The Trump administration has sunk to a new low, engaging in an unprecedented act of violence against human beings in distress. In a series of 22 deadly strikes on what the US claims are drug boats, at least 87 people have lost their lives. The most recent incident, which killed four men, has sparked outrage and raised questions about the administration's accountability.
The situation is further complicated by the revelation that Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth had allegedly ordered troops to "kill them all" during a verbal briefing on September 2nd. While Trump loyalists have attempted to downplay this revelation, Democrats are calling for an investigation into the incident and its implications under international law.
The US claims that these strikes are part of a legitimate "war on drugs", but critics argue that the administration is essentially acting as if it were at war with Mexico or Central America. This assertion has been disputed by human rights experts and lawmakers, who point out that there is no formal declaration of war.
Moreover, the US government's actions have been compared to those of a rogue state or a gangster organization, rather than an international power like itself. The administration's own Law of War manual explicitly prohibits targeting wounded, sick, or shipwrecked individuals, rendering its actions tantamount to extrajudicial killings.
The Trump administration's pursuit of this policy has been driven by financial interests and business motives. In private meetings with Russian officials and business leaders, the president's advisors have pushed for a deal that would enrich US corporations at the expense of Ukraine and Russia.
By exploiting loopholes in international law, the Trump administration is allowing its own profits to outweigh concerns about accountability and human rights. When Trump met with Russian officials, his investment fund received cash infusions from Gulf monarchies, blurring the line between public and private interests.
As this crisis unfolds, it remains unclear what consequences will befall those responsible for these actions. However, as Jonathan Freedland writes, "the word corruption can be used in two ways... If and when Donald Trump and those who serve him are eventually called to account, they will be confronted by that single word, in all its shades – and all its force."
The situation is further complicated by the revelation that Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth had allegedly ordered troops to "kill them all" during a verbal briefing on September 2nd. While Trump loyalists have attempted to downplay this revelation, Democrats are calling for an investigation into the incident and its implications under international law.
The US claims that these strikes are part of a legitimate "war on drugs", but critics argue that the administration is essentially acting as if it were at war with Mexico or Central America. This assertion has been disputed by human rights experts and lawmakers, who point out that there is no formal declaration of war.
Moreover, the US government's actions have been compared to those of a rogue state or a gangster organization, rather than an international power like itself. The administration's own Law of War manual explicitly prohibits targeting wounded, sick, or shipwrecked individuals, rendering its actions tantamount to extrajudicial killings.
The Trump administration's pursuit of this policy has been driven by financial interests and business motives. In private meetings with Russian officials and business leaders, the president's advisors have pushed for a deal that would enrich US corporations at the expense of Ukraine and Russia.
By exploiting loopholes in international law, the Trump administration is allowing its own profits to outweigh concerns about accountability and human rights. When Trump met with Russian officials, his investment fund received cash infusions from Gulf monarchies, blurring the line between public and private interests.
As this crisis unfolds, it remains unclear what consequences will befall those responsible for these actions. However, as Jonathan Freedland writes, "the word corruption can be used in two ways... If and when Donald Trump and those who serve him are eventually called to account, they will be confronted by that single word, in all its shades – and all its force."