Trump Has Racked Up At Least 157 Extrajudicial Boat Strike Murders In The Last 6 Months
from the serial-killings dept
The boat strike program the Trump administration is engaged in isn’t actually supported by law. Even his own in-house counsel can’t seem to agree on what justification to use. Shortly after being threatened with a little congressional oversight, the Office of Legal Counsel shrugged together a legal memo that basically said that the less of a direct threat boats allegedly carrying drugs to the US posed to US national security, the more easily the people in the boats could be killed.
And it’s not like the strikes are discriminate. They’re based on hunches and the administration’s desire to eradicate any boat it thinks has departed from countries it wants to control, like Venezuela. On top of the lack of legal rationale for initial strikes, there’s evidence the Defense Department engages in double- or triple-tap attacks meant to kill the survivors of the original strike — something that’s extremely handy because it also kills potential litigants.
Those extra strikes are illegal under even the United State’s own rules of engagement. And yet they continue. These strikes may have fallen off the radar due to the deluge of unbelievably horrific shit this administration generates daily, but they’re still happening even if the focus has shifted elsewhere.
Fighting a war on drugs doesn’t actually mean you’re engaged in a literal war — you know, the sort of thing Congress used to get angry about if presidents decided they’d rather not deal with any resistance from the legislative branch when getting their war on. This country engages on “wars” on everything from literacy and hunger (but not this administration) to abstract concepts like “woke” and “transgender everywhere.”
That doesn’t mean the administration can drone strike entities still clinging to DEI initiative. Nor can it blow up shipments of cell phones designed for children’s hands just because it believes these “distractions” are leading to lower reading comprehension scores.
The same goes for the War on Drugs. While there’s value in intercepting shipments and arresting those involved, a military program that kills people just because they might be trafficking drugs (much of which appears to headed to other destinations than the United States) is not only illegal, it’s immoral.
Human rights organizations — including those recognized by international governing groups — are making this point as forcefully as possible.
Experts in international and U.S. domestic law told an inter-American human rights organization on Friday that the Pentagon’s campaign of blowing up boats it suspected of smuggling drugs in the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean was illegal.
[…]
Ben Saul, the U.N. special rapporteur for protecting fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, accused the United States of “responding with lawless violence that flagrantly violates human rights, in its phony war on so-called narco-terrorism.”
“Drug trafficking is a crime, not war,” said Mr. Saul, a professor of international law. He also said a portrayal of the suspected drug traffickers as being responsible for “speculative drug overdoses” did not constitute a “permissible law enforcement action in personal self-defense or the defense of others.”
Perhaps you’re as cynical as I am. Maybe you see this and wonder what is even the point: some dude said some stuff to the United Nations, which doesn’t mean much now that the Trump administration has decided no other nation or international association of nations has the power to stop it from doing what it wants to do.
Sure, there’s limited utility in statements made to entities the US government is just going to ignore. But don’t let that bury the lede: the Trump administration is engaged in an unprecedented murder program predicated solely on its legally unsupported position that trafficking drugs (to anywhere!) is exactly identical to engaging in terrorist attacks against US citizens.
Here’s how this is adding up so far, according to the tally generated by the New York Times:
The U.S. military has blown up 45 small vessels, killing at least 157 people, in six months of strikes since September.
This is an under-count. There’s no reason to believe the government has released information on every strike, especially since it delayed release of footage showing the military engaging in multiple strikes to murder survivors of its initial boat strike. We may never know the full body count of this extrajudicial killing program. But it’s harrowing to note (as the Times does in its report) that only two rescues of boat strike victims occurred during the last six months, even though the military is obligated — by US law and international law — to attempt to rescue survivors of military attacks it engages in.
The White House is War Crime Central. And now it’s adding to its rap sheet by bombing Iranian schools on top of killing people in international waters. The administration’s response, of course, refused to engage with the allegations made during this conference, choosing instead to claim (1) the Intra-American Human Rights Court (IAHCR) should mind its own business and (2) that it should look at some other cases that don’t involve the Trump administration’s casual human rights violations. You know, the usual stuff: “you’re not the boss of me” + whataboutism.
It’s the State Department pretending you can make a Venn diagram out of humanitarian aid mandates and international human rights laws:
The IACHR lacks the competence to review the matters at issue, which concern the interpretation and application of international humanitarian law, not human rights law, and should not be a pawn in a domestic litigation strategy of the ACLU or any other party.
A normal person would see these concepts as nearly completely overlapping. This administration is not normal. It’s a collective of inhumane people with an inordinate amount of power. And from what’s seen here, it’s clear the body count in international waters will only continue to rise.
Filed Under: boat strikes, defense department, extrajudicial killings, murder, pentagon, pete hegseth, trump administration, venezuela, war on drugs


Comments on “Trump Has Racked Up At Least 157 Extrajudicial Boat Strike Murders In The Last 6 Months”
Hmm
Why would anyone obey these orders?
