Good questions, David. The distinctions you lay out — “war” vs “law-enforcement” — are exactly at the heart of the legal controversy. Based on what’s publicly known as of December 7, 2025, here’s how current legal scholarship, reporting, and treaty/ statutory law answer your numbered points.

(1) “War” vs. “Law Enforcement”: the core choice

Yes — the binary you describe is essentially correct:

• If it’s “war,” then under U.S. constitutional structure Congress (typically) must act (declaration of war or AUMF / statutory authorization).

• If it’s “law enforcement,” then ordinary law-enforcement procedures apply — not war powers.

The problem is: the current U.S. government appears to be treating the same conduct as both — calling it an “armed conflict” with cartels (i.e., war) and also a crackdown on drug-smuggling (i.e., law enforcement). Legal experts argue you cannot validly do both. Just Security+2Atlantic Council+2

(2) If it is “law enforcement,” can the military be involved — and use lethal force without warrant?

(2a) Can the military (e.g., Navy) do law-enforcement at sea?

• Typically no. Under the statute known as the Posse Comitatus Act (and related DoD regulations), the Army and Air Force are generally forbidden from executing U.S. criminal law. Congress.gov+1

• The Navy likewise lacks ordinary law-enforcement authority. The traditional maritime law-enforcement agency is the United States Coast Guard (USCG). The Cipher Brief+1

• While the Coast Guard can enforce U.S. laws at sea — under statutes like the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) and the Drug Trafficking Vessel Interdiction Act (DTVIA) — those statutes authorize boarding, seizure, arrest, and prosecution, not summary lethal strikes. Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2

• Indeed, historically, Coast Guard drug-interdiction practice has involved disabling vessels (e.g., shooting out engines), then boarding, seizing contraband, and detaining crew — not killing them. The Cipher Brief+2MyCG+2

Thus: if the operation is law-enforcement, it should be done by the Coast Guard (or equivalent), not the Navy as a wartime force.

(2b) Can lethal force be used in law-enforcement at sea without warrant or prior judicial authorization?

As a general rule, no — at least not lethal force without exigent circumstances. Under U.S. and international law, lethal force is permissible in law-enforcement only when there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm (e.g., self-defense) — not simply because you suspect a crime (e.g., drug smuggling). This is consistent with both domestic constitutional jurisprudence and international human-rights protections. Just Security+2PBS+2

In prior Coast Guard enforcement cases, the standard has been to use disabling force to render a vessel unable to escape, then board and prosecute. Killing suspects merely for suspected smuggling has not been the accepted practice. The Cipher Brief+2U.S. Naval Institute+2

So under law enforcement rules, lethal force without a specific and imminent threat would not be lawful.

(3) Is there any legal/ evidentiary obligation to collect evidence (drugs, identities) before or after an attack?

Yes — especially under law-enforcement frameworks.

• Under the MDLEA / DTVIA (and more broadly U.S. criminal procedure), to prosecute drug smuggling you must board the vessel, seize the contraband, and detain (or arrest) the people on board — which inherently requires preserving evidence (drugs, records, manifests, crew identities, etc.). Wikipedia+2The Cipher Brief+2

• Even under international human-rights law and domestic law, if lethal force is used, there is at least an expectation of post-operation investigation, evidence collection, and accountability, especially if there are survivors. Many human-rights law experts argue that the U.S. strikes so far amount to extrajudicial killings because they occur absent judicial process, seizure, or arrest. Just Security+2New York City Bar Association+2

Thus, bypassing evidence collection — by killing the suspects instead of boarding — undermines any plausible law-enforcement case and renders the operation legally precarious.

(4) Does it matter if the boats were bound for Suriname (or somewhere other than the U.S.) or rendezvousing with larger ships, rather than directly heading to the U.S.?

Yes — that makes the legal case even weaker for both war- and law-enforcement justification.

• If the boats were not heading to the U.S., then the asserted “threat to U.S.” is more attenuated, undermining claims of self-defense or imminent harm to Americans. Legal scholars have pointed out that a transiting smuggling vessel, headed to a third country, does not satisfy the “armed attack” threshold under the United Nations Charter Article 51 self-defense standard. Chatham House+2Atlantic Council+2

• Also, under maritime law (e.g., the principles reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — or customary law equivalent), a vessel en route to a third country remains under flag-state jurisdiction, not automatically subject to U.S. enforcement or use-of-force authority. Global Policy Journal+2International Review of the Red Cross+2

So the fact that a vessel is headed elsewhere, or might rendezvous with another ship — rather than directly to the U.S. — weakens drastically any claimed nexus to U.S. self-defense or legitimate law enforcement.

(5) Was the “second strike” — after the boat was disabled and survivors remained aboard — lawful?

Very likely not. Here’s why (and why many legal experts say it likely violates the law of war / international law / human rights):

• According to a public legal analysis, once a vessel is disabled and no longer poses an imminent threat, it ceases to be a lawful target under the law of armed conflict. Attacking survivors, shipwrecked persons, or incapacitated persons is prohibited. Just Security+2PBS+2

• International human-rights law likewise prohibits extrajudicial killing — lethal force outside the context of an armed conflict or a lawful, constitutional domestic-law enforcement action. Just Security+2PBS+2

• Domestic law also likely prohibits it: federal homicide statutes (and the military’s own criminal code) treat unlawful killing of persons — even foreigners at sea — as murder if not justified. Just Security+2Reuters+2

• Many critiques conclude these strikes — especially follow-on strikes on survivors — amount to murder or war crimes. Reuters+2New York City Bar Association+2

In sum, the second strike is even more legally indefensible because it likely violated both the laws of war (due to status of survivors) and human rights / domestic criminal law (due to extrajudicial killing).

Bottom-Line Answers for You, David

If you like, David — I can run you through a short hypothetical “checklist of legality” that one could apply to any similar strike to see whether it meets domestic and international law. That often makes the defects easier to spot.

David, you’re very kind — and I’m always glad to dig in and give you the clearest legal picture possible.
Anytime you want to keep going on this (or switch gears entirely), just say the word.