President Trump’s controversial policy of destroying vessels from Venezuela smuggling drugs into the U.S. is now the latest example of the Axis of Unethical Conduct’s desperation search for bogus issues with which to impugn the President and his administration. Let’s see, we have: not “bringing down prices” that cannot come down after the last Administration caused 9% inflation; “cruelly” deporting illegal immigrants, including criminals; improving the White House with a long-needed ballroom; the President saying exactly, if intemperately, what six Democrats did by urging the military to defy its Commander-in- Chief; the Department of War requiring journalists not to leak sensitive information illegally provided by Deep State operatives…I’m sure I left out some. Now the Trump is defending the legality of a September 2 attack on a boat in the Caribbean Sea where a second missile strike was ordered that killed survivors of the first strike.
How does the killing of drug smugglers in the midst of illegal activities roil the political landscape? Well, the Axis news media lying about it helps. The Washington Post, in a “bombshell” report last week, claimed that Secretray of War Hegseth had specifically ordered that any survivors of these attack he killed. “As two men clung to a stricken, burning ship targeted by SEAL Team 6, the Joint Special Operations commander followed the defense secretary’s order to leave no survivors,” the Post told readers.
You know an Axis propaganda organ has gone too far when the New York Times calls BS:
According to five U.S. officials, who spoke separately and on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter that is under investigation, Mr. Hegseth, ahead of the Sept. 2 attack, ordered a strike that would kill the people on the boat and destroy the vessel and its purported cargo of drugs. But, each official said, Mr. Hegseth’s directive did not specifically address what should happen if a first missile turned out not to fully accomplish all of those things. And, the officials said, his order was not a response to surveillance footage showing that at least two people on the boat survived the first blast. Admiral Bradley ordered the initial missile strike and then several follow-up strikes that killed the initial survivors and sank the disabled boat. As that operation unfolded, they said, Mr. Hegseth did not give any further orders to him.
Oh.
Nonetheless, Democrats are talking about impeaching Hegseth. There’s a possibility that the election of a bonkers leftist Democrat may flip a GOP district in Tennessee today, leading to a deadlocked House. Just one more Democrat, and the party can get another partisan impeachment out of its system to thrill the Trump Deranged. Well, let ’em. Democrats destroyed impeachment as a legitimate source of shame, guilt or even political baggage when it mustered two unjustified impeachments against President Trump in his first term. Once an invaluable tool of elected official accountability, impeachments is now the equivalent of lawfare, the unethical use of partisan prosecutions as political tactics. The two/thirds Senate majority necessary for conviction is only feasible when the impeachable offense is substantial and virtually indisputable. The Trump Administration response to all the impeachment rubber-sabre-rattling should be, “Oh, go ahead, if it makes you happy. We have more important matters to worry about.”
The incident also raises the delicate ethics controversy of war crimes. To summarize the many posts on the subject on EA: there is no such thing as “ethical warfare.” General Sherman was right: the only way to fight an ethical war is to fight to win as quickly as possible, while making the conduct that started the war so clearly dangerous to all involved miscreants that neither they nor anyone else dare to engage in it again. The only true war crime is the conduct that made the war necessary, and not the response to it.
If Venezuelan drug smugglers know for certain that they will die if they try to bring drugs into the U.S., there will, presumably, be less drug smuggling. Good.
Ethics Alarms 
Let’s see…
Pete Hegseth’s Department is called “War”.
Pete Hegseth’s Administration has declared a war on drugs entering the country.
People attempting to smuggle drugs into the United States are now combatants.
Combatants may die when a Department named “War” implements actual war on them.
Some combatants smuggling drugs into the United States were killed last September in the war and their drugs were destroyed.
Mission accomplished.
did Congress declare war on drugs? As a country we tend to forget this piece of the constitution.
Being a “dog person”, you might appreciate this related post pic from TwitteX:
Part of the issue is that only Congress can declare war.
Another part of the issue is that this is summary capital punishment for an offense that isn’t capital in the United States, imposed before any crime has been committed, and without publicly available proof that the boats were carrying drugs. Is that ethically different from allowing them to land, arresting them, searching their boat for drugs, and then chopping their heads off? Is it legally different?
I was under the impression that most operations to disrupt drug cartel action outside of American soil were covert, or at least attempted to be. The “war on drugs” was originally metaphorical. If we want to change that, it’s not particularly trustworthy to kill people in other countries even if they’re sending people to commit felonies in the United States.
