- Reaction score
- 18,472
- Points
- 1,160
There are clearly weaknesses in how and when society enforces breaches of law of armed conflict situations (especially under the newer Additional Protocols) There have been "war crimes trails" and there is a whole system set up to handle them although some of the prime actors like the US and Russia do not accept their jurisdiction. Many countries, however, do. In the end, they are standards to strive to but are ones that are inconsistently applied.
I've stayed out of the debate about the drug smuggler scenario because there are so many grey areas that its hard to say anything conclusively - not to mention that I've retired from the law business and haven't cracked a book in well over 15 years now. So this is my personal view.
There is a distinct difference as between the law of armed conflict and criminal law. The first, as the title says, deals with armed conflict - whether as between nations or internally to a nation. The later deals with individuals or private gangs conducting a business based on illegal activities. In the later the use of weapons is mostly incidental to the enterprise.
Very many countries, including many of the United States have no death penalty for any crimes including homicides. Even Russia has had a moratorium on executions for a decade or so. The vast majority of "western" countries have no death penalty. If in general you do not kill someone who has been found guilty in a judicial proceeding what makes killing them extra judicially suddenly a moral act? In fairness, I should point out that the US has had a federal law allowing the death penalty for drug trafficking in large quantities since Clinton in 1994. But again that law applies to a sentence that can be given after due judicial process. The general trend of western societies is against death penalties.
When we look at the biggest example of targeted missile usage it's been in a "war" scenario. The American's usage of it in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan was targeted against combatant. Even a mullah sitting in his house in Pakistan, if he's training armed insurrectionists for Afghanistan or providing financial aid or leadership, even if he doesn't hold a weapon in his hand, is a valid target if properly identified as he is actively engaged as part of a combatant force. Surrounding civilians killed in a strike are regretful, but there has usually been a very complex targeting analysis done before the strike to try to eliminate or at least minimize collateral damage or injuries. The Americans are (or at least were) actually quite serious about the targeting process for all their strikes although, on occasion the results were poor.
The issue here though is in taking lethal actions against individuals who are not engaged in an armed conflict with anyone. It's a criminal enterprise. Calling something a "war on drugs" does not make it an armed conflict, even if there is suspicion that the Venezuelan government is behind some of these criminal enterprises. My understanding is that only very little of the cocaine going into the US is sourced from or through Venezuela. Most of their cocaine is headed for Europe. Just as importantly, stopping boats does not stop the manufacturing of drugs, it merely interrupts the distribution routes until new ones can be established. Again, article that I've read indicate that 90% of the cocaine coming into the US comes from Mexico and through the Texas border and is sourced in Peru, Colombia and Bolivia.
I have a hard time trying to find a rational legal argument that could elevate some sod running a boat full of drugs as a legitimate combatant who can be legally targeted. They are clearly criminals subject to criminal law and perhaps even liable to a death penalty. But there is a difference between a death penalty as part of a judicial process and extra judicial killing of drug traffickers. One always has to look at the extremes of a scenario to judge its legality. There are many dozens of laws where the death penalty can apply in the US - mostly in homicide cases. We wouldn't accept an extra judicial execution of a suspected murderer or drug trafficker by the FBI in the streets of the Miami. Even if based on CIA informants, NSA intercepts and satellite imagery.
Is the viable argument here that it's just to difficult to apprehend them? I really don't think so. That's merely a question of resources. If you can hit a boat with a Maverick, then you can hit it with a less lethal round that will sink or disable the boat until a surface vessel or helicopter can reach it. That's a matter of a collateral damage estimate which any proper targeting board would be led to. Creating a less lethal round for this purpose is a very simple technological matter.
The issue here is that the Trump administration wants to make a point in a dramatic way. If anyone thinks that the removal of the prior JAGs for the armed services wasn't a calculated step in furtherance of this process, then I can't help you. My guess is that this operation was floated through the appropriate chain and folks said: "No!" They were then eased out for folks who were prepared to say: "well maybe." And in any bureaucracy at this stage of turmoil you will always find someone who is prepared to say: "well maybe."
