When a strike is successful, arguments about laws, rights, or whatever will be far from persuasive, but these same laws, rights, or whatever exist to determine when someone is guilty of a crime. Four years ago, the military botched a strike on suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and ended up killing ten innocent people.
Last week, President Donald Trump reimagined the War on Drugs with a surprise military strike on a Venezuelan smuggling boat in international waters, killing 11 suspected drug traffickers and destroying untold amounts of product heading for American shores. President Trump announced the strike himself on Truth Social, “Earlier this morning, on my Orders, U.S. Military Forces conducted a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility. TDA is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, operating under the control of Nicolas Maduro, responsible for mass murder, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and acts of violence and terror across the United States and Western Hemisphere.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed shortly afterwards that the “lethal strike” took place in the “southern Caribbean” against “a drug vessel which had departed from Venezuela.” For its part, CNN reported on the strike by correctly pointing out, “The use of military force against Latin American drug cartels represents a significant escalation by the Trump administration and could have serious implications for the region.” Perhaps needless to say, the experts in these matters along with their Democrat allies were less than enthused, beginning with questioning the legal authority to conduct such a strike in the first place, which “may have violated international human rights and maritime law” according to BBC News. Though the US is not a signatory to the UN’s Law of the Sea, “US military’s legal advisors have previously said that the US should ‘act in a manner consistent with its provisions.’ At issue is an agreement not to interfere with vessels operating in international waters, save for a few exceptions such as a ‘hot pursuit’ where a vessel is chased from a country’s waters into the high seas.” “Force can be used to stop a boat but generally this should be non-lethal measures,” Professor Luke Moffett of Queens University Belfast said. Aggressive tactics, like those undertaken by the Trump Administration, must be “reasonable and necessary in self-defense where there is immediate threat of serious injury or loss of life to enforcement officials” which means that the strike was likely “unlawful under the law of the sea,” presumably even though we never agreed to the law of the sea.
Beyond the location, some experts questioned whether we can use military force against the Tren de Aragua cartel in the first place. According to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, force can only be used in self defense when under attack. Professor Michael Becker of Trinity College Dublin claimed that President Trump has “stretche[d] the meaning of the term beyond its breaking point.” “The fact that US officials describe the individuals killed by the US strike as narco-terrorists does not transform them into lawful military targets,” he said. “The US is not engaged in an armed conflict with Venezuela or the Tren de Aragua criminal organization.” “Not only does the strike appear to have violated the prohibition on the use of force, it also runs afoul of the right to life under international human rights law.” Professor Moffett concurred with this interpretation as well, saying it was an “extrajudicial arbitrary killing” and “a fundamental violation of human rights.” “Labelling everyone a terrorist does not make them a lawful target and enables states to side-step international law,” he added.
For the most part, Democrats and their progressive allies in the United States agreed, either questioning or outright condemning the action. Progressive Congresswoman Ilhan Omar tweeted, “I condemn the Trump Admin’s lawless and reckless actions in the Southern Caribbean. Congress has not declared war on Venezuela, or Tren de Aragua, and the mere designation of a group as a terrorist organization does not give any President carte blanche to ignore Congress’s clear Constitutional authority on matters of war and peace.” Democrat Senator Mark Kelly told Axios that he worried the military was being forced into “doing things that are outside of legal boundaries,” noting that President Trump will not be in office forever, he “will be gone at some point, and we should not put our service members in a position that they’re doing things that are outside of legal boundaries.” Other Democrats questioned why they were not informed in advance. Senator Chris Coons said not receiving a briefing beforehand was “concerning.” Juan S. Gonzalez, a former National Security Council official in the Biden administration, tweeted that the attack was “legally questionable under both U.S. and international law.” Brian Krassenstein, a progressive social media influencer claimed, “Killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime,” something even Republican Senator Rand Paul seemed to agree with. When Vice President JD Vance responded to Mr. Krassenstein by saying, rather coarsely, that he didn’t give a shit what he called it, Senator Paul tweeted “JD ‘I don’t give a s—’ Vance says killing people he accuses of a crime is the ‘highest and best use of the military.’ Did he ever read To Kill a Mockingbird? Did he ever wonder what might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial or representation?? What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial.” So far, the only Democrat to praise the attack was somewhat renegade Senator John Fetterman, who tweeted, “Fully support confronting the scourge of cartel drug trafficking to our nation.” The vast majority of Republicans, meanwhile, see this as another potential 80-20 issue, where Democrats and progressives are being forced into the uncomfortable position of defending monstrous drug cartels rather than American citizens. They have, rightly in my view, pointed out that cartels are heavily armed, quasi military groups that are directly and indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands of American deaths, and therefore, a kinetic, military response is appropriate.
