US Lawless Killings at Sea Under Trump's Aegis
In a shocking turn of events, Washington has found its voice over the Trump administration's deadly policy towards suspected drug runners. The Republican-dominated Congress was eerily silent while Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized the killing of dozens of people at sea without so much as a trial. But when a double-tap strike on September 2nd killed nine people, including two survivors who were clinging to the wreckage of their destroyed boat, even the most timid voices began to speak out.
Two US military personnel involved in the operation have since come forward questioning the rationale behind their actions. Admiral Frank "Mitch" Bradley admitted that the two men still alive after the initial strike could not have been trying to radio their comrades on board. Instead, they were barely clinging to life and posed no threat to anyone.
The Pentagon's claims of self-defense were flimsy at best. It was alleged that the two survivors might have still contained cocaine in the boat, which is simply not true given that the stricken vessel had already sunk. The fact remains: these individuals were hors de combat – outside the fight – and could not be summarily executed under international law.
Critics point out that this kind of behavior has no place in a non-war situation. In other words, if we're talking about interdiction operations by law enforcement rather than an armed conflict with organized forces, there is always an obligation to use proportionate force and not exceed the limits set by international human rights law.
Under Trump's leadership, American values are being sacrificed on the altar of expediency. By invoking an 'armed conflict' that never existed, the president avoided accountability for his policies. Now it seems he has a new target: anyone deemed to be 'enemies'.
Critics warn that the far-reaching consequences of such a policy can only serve to erode human rights worldwide. If leaders like Trump feel they have the right to make life-or-death decisions without any checks, they may unleash terror on innocent bystanders in their own country and abroad.
The US government's silence over these events has left many to wonder what drove Washington to go along with such extreme measures. Can anything be done now to bring about accountability for these atrocities committed under the Trump administration?
In a shocking turn of events, Washington has found its voice over the Trump administration's deadly policy towards suspected drug runners. The Republican-dominated Congress was eerily silent while Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized the killing of dozens of people at sea without so much as a trial. But when a double-tap strike on September 2nd killed nine people, including two survivors who were clinging to the wreckage of their destroyed boat, even the most timid voices began to speak out.
Two US military personnel involved in the operation have since come forward questioning the rationale behind their actions. Admiral Frank "Mitch" Bradley admitted that the two men still alive after the initial strike could not have been trying to radio their comrades on board. Instead, they were barely clinging to life and posed no threat to anyone.
The Pentagon's claims of self-defense were flimsy at best. It was alleged that the two survivors might have still contained cocaine in the boat, which is simply not true given that the stricken vessel had already sunk. The fact remains: these individuals were hors de combat – outside the fight – and could not be summarily executed under international law.
Critics point out that this kind of behavior has no place in a non-war situation. In other words, if we're talking about interdiction operations by law enforcement rather than an armed conflict with organized forces, there is always an obligation to use proportionate force and not exceed the limits set by international human rights law.
Under Trump's leadership, American values are being sacrificed on the altar of expediency. By invoking an 'armed conflict' that never existed, the president avoided accountability for his policies. Now it seems he has a new target: anyone deemed to be 'enemies'.
Critics warn that the far-reaching consequences of such a policy can only serve to erode human rights worldwide. If leaders like Trump feel they have the right to make life-or-death decisions without any checks, they may unleash terror on innocent bystanders in their own country and abroad.
The US government's silence over these events has left many to wonder what drove Washington to go along with such extreme measures. Can anything be done now to bring about accountability for these atrocities committed under the Trump administration?