Trump is blowing up boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, claiming without evidence that they are drug traffickers. International law says the military cannot kill civilians unless they pose an imminent threat of violence — even if they appear to be engaged in criminal activity. There is a lot of back and forth about Trump’s assertion that the US is in an armed conflict with drug cartels.
Why is no one challenging this activity in a court somewhere?
What court and who has standing?
Much of the evidence is at the bottom of an ocean.
The title should probably say “suspected drug traffickers” rather than “fisherman”. The boats in the videos don’t look like fishing boats. They look like the stripped down speed boats with triple outboard motors that drug runners use. I’m not saying that justifies Trump’s actions, but calling them fishermen is probably misleading.
At best, Trump may have to think twice after leaving office about traveling internationally. He could be Pinocheted by an unsealed warrant.
Let me close my eyes for a little while and fantasize about Dear Leader languishing in some Banana Republic gulag for months on end….
What he should fear is China or Russia coming to Venezuelas aid. Creating another Cuba in our supossive sphere of influence.
Or bring similar actions near Taiwan, the Philippines or the EU.
Coming in 2026: The Summer Blockbuster You’ve Been Waiting For !
Cocaine Barricuda !
“It’s wearing Coppertone.”
“Aye, There’s The Rub !”
< Teeth Shred Flesh Sound >
I’ll just mention that we covered this pretty extensively in this thread:
So a new thread seems pretty redundant.
I didn’t see the previous thread. But in looking at it, I didn’t see much discussion of International law and whether destroying these boats is a violation thereof.
It appears to me that it is, and my OP was meant to be a factual question of who would have the ability to call this into question and why no one has done so.
But you didn’t ask a factual question.
You ranted and finished with at best an In My Humble Opinion question.
ICC has a warrant out for Putin. They can put out warrants for trump and Kegbreath. It would be more symbolic than anything else. If trump orders the boats destroyed despite the capability to stop them, that’s murder.
It was addressed pretty early. 7th post.
And in that post was a link:
That link included this info:
How have other countries reacted?
Reactions from leaders in Latin America and the Caribbean have been mixed. Mexico’s foreign affairs secretary stressed the country’s preference for a “peaceful solution of conflicts” during a press conference with visiting Secretary of State Rubio. When Rubio visited Ecuador, President Daniel Noboa thanked him for the Trump administration’s efforts to “actually eliminate any terrorist threat.”
While Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar praised the U.S. strike, other members of CARICOM—a trade bloc representing fifteen Caribbean countries—have expressed a desire for an open line of communication with the U.S. government to avoid future surprises. Meanwhile, Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro was more critical of the strike, saying that it “violates the universal principle of proportionality of force and results in murder.” Human rights groups have condemned the strike as an extrajudicial killing and called for the White House to provide legal justification.
Beyond the region, Russia, a staunch ally of Venezuela, criticized what it said was the United States putting “blatant pressure” on Venezuela. China, too, publicly condemned the U.S. naval deployment as an “interference of external forces in Venezuela’s internal affairs under any pretext.”
There is no “international law” that governs the planet, like a set of laws that would govern a nation or more local jurisdictions. There are treaties that govern relations between countries, and consequences for violating them, but otherwise countries abide by conventions voluntarily. What keeps countries in line is a worry of sanctions or threats of force by other nations, or just a loss of reputation that might affect future relations with other countries.
What I quoted above is an example of the kind of consequences that come from these actions. There is no court outside of the United States that has any real authority over those responsible for these killings.
A lengthy section at the end of the memo sets out a legal defense, stating that any administration official or troops charged over such killings would have “battlefield immunity” because of the alleged state of armed conflict, The Times reports.
Interesting. So if someone shoots another person, because one person (the shooter) is armed, it is an “armed conflict” and provides “battlefield immunity”.
I guess shooting someone is completely legal now. It’s a good thing nobody has tried to shoot Trump then.
And this bit from the article:
Trump’s argument that the U.S. is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels relies on the same legal authority used by the George W Bush administration when it declared its “War on Terror” after the Al-Qaeda attacks of September 11, 2001.
Say what you will about how the US responded to the 9/11 attack, but Al-Qaeda is a militant organization, and it actually attacked the US and openly declared a desire to destroy the US through further attacks. Drug cartels are trying to make money by selling an illegal product. I don’t think it’s even close to being equivalent.
Right. And another nifty fact is that the crime of murder can carry the death penalty. I’m unaware of any US jurisdiction in which transporting illegal drugs does so.
It does now.
Or indeed getting the death penalty for being suspected of transporting illegal drugs, based on the say so of unidentified anonymous sources.