Experts explain what the law says about killing survivors of a boat strike
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. military would have committed a crime if it had killed the survivors attack on drug boatLegal experts say.
It doesn’t matter whether or not USA in “armed conflict” With drug cartels, as the Trump administration claims. Experts say such a deadly second attack would violate peacetime laws and laws governing armed conflict.
“I can’t imagine anyone, regardless of the circumstances, would believe that it’s OK to kill people clinging to a boat in the water,” said Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force attorney and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval Academy. “This is clearly against the law.”
The White House confirmed on Monday The second strike was held In September, charges were filed against a ship accused of drug smuggling off the coast of Venezuela, insisting it was done in “self-defence” and in accordance with the laws of armed conflict.
A news about that attack caused a stir. New level of scrutiny from lawmakers and added to one Growing controversy It’s about whether service members can refuse to obey illegal orders, as some Democratic lawmakers have recently encouraged.
Here’s what you need to know about strikes and armed conflict laws:
What started the argument?
The Washington Post reported last week that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a verbal directive to “kill everyone” on a boat targeting Sept. 2. first ship hit In what the Trump administration calls an overblown counterpharmaceutical campaign 20 known attacks and more than 80 deaths.
According to the newspaper, two people survived the first attack, which killed nine people, and were trying to hold on to the debris. The commander in charge, Admiral Frank Bradley, ordered a second attack to comply with Hegseth’s instructions, killing two men, the Post reported.
Hegseth called it “fake news” on social media and said the boat attacks “comply with the law of armed conflict and were approved by top military and civilian lawyers at the highest level of the chain of command.”
President Donald Trump said Sunday that the administration would “look into” the issue, but added, “I wouldn’t even want a second attack on this.” He stated that Hegseth told him that “these two men did not order the killing.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Monday that Bradley ordered the second strike and was “within his authority to do so.” He denied saying Hegseth would leave no survivors.
There is management justified the attacks He suggested that escalation was necessary to stop the flow of drugs into the United States and that the United States was taking an initiative in this regard. “Gunfight” with drug cartelsIt is similar to the war against Al Qaeda following the 9/11 attacks.
What the law allows during armed conflict
Schmitt said a second attack that killed the survivors would be illegal under all circumstances, whether there was a gunfight or not.
He said the United States is not in a legitimate armed conflict with drug cartels, which not only traffic in drugs that kill Americans but also engage in high levels of violence against the country.
Even so, “it was clear that you cannot declare what has been called ‘no quarter’ for over a century – take no survivors, kill everyone,” Schmitt said.
Matthew Waxman, a Columbia University law professor who was a national security official in the George W. Bush administration, said whether an armed conflict will occur likely won’t be decided by an international body like the International Criminal Court, to which the United States is not a party.
But Waxman, who served in the State and Defense departments and on the National Security Council during the Bush administration, said the United States could face backlash from allies who may refuse to share information about military operations that are illegal under their own or international law.
He said America’s armed conflict against Al Qaeda has support from the UN Security Council, NATO and US allies.
Legal threat to US military personnel
Schmitt said the fact that the United States is not in an armed conflict means it is violating international human rights law that governs how countries treat individuals.
“You can only use lethal force in situations where there is an imminent threat,” Schmitt said. “And that wasn’t the case.”
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group and a former State Department lawyer, agrees that the United States is not in an armed conflict with drug cartels.
“The definition of intentional killing outside of armed conflict is murder,” Finucane said, adding that US military personnel could be tried in American courts.
“Murder is a crime on the high seas,” he said. “Conspiracy to commit murder outside the United States is a crime. And under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 118 criminalizes murder.”
The Pentagon’s own guide to the laws of war describes a scenario similar to the Sept. 2 boat attack when discussing when soldiers should refuse to comply with illegal orders.
“For example,” the guide says“An order to open fire on the crash would be clearly illegal.”
What did Congress say about what happens next?
Leaders of the Armed Services committees in the House and Senate We opened investigations.
Republican Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the Senate committee chairman, and ranking Democrat Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island said the committee “will conduct robust oversight to determine the facts of these circumstances.”
Concerns about the second attack came after a group of Democratic lawmakers, all veterans of the armed services and intelligence community, released a video urging US military members to defy “illegal orders.”
Among them: Arizona Democrat and former Navy fighter pilot Sen. Mark Kelly was also present and questioned the use of the military to attack alleged drug boats. Pentagon announced it was investigating Kelly Due to possible military law violations related to the video.
“If what appears to have happened actually happened, I really worry about our soldiers,” Kelly said Monday.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune argued that the boat attacks were to stop the flow of drugs into the United States and said he should wait for the results of the investigations.
“Frankly, if there is an instruction to take a second shot and kill people, that is a violation of ethical, moral or legal rules. We need to get to the bottom of it,” said North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis.
___
Associated Press writers Stephen Groves, Lisa Mascaro and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.