In principle, they are correct. As the old saying goes, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, due process is a not a shield to protect the guilty, and law enforcement in general is not designed to take down threats before they reach our shores. Though we have been using the law enforcement approach to the War on Drugs since the Nixon Administration, the cartels keep getting stronger and more brazen, better armed and more lethal while the drugs themselves keep pouring into the country in ever more deadly varieties and people keep dying. This is at least partly because the cartels are headquartered outside the United States along with much of their operations, beyond the reach of most law enforcement agencies, but mostly because law enforcement in general is designed to serve a different purpose than confronting and destroying the equivalent of small, stateless armies. Simply put, the goal of the police isn’t to destroy targets. They don’t shoot first and ask questions later; they either investigate a crime that has already been committed or should they encounter one in progress, seek to defuse the situation rather than escalate it. Force, when it is used, is to neutralize an imminent threat to the police or the public, not deter or remove it beforehand; they do not obtain a warrant, target the building, blow it up, and then clean it up. They seek to serve the warrant in the most peaceful way possible with the goal of gathering evidence for legal action. Military operations, in contrast, generally use force first and seek settlements later, taking out a target before reaching any kind of peace. In other words, law enforcement is in a sense defensive, military offensive. To date, the defensive strategy has not successfully prevented or disrupted the cartels, clearly suggesting that a new strategy is required. President Trump’s strategy is to view the cartels as a terrorist threat and treat them accordingly. Last week marked the first known instance of that policy and taken it isolation, it was clearly successful. In fact, all of the criticism takes for granted that the strike destroyed a boat carrying drugs to our shores and that those killed were drug traffickers. No one, as far as I can tell, is claiming they were innocent victims rather than hardened criminals. Under those circumstances, any argument about laws, rights, or whatever will be far from persuasive to most people, but at the same time, these same laws, rights, or whatever exist at least in part to determine when someone is guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt before they are punished accordingly. Putting this another way, the same majority that likely supports this particular strike would be condemning it if we’d accidentally destroyed a fishing boat and killed innocent civilians. In that case, there would be broad agreement that the action was unacceptable even if the goal was acceptable.
From this perspective, the real question is what information and processes the Trump Administration has implemented to ensure we are targeting actual drug dealers and there is no risk we will inadvertently target civilians. The answer would necessarily include who is making these decisions, what intelligence is available, what is the chain of command before a strike is authorized, and what fail safes are in place to err on the side of caution. This is not a merely theoretical issue. In fact, the military incorrectly targeting innocent civilians happened in the last four years. After a suicide bombing at Abbey Gate killed 13 service members and over 100 civilians in Afghanistan during our disgraceful retreat from the country, the Biden Administration authorized a drone strike on who they believed to be the perpetrators, but ended up killing 10 innocents instead. As the military confessed later, “The strike by a Hellfire missile in Kabul, August 29, which was launched in an effort to kill ISIS-K planners, instead killed 10 civilians, the commander of U.S. Central Command, Marine Corps General Kenneth F. McKenzie, Jr. said.” “Having thoroughly reviewed the findings of the investigation and the supporting analysis by interagency partners, I am now convinced that as many as 10 civilians — including up to seven children — were tragically killed in that strike,” he explained. “Moreover, we now assess that it is unlikely that the vehicle and those who died were associated with ISIS-K or were a direct threat to U.S. forces.” According to the US military, they had gathered actionable intelligence about a compound six kilometers from the airport and a white vehicle that was said to play a role in future attacks in the run up to the failed strike. On the 29th itself, drones tracked the vehicle from the compound “as it moved throughout the city and watched as the vehicle occupants moved supplies into and out of the vehicle and later exited the vehicle permanently at locations throughout the city. Late in the afternoon, the general said, the vehicle dropped off its last passenger and drove to a location approximately three kilometers from the airport.” “We were very concerned that the vehicle could move quickly and be at the airport boundary in a matter of moments,” General McKenzie said. “By this time, we’d observed the vehicle for about eight hours. While in the compound, the vehicle was observed being approached by a single adult male assessed at the time to be a co-conspirator. The strike was executed at this time, because the vehicle was stationary, and to reduce the potential for civilian casualties.” For whatever reason, the intelligence was wrong and ten innocent people died including seven children. Fortunately or unfortunately, this happened half a world away in a rapidly collapsing country and it received limited coverage at the time, but I assure you, if it happened today in the Caribbean, the level of outrage would be orders of magnitude higher and for good reason. President Trump would do well to learn this lesson and his supporters would do well to ask the right questions. One can embrace and support a policy while still having concerns and demanding accountability. Indeed, such a stance is essential in matters of war and peace.
Confessions of a Conservative Atheist 