The Defense Secretary’s aggressive tactics against alleged narcoterrorists have backfired, potentially enabling them to evade prosecution. A recent bombing on a boat suspected of carrying drugs from Ecuador, directed by the Secretary, destroyed crucial evidence that could have been used to arrest the survivors. Consequently, the Ecuadorian government was forced to release one of the survivors, who had a history of drug trafficking. This outcome directly contradicts the Secretary’s tough-on-narcoterrorism stance and has raised questions about the effectiveness and legality of his methods, potentially jeopardizing his position.
Read More
The Trump administration’s use of lethal force against alleged members of “designated terrorist organizations” in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean raises concerns about expanding executive power. The administration’s refusal to clarify if similar actions could occur within the U.S., particularly against groups designated as “domestic terrorist organizations” under NSPM-7, fuels fears of extrajudicial killings. Experts and lawmakers warn that the broad application of this term lacks legal basis and could be used to suppress dissent. Critics highlight the dangers of labeling actions such as drug trafficking as armed conflict to justify lethal actions.
Read More
On September 2, U.S. military forces attacked a vessel, leaving two survivors clinging to the wreckage for roughly 45 minutes before a second strike was ordered by Adm. Frank Bradley, resulting in their deaths. Although the survivors were seen waving towards aircraft overhead, potentially signaling for help, Bradley claimed they still posed a threat. He justified the follow-up strikes by alleging the men could have been transporting drugs and would rejoin the fight. However, sources and experts have questioned the legality of these actions, highlighting that the men did not pose an imminent threat and that these strikes are illegal extrajudicial killings.
Read More
Shipwrecked or Not, All These Bombings are Murder. Let’s be clear: this whole situation, the recent attacks, and the resulting deaths, are unequivocally wrong. We’re talking about a significant number of lives lost – 87 people already, and the number keeps climbing. It’s time to call this what it is: murder.
The core issue here is the blatant disregard for due process. The administration claims these were legitimate targets, but they’ve presented no concrete evidence. Even if they had, the proper venue to present that evidence is a court of law, not a missile strike. This isn’t how we handle any crime, let alone something as complex as drug trafficking.… Continue reading
The US military says it killed four men in a strike on a suspected drug vessel. That’s where we start, isn’t it? The core of this whole thing, the crux of the matter: four lives extinguished, not because they were definitively proven to be criminals, but because they were *suspected* of being involved in drug trafficking. It’s a word, “suspected”, that carries a chilling weight when it’s coupled with the irreversible act of taking a life. It’s a word that opens up a Pandora’s Box of questions, anxieties, and a gut feeling that something is fundamentally wrong.
The US military says it killed four men in a strike on a suspected drug vessel, and the immediate reaction is one of disbelief, frustration, and a deep-seated feeling of injustice.… Continue reading
The US military conducted another lethal strike in the eastern Pacific, targeting a boat suspected of carrying narcotics and killing four individuals. This marks the 22nd such strike since September, resulting in at least 87 fatalities. The Pentagon faces growing questions about the legality of these attacks, particularly after reports of the defense secretary’s directive to “kill them all.” Legal experts are challenging the administration’s justification, which claims these actions are lawful under the rules of war, with some highlighting that killing incapacitated individuals is a violation of the law.
Read More
Lawmakers were disturbed by the explanation provided regarding the justification for killing two incapacitated men, with the implication that they were still considered threats. The administration maintained that the men were still involved in drug trafficking, thus perpetuating the idea that they were engaged in armed conflict with the U.S. despite being shipwrecked. This rationale contradicts the laws of war, which generally prohibit killing those no longer actively participating in a conflict. The core argument is a dangerous extension of executive power, allowing for summary military execution of civilians in international waters.
Read More
The Trump administration has controversially justified the killing of suspected cocaine smugglers as “unlawful combatants” in an “armed struggle” against the United States, even if they are unarmed and pose no immediate threat. In a specific instance, Adm. Frank M. Bradley ordered a second missile strike on survivors of an initial strike on a drug smuggling boat. According to reports, this second strike was carried out because the survivors had radioed for help and were seen as still “in the fight.” Critics argue the second strike was a war crime, violating the law-of-war rules regarding shipwrecked individuals. This defense reveals the complexities of applying the law of war to a scenario that, according to the article, doesn’t really exist.
Read More
The current administration has been accused of authorizing and carrying out extrajudicial killings, violating the rules of engagement and potentially committing war crimes. Multiple strikes in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean have resulted in at least 83 deaths, targeting individuals not officially at war with the U.S. Despite this, orders have been given to kill all targets, including survivors of initial strikes, directly contradicting both military and international law. American service members are reminded that they have the right and duty to disobey unlawful orders, as the “just following orders” defense has been rejected for over half a century. Ultimately, those carrying out these actions, not the commanders, are the ones at risk of facing court-martials, federal indictments, and imprisonment for their actions.
Read More
A formal complaint has been filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) against the United States