By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A recent U.S. military strike on a boat in the Caribbean, resulting in the deaths of 11 people, has sparked controversy and raised concerns regarding its legality. High-ranking officials and legal experts have deemed the attack a potential violation of international law, citing the lack of legal justification for using military force against civilians, even if they are suspected of criminal activity. The Trump administration’s actions, including designating certain groups as “narcoterrorists” and firing top military lawyers, have been seen as paving the way for such actions. Despite claims of self-defense and defense of national interests, critics argue that the strike lacked proper authorization and could escalate conflicts in the region.
Read the original article here
THE LETHAL STRIKE on a boat in the Caribbean on Tuesday was a criminal attack on civilians, according to a high-ranking Pentagon official who spoke to the Intercept. This is a stark assessment, and it’s the starting point for understanding the gravity of the situation. The official’s anonymity underscores the sensitivity and potential repercussions of speaking out against such an action, painting a picture of a deeply troubled situation within the military structure.
The Trump administration’s actions preceding the attack, specifically the removal of top legal authorities, are seen as directly contributing to this alleged crime. The official suggests this created an environment where legal checks and balances were diminished, potentially allowing for this unlawful operation to proceed without the proper scrutiny. The official’s statement that the military is now directly targeting civilians is a serious accusation, suggesting a fundamental breach of the rules of engagement and international laws of war. It highlights a deviation from the established protocols.
The key point of contention centers on the classification of the boat’s occupants. The official notes that even if they were involved in drug trafficking, which itself is a crime, it doesn’t automatically make them combatants in the eyes of the military. The distinction is crucial. In international law, combatants are legitimate military targets; civilians are not. The official’s viewpoint emphasizes the requirement for precision and adherence to the law and suggests that the attack, in its current form, was a violation of those principles.
The lack of confirmed details about the boat’s destination and the cargo being carried on board also raises questions about the legitimacy of the strike. The implied criticism is that the U.S. military is engaging in extrajudicial killings, which is an incredibly serious accusation. The question of whether there was enough evidence to justify the use of lethal force against civilians becomes central.
The severity of the alleged crime, which is essentially murder, should trigger immediate investigations. The fact that there could be individuals who had the power to order this and carried it out, is a matter of significant concern. The potential involvement of high-ranking officials in the ordering of the attack is a significant point of concern.
The implication of a culture of impunity is a significant concern, with suggestions that those involved in the operation, up to the highest levels of command, may be shielded from accountability. If those who authorized or executed the strike are not held accountable, it sends a dangerous message that the rule of law and international norms can be disregarded. The whole scenario raises the uncomfortable possibility of the U.S. acting with what appears to be a blatant disregard for international law and the lives of civilians.
The suggestion that this is a deliberate show of force, intended to demonstrate a lack of restraint, is also a very worrying one. Such an action, if true, would be a serious escalation of power. The suggestion of an intent to intimidate or assert dominance would be in line with what some critics have said about Trump’s behavior. This adds another layer of concern.
The idea that the U.S. is now operating in a manner similar to nations that routinely violate human rights is a very disturbing. It is a direct challenge to America’s claims of upholding democratic values and human rights around the globe. It also raises questions about international alliances and the trustworthiness of the U.S. as a global partner.
The silence or lack of public outrage over the incident is another point of concern. It suggests a normalization of extrajudicial killings. The official’s concerns are about the consequences for the nation’s reputation and its standing in the world. The fact that this incident may not be met with strong disapproval is a problem, according to the official.
The very real possibility that the intelligence on which the attack was based may have been incorrect or even deliberately fabricated is a serious concern. The absence of transparency and the potential for those involved to cover up their actions is something to worry about. It raises questions about how the military is making decisions and how those decisions are being vetted.
The overall message is that the U.S. is now heading in the wrong direction. The military action, if proven to be an unlawful act, could seriously harm the country’s standing. The suggestion that those involved in the attack should be held accountable under the law, is the bottom line. If there is no accountability, the rule of law is under attack.