Since the first of September, the U.S. Navy has been blowing up small vessels off the coast of Venezuela. The current count is nine boats and approximately 37 dead. The U.S. government declares that these boats are an imminent threat to our country because they are operated by narco-terrorists. It appears no evidence was necessary.

The Trump administration has completely eschewed the legal requirements for due process or normal interdiction procedures. Sadly, due to the Global War on Terror, we Americans have tragically grown accustomed to our government assassinating people because they are merely suspected terrorists. Leaving aside moral issues, it is worth recalling that these actions are illegal under both domestic and international law.

First and foremost, these actions are in contradiction to the United States Constitution. Article I, section 8 clearly states that Congress shall have the power to “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Article II, section 2 states: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” The president does command the forces, but only Congress can declare war—and Congress has not declared war against alleged “drug boats” in Latin America. These small boats 1,300 miles from the Florida Keys pose no emergency threat, and blowing them up is clearly an act of war.

Our cowardly Congress has appropriated many trillions of dollars for a plethora of wars since World War II. However, since 1942, they haven't had the courage to take responsibility and actually declare war as the Constitution requires. Over the years, they usually haven't even had the fortitude to refuse to finance wars with which they disagree. As a result of congressional unwillingness to exercise their mandated duties, the forever and failed wars have continued unabated. Congress does not want to be caught voting for wars which the public doesn’t want. Especially if the war becomes a failure, as is normally the case, they enjoy being free to say whatever the public wants to hear without the record of a pesky vote to contradict their dishonest rhetoric. To aid this ruse, the leadership tends to wrap the military budgets into big continuing resolutions or omnibus bills so there is no vote showing undeniable support for particular wars. The result: a win-win for duplicitous politicians and the military industry, but a big lose-lose for the American people and the poor American and foreign souls murdered and maimed.

The latest attacks and killings are also forbidden by article 2, section 4 of the UN Charter: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Article 51 allows unilateral use of force only in self-defense against an “armed attack.” America is not threatened by small outboard motor boats more than 1,000 miles from our shores, and their mere existence in international waters, even if they are carrying drugs, certainly doesn’t constitute an “armed attack.” Off the coast of Venezuela there is a significant U.S. flotilla, which is fully capable of intercepting these small boats without having to obliterate them.

International Maritime Law (UNCLOS) article 88 states, “The high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes.” While drug interdiction may be permitted, the standard procedure is visit, search, and seize, not summary destruction.

Or consider the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted in 1998 and signed by the U.S. in 2000. This statute sets out the court’s jurisdiction over war crimes among other issues. In May 2002 Undersecretary of State John Bolton formally notified the UN secretary general that the United States “does not intend to become a party to the treaty.” (Anyone surprised it was John Bolton who made this submission?) The George W. Bush administration was prepping for the invasion of Iraq—and the other countries on the neocon hit list—so were looking to limit the liability for those illegal wars. Remember, Iran is the last on the list that hasn't been wrecked to date.

In 1950 the United States voted to approve the United Nations Nuremberg Principles, several of which are relevant to the Trump administration’s military campaign in Latin America:

Principle III: “The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.”

Principle IV: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”

Principle VI: “The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). (b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder...” “...or devastation not justified by military necessity. (c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population...”

Back to domestic law: The 1981 Executive Order 12333 section 2.11 signed by President Ronald Reagan states, “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” This order has never been revoked.

When you consider the above, it is no surprise the admiral in charge of SOUTHCOM—the regional command responsible for Central and South America, their territorial waters, and the Caribbean—recently opted for early retirement. 

Subscribe Today

Get daily emails in your inbox

Email Address:

Of course, the U.S. has ignored these laws with impunity for decades because of its stature and power in the world. That is changing rapidly, and U.S. leaders should begin to contemplate that they may be held accountable by international courts. Because of America’s many illegal and unjust wars, the number of countries who have lost respect for and dislike the U.S. is increasing rapidly. There may come a time when those countries or a large group of them will hold our leaders responsible and pursue prosecution. 

Earlier this month, former French President Nicolas Sarkozy was convicted of corruption related to Libya and is now sitting in a French jail. Some Libyans were said to be furious when Sarkozy, after allegedly taking millions of Euros from the Libyan government, sent French forces to participate in NATO’s destruction of that same government. While the military operation was authorized by the United Nations Security Council and thus began on firm legal footing, it morphed into an illegal regime change operation. Some disgruntled Libyans are said to have provided information supporting the prosecution of Sarkozy. How many of our leaders have taken funds from foreign interests? What will happen when the Ukraine government loses the war? Will some of our politicians be ratted out like Sarkozy? Boris Johnson is experiencing a similar type of money problem. This should give pause to some of our war cheerleaders.

Of course, the laws of man are not the only impediment to killing suspected narco-traffickers who may, for all we know, in many cases be simple fishermen. In addition to the aforementioned prohibitions, the killing of people without any due process is completely contrary to the core beliefs of Christianity and the Christian nation in which we grew up. It should be stopped immediately and completely.