Remember all the times conservatives (including some of the commenters here) have wrung their hands about the awfully imminent civil war in this country where they’re just itching to murder people…okay, sorry, I’ve been informed that it’s not “murder” if you unjustifiably kill people during an undeclared war…who they disagree with, because it’s expedient compared to having to convince anyone that your positions are good, right, or morally superior?
That’s the administration’s approach. It’s more expedient to just murder people in boats. It’s more expedient (and costly) to just attack Iran without an imminent threat (Gabbard just confirmed this in testimony again). It’s more expedient to just burn the Constitution, bust down the door without a warrant, and seize anyone that looks Latino or “foreign” because “they all got to go,” even if they’re here legally or even a goddamn US citizen.
It all just reminds me of the cop who shot and killed the kid who was having a mental health crisis within a few seconds of arriving while stating, “we don’t have time for this.”
Re:
You have to look at who defines the word “murder”. The U.S. has always murdered people, just not by the definition of the lawmakers who wanted to do it without being considered “murderers” (notably for the death penalty, and in declared wars, and for assassinations like the one Obama ordered).
Oddly missing from all this...
Missing from all of these “We blowed up another one, Clem” press releases are any report on the amount of drugs that have been seized / removed from distribution. None of the articles I’ve read has said anything about a single gram of cocaine, ounce of marijuana, or dose of fentanyl that was found on the boats destroyed in these strikes. Not one single incident.
It is also Terrorism!
Terrorism can be defined as the deliberate use of violence against non-combatants (civilians) to force political or policy changes.
The US is a State-sponsor of terrorism now. Out taxes are being paid to murder civilians.
Re:
“Now?”
The USA has been a leading source of international terror ever since it ended world war two by dropping a nuclear weapon on a civilian population. Twice actually, because the US loves double taps on civilians.
You thought this was something new?
Re: Re:
Forcing surrender is a valid military strategy, and it saved the lives of the alternative Japanese invasion force which was the only other option.
It was also a declared war that Japan started…. Yes, the great victim Japan started world war 2 by itself.
Re: Re: Re:
Bzzzzt. Wrong again.
They surrendered because they would rather not have dealt with Russis. Two nukes didn’t stop them, nor did the continued firebombings afterward. (So much for the nukes, eh?).
And no, bombing and otherwise killing civilians has never been a valid strategy. It simply does not work, and it just makes the killer yet another monster who should have been put down.
Re: Re: Re:
Do you have a chip in your head that sends you electric shocks if you possibly think that maybe a civilian death in war is a bad thing?
All I can think of is that when Osama bin Laden orchestrated the murder of innocent people, at least his grievances were real.
Where are the drugs these Venezuelan boats are supposedly smuggling? Where are the Iranian nuclear weapons?
And it’s only a matter of time when Convicted Felon Donald Trump will try to commit a 9/11 on a boat in both method and deaths!
The conclusion of the best intelligence operation on the planet are not “hunches” just cuz you happen not to like it.
It is actually an act of war. It’s not murder, just war.
Venezuela could decide that means we’re at war with THEM, rather than the cartels, but that would probably be inadvisable.
I do love your impotent tantrums, tho.
Re:
Nah, none of that is valid reasoning, nor factual. Thanks for playing.
Re:
This is both an argument to authority and an argument from ignorance. You are assuming that because the intelligence community in the US has access to more information than you that they’re also telling the truth about it or are trustworthy not to make decisions based on that access for illegitimate reasons. Billionaire donors with stock in defense companies definitely have nothing to gain from making up reasons to spend taxpayer money on more military funding, right?
Legally, it’s not a declared war. But the stated, unproven excuses for the strikes are criminal acts, not acts of war, so fighting a war wouldn’t be the legal or appropriate response.
If you allege criminal acts, you detain suspects and bring them to trial while providing them with due process. You don’t just smite them from the skies and pat yourself on the back. That is actually murder.
And even when it’s a legal war, it can still be called murder and a war crime. Killing people who don’t have the ability to defend themselves, who aren’t armed combatants, who have already been injured, is a war crime and is murder.
“My wife could decide that means I’m at war with her when I slap her around for disobeying my every whim, but that would probably be inadvisable.”
You’re speaking the language of an abuser. I’m sure your family loves your company.
You come here and spew nonsense you’re not getting paid to spew while billionaires profit from your blind allegiance to their quarterly profit reports. At best, you’re just getting a fleeting dopamine hit with a high decay rate.
“I sure told them [r-words], didn’t I? Heh,”
The conclusion of the best intelligence operation on the planet are not “hunches” just cuz you happen not to like it.
It is actually an act of war. It’s not murder, just war.
Venezuela could decide that means we’re at war with THEM, rather than the cartels, but that would probably be inadvisable.
I do love your impotent tantrums, tho.