The second strike isn’t the only problem

Extrajudicial killings may lead to another regime-change war

Whatever ideological differences with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), pro-democracy forces should acknowledge he hit the nail on the head last week regarding Donald Trump’s illegal and reckless operation in the Caribbean:

The second strike was illegal

Understandably, attention has focused on the United States’ shocking, illegal, and reprehensible action in murdering unarmed civilians whose ship our military had already destroyed. No justification exists for killing shipwrecked civilians:

Video footage of a U.S. military strike on alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean Sea shows two people attempting to flip their capsized vessel as they were attacked again, multiple lawmakers said … after speaking with the Navy admiral who oversaw the controversial mission.

As Just Security experts explain, simply carrying drugs does not convert those driving the boat into legal targets. “Under international human rights law, which governed the strikes, it is unlawful to knowingly cause the death of individuals, even criminals, in order to destroy criminal assets, like drugs.”

Photo by Lucy North

However, throughout last weeks, even more disturbing facts emerged. CNN reported: “The alleged drug traffickers killed by the US military in a strike on September 2 were heading to link up with another, larger vessel that was bound for Suriname.” The boat was not headed to the U.S., so Trump’s attenuated logic that it threatened the homeland collapses.

Moreover, Admiral Frank Bradley admitted to lawmakers that the survivors were “waving at something in the air although it’s unclear whether they might have been surrendering or asking the US aircraft they had spotted for help.” Either way, murdering them in such a situation violates every legal and moral precept under which our military operates.

In sum, the murdered survivors had no weapons, no radio, and no intent to head to the U.S. The killings now jeopardize our own service personnel. We should recoil in horror at the prospect that a hostile power would feel emboldened to kill a downed U.S. airman with a radio-equipped raft.

The larger problem is risk of a regime change war

As horrifying the second strike may be, Paul correctly identified a more frightful issue: Trump’s concocted “drug war” appears to be just a pretext to bootstrap extrajudicial killings into grounds for a regime-change war of the very type Trump vowed never to start.

Quite apart from the second strike, the entire operation lacks legal or factual justification. We face no armed combatant. Simply declaring some group of people to be terrorists does not put us into a war footing. Just Security experts detailed:

The United States is not in an armed conflict with any cartel or criminal gang. … Domestic criminal law and international human rights law both prohibit these kinds of lethal strikes outside of armed conflict (such killings are known as murder and extrajudicial killings, respectively). All 21 strikes against suspected drug trafficking boats, killing 83 people to date, have been unlawful.

There is no war and no factual basis for a war. Americans should be skeptical that Trump cares so deeply about fentanyl—which does not come from Venezuela. If he cared about fentanyl addiction, he would have not slashed addiction treatment in Medicaid. Switching the pretext to cocaine does not fly either. No serious anti-cocaine policy would entail pardoning an infamous cocaine smuggler or diverting of thousands of DEA agents to round up Hispanic gardeners and construction workers.

We know how to interdict drugs lawfully and effectively. In a letter to Rand Paul dated Oct. 1, the Coast Guard affirmed that without lethal force it interdicted in the previous month over 200 boats—69 in the Caribbean, 14 of which had no drugs at all. Put differently, lethal force is unnecessary to stop the influx of drugs, puts our military in grave legal jeopardy, and risks murdering persons engaged in absolutely no crime. Deploying our military to commit extrajudicial killings of unarmed drug mules exceeds his powers under the Constitution (which authorizes Congress to declare war) and violates domestic, military, and international law prohibiting murder of civilians, shipwrecked or not.

Trump’s unilateral war of aggression is grievous enough. But a bigger problem looms: Trump has consistently threatened to widen this operation to attack Venezuela directly. We are on the cusp of another unjustified, unauthorized war.

Fortunately, Democratic lawmakers have recognized the gravity of the moment. Thirteen lawmakers signed onto a VoteVets declaration demanding “No Republican Forever Wars!” It insists that America “[e]nd the march toward a costly and unauthorized War of the Americas, and military adventurism worldwide.” It further demands that Trump discontinue “the illegal and unconstitutional strikes in the Caribbean on boats, and all plans for direct military strikes on Venezuela and elsewhere, absent consultation with Congress and a vote to authorize strikes.” And the declaration calls to end military deployments into American cities since “America is not at war with Americans.”

Such anodyne affirmations should be entirely uncontroversial and bipartisan. Since Republican continue to cover for the regime, a vibrant public information campaign to explain the facts and outline the danger of a wider, unauthorized war is essential.

In addition to an investigation, invocation of the War Powers Act, and prohibition on use of funds, Congress must hold Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth accountable for his role in developing an outrageous, illegal operation and in the ensuing heinous Sept. 2 strikes. Furthermore, based purely on the inspector general’s Signalgate findings, Congress should demand his resignation for endangering our troops and dissembling about highly sensitive information released during a military action. If Hegseth does not get fired or resign, articles of impeachment should be introduced.

With Trump’s approval and power draining away, will Republicans finally decide to fulfill their obligations under Art. I? If they instead continue acting like spineless lackeys for an unhinged autocrat, they too will bear responsibility for extrajudicial killings, an illegal and unwanted war, and erosion of our military’s reputation and international alliances.