlook the importance of human rights and the rule of law in counter-terrorism efforts, as emphasized by the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) and the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT) ^{[8] [4]}. The US administration may benefit from framing the issue in a certain way, such as by designating drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, in order to justify certain actions or policies ^{[7] [3]}.