That said, I could see the argument that cartels are similar in scope and effect to terrorist organizations. If Trump and Hegseth are going to assert they have the authority to order suspected drug smugglers killed, I would want them to show a bit of respect for habeas corpus. I’d want to see the evidence, within the limits of operational security, for why a particular boat was marked for death.
Part of the issue is that only Congress can declare war.
It isn’t. There are precedents beyond counting of using military force in the absence of Congressional authorization. Further, the appropriation of funds for the military establishment, and the scope of Presidential authority, makes that an argument that fails from the outset. After all, one of the President’s responsibilities is the enforcement of laws Congress has passed.
Prohibiting narcotics smuggling is one of them. If all other measures have failed, how is the President prohibited from enforcing the law with means appropriated by Congress?
I’d want to see the evidence, within the limits of operational security, for why a particular boat was marked for death.
It is obvious by inspection: the only reason this type of vessel exists is to smuggle narcotics.
Drug Boat/Fishing Boat
In war you deny the enemy all information. How they identified them is materially useful. It would allow them to emplace countermeasures, making it more difficult/dangerous. When the War Department issues orders to SOCOM, the lawyers have beaten the issue to death(ahem), the Admiral likely has a folder on each boat they have targeted, they drug runners aren’t using craft that can be confused with a pleasure craft or even a working vessel. I expect the issues from the Barbary Pirates has been updated for the modern age.
Let me first state the obvious. Korea, Vietnam Nam, Iraq 1 &2, Grenada, Bay of Pigs were never declared wars by Congress.
Narco Terrorist organization kill with impunity and have effectively neutered foreign governments. The goal is to do that here. The president took an oath to protect and defend the nation against all threats foreign and domestic. If Maduro believes we have attacked his innocent civilians let him declare war on us.
If you feel that such actions must be done covertly instead of in the bright sunshine of the day then you cannot argue that it was done without cause.
That is the right response to EC as well. And the War on Terror: the evolving truth is that the Congresional declaration of war is just not practical in situations like this.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that destroying drug smuggling boats is in the US national interests, that it is a legitimate exercise of Presidential power, that the boat hit was, in fact, a drug smuggling boat, two of the crew survived, and were subsequently killed.
First, read <a href="http://this WSJ article describing the smuggling operation. (gift link)
The war crimes charge is based upon the Law of Armed Conflict prohibiting the killing of those rendered hors de combat (HDC). That is, captured enemy combatants, or survivors of an attack at sea.
Sounds open and shut, right? That is the conclusion that David French is coming to on the Advisory Opinions podcast.
Not so fast. First, HDC applies only if it is reasonably possible to capture/rescue and confine survivors.
Second, consider this hypothetical: WWII, Battle of Britain, over England. An RAF pilot, and a German pilot bailout. Is it a war crime for a RAF pilot to machine gun the German pilot in his parachute? How about a German pilot machine gunning the RAF pilot?
Further, the target consisted of three elements: boat, drugs, and crew. The greatest advance towards our war aim — stopping this smuggling — is obtained by the target’s complete destruction. Rescuing survivors lessens the deterrent effect upon potential future boat crews, and therefore would be antagonistic to the war aim.
Assume a further hypothetical: the drug boat configuration is changed so that the boat with the drugs and engines tows the crew at a sufficient distance so that they would be outside the blast radius of the weapon attacking the boat.
Does that mean we can’t attack the crew at all, or only before attacking the vessel carrying the drugs?
Considering that the smuggling boat and engines is very low value, and that the cargo is low cost and very high value, the crew is the one element that is very difficult to replace. If, that is, it is clear our strategy is to completely eliminate any target we successfully engage.
There is a lot we don’t know about the supposed second strike on a vessel supposedly carrying drugs that supposedly killed two survivors.
What we do know is that if the situation was as described, then a war crime was committed (or, maybe not, but I’ll come back to that point). The situation as described had two survivors of an initial attack clinging to a boat, possibly waving a white flag of surrender.
The U.S. is a subscriber to the Geneva Conventions, and the U.S. military (including special operations forces) operates under The Department of Defense Law of War Manual (all 1,254 pages of it). Both provide for the protection of non-combatants. Specifically, from the Manual: “Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in Article 13 of the GWS (Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick of Armies in the Field, Jul. 27, 1929, 47 Stat. 2074) and the GWS-Sea, who are wounded, sick, or shipwrecked, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances. Such persons are among the categories of persons placed hors de combat; making them the object of attack is strictly prohibited.”
So, were those two hors de combat? Certainly seems so.
But, was the second strike (or was it a third) an attempt to sink the drug boat and the survivors just collateral casualties, or was it an attempt to sink the boat and kill them?
If a crime was committed, then we need to find the guilty SOB and take appropriate action. Was it Hegseth? Was it Bradley? Was it the special operations officer who launched the second (or third) strike? All three?
Possibly, the Congressional investigation will reveal the facts of the case which could lead to an impeachment, and that process could provide further clarification.
Possibly the military investigation will reveal the facts which could lead to a court martial, which could provide even further clarification.
Interestingly enough (for me, at least), I was in a somewhat comparable situation may years ago. As the commander of a night helicopter mission (an intermittent extra duty, once or twice a week over a period of a few months). It was my call whether or not to fire on a supposed target. (Returning fire when fired upon was automatically permitted, so no action needed by me.) But, we also were under general orders to destroy enemy ferrying weapons. In the early hours of the day, we came upon a boat in a canal with the cargo hidden from view. Was this a load of vegetables headed to market, thus innocent non-combatants, or was it a load of weapons headed to an enemy base? No way to be certain from our altitude.
Back to the Caribbean. My impression, based on somewhat sketchy and disputed information is that a crime was committed. My further impression is that no one will be punished, just as no one was punished when Obama ordered the killing of an American, Anwar Nasser Abdulla al-Awlaki, in 2011. Was al-Awlaki a combatant? Obama claimed he was based on the fact that he spoke overtly in support of violence and condemned the U.S. government’s foreign policy towards Muslims. Or, was he exercising a right to free speech?
Still don’t know, do we? And when we don’t know but are strongly interested, beliefs take over. And, that explains a lot of the commentary on the drug boats.
I notice that you don’t provide it information whether you fired on the boat or not, whether there were any survivors or if you provided aid to the hors de combat personnel. I really don’t need an answer, just pointing this out for the folks that may have missed it. As a vet, do I thank you for our service?
I can answer that unasked question when I’m comfortably into a couple of beers with someone I know and like.
I appreciate the recognition, and as I sometimes point out, it was a privilege for me to serve. Not everyone who wants to can, and not all those who do have some of the great experiences I have had.
Google AI overview responded to the prompt “does geneva convention protect terrorists” with
“No, the Geneva Conventions do not directly apply to terrorists in the same way they apply to lawful combatants, as terrorists are not members of a state party to the convention and do not meet the criteria for prisoner of war status. However, if a terrorist is captured during an international armed conflict, they may be considered an unlawful combatant and are entitled to minimum protections under the Geneva Conventions and related protocols, such as the right to humane treatment. For situations not involving an armed conflict, such as peacetime, terrorists are subject to domestic and international human rights laws, not the Geneva Conventions. “
Not being a lawyer I am still going to make some observations and questions:
So why are we concerned with the Geneva Conventions here? The more we kill of those cartel members the fewer people die in the USA due to drug overdose. The administration of the USA should be more concerned about the welfare of law abiding citizens and residents of the USA than about the life of members of drug cartels who use foreign countries and international waters as staging ground for crimes against the USA.
“So why are we concerned with the Geneva Conventions here?”
Just as with Obama droning American citizens abroad with terrorist affiliations, “we” aren’t. The ones who are concerned are only thinking about the issue’s “Get Trump” potential.
If Venezuelan drug smugglers know for certain that they will die if they try to bring drugs into the U.S., there will, presumably, be less drug smuggling.
I can only surmise that the guys crewing these boats are being forced to do so by senior management in the cartel holding their family members hostage. These animals are beyond ruthless.
Former JAG here–I’ve taught the Law of Armed Conflict and Operational Law to active duty special operators at one of our special operations schools, as well as advised on use of force to some local commanders. A couple of observations:
I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but this appears to be some kind of shaping operation directed at not just the President, but members of the armed forces. The original report of this incident was back in September in a publication called “The Intercept.” That report lay dormant until the National Lawyers Guild, a far left legal organization, published an information piece on the military’s obligation to disobey “unlawful” orders, on November 11. The tendentious video by the six congressmen followed shortly thereafter, followed immediately by the posting of billboards outside several major U.S. military installations urging soldiers to question the legality of their orders. This was immediately followed by the pick-up of he Intercept story and its publication by the corporate press. Draw your own conclusions.
A key point in this discussion that seems to have been omitted by most if not all commentators is that we are engaging our military forces against a state-sponsored narco-terrorism operation. The Maduro government is supporting, sponsoring, and profiting from drug importation into the US, and is working hand in glove with Venezuelan cartels. In other words, this is not a law enforcement operation but rather a state-versus-state confrontation involving what are effectively unlawful combatants on one side.
Unlawful combatants do not have the same protections under the laws of war that regular forces do. But there are still some universal principles that apply to US forces, mainly on the basis of US adoption of these principles in either military law, Rules of Engagement, or in the US Code.
One of these principles is that individuals engaged in combat operations, lawful or not, are not to be the object of attack if they are trying to surrender, wounded such that they cannot further engage in combat operations, or otherwise in a helpless position.
The same prohibition does not apply, however, to the means of combat operations, specifically equipment and logistical support. There is, at least to my understanding, no prohibition on a policy of sinking enemy vessels or destroying enemy logistics, by appropriate and proportionate means. And while the likely injury or death to individuals in the vicinity of legitimate targets may be a consideration, it’s not a prohibition.
I should note that we still don’t have a complete picture of every circumstance surrounding this operation and are unlikely to get one because of the classified nature of our intelligence gathering that provided context to the decision to undertake this attack. But I can tell you that nothing like this is undertaken without significant effort spent on assessing the legality of the action, and would be lawyered from the very top on down. I’m also confident that a bald order to kill survivors clinging to a wrecked boat (versus an order to completely sink any target and destroy any associated cargo) would almost certainly be challenged at multiple levels down the chain of command.
Finally, I’ve had the pleasure of getting an order from the Secretary of Defense overturned and declared unlawful through litigation. I would never use a public forum to imply generally that orders coming from the president are illegal as these idiotic Congressmen did. To do so is conduct detrimental to good order and discipline.
Excellent, informative post, 77Z!
PWS
Just another one of the five EA commenters, who also happens to be an expert on the topic at hand. Thanks, Zoomie.
It occurs to me that, since there are only five commenters on this blog, perhaps we need a little structure.
To wit, let’s stipulate that there are commenters One, Two, Three, Four, and Five.
Do each of us need to declare an allegiance to one commenter or another? I.e. I’m a Four, or I’m a Three.
It just seems to me that the Five are fungible so we need a little distinction.
As well, does One have some distinctive traits as opposed to Two or Three?
I think perhaps baseball fans should be assigned to Four.
Just saying…….
Maybe it should be like LIV Golf. There could be individual commenters, and they could also be members of one of five teams of, let’s say ten commenters each. But the limit of five teams would keep the commenters at five.
Somebody/ies will end up getting ButtHurt.
Seeing she got this ball rolling, perhaps put the talented Marissa in charge…?
PWS
I like where this is going. I vote for the creation of a DoC (Department of Commentary) with at least one oversight committee and, if not a sub-committee or two, then at least one working group or member panel.
Of course, a budget for salaries & compensation is necessary, so some provision for organizing that should be considered. And a meeting space will need to be acquired to house the department. If an adequate existing structure can’t be found, then…well…one will need to be built.
Some of you are thinking, “This feels like overkill for five commenters,” but I assure you it’s just the tip of a Titanic-scuttling iceberg.
I dunno. What about me? Am I Commenter 6? 7? Do I get a designation? Recognition? Please?!
jvb
Excellent informative post!
do us non-lawyers have to be on a team to comment?
LIV Golf proposal: Everybody can comment and everybody gets to be on a team. Only restriction: just five teams/commenters. Tah dah!
I’ll play on whatever team will take me–just happy to be on the roster. But I think we should have Team names, e.g., Team One is “First of the First”; Team Two is “Deuces Wild”; Team Three is “Triple Threat”, etc. And jackets. We have to have jackets.
I’m not a very good team player, my independence tends to eventually rock the boat.
Can I still comment? 😉
Democrat hoaxers aren’t even trying to hide the obvious narrative they’ve been building anymore.
It’s incredibly obvious that the massive “don’t follow illegal orders of a president” campaign that narrowly avoids being seditious only on a hair-thin pretense is linked directly with the Washington Post pushed hoax accusing Pete Hegseth of war crimes.
Democrats attempt to subvert elections.
Democrats attempt to subvert the SCOTUS
Democrats actively trying to oust presidents for no reason
Democrats now quietly hoping to foment an open military coup
Democrats now are literally exactly as dangerous to the republic as Democrats were in 1860.
And we continue to pretend like they can be reasoned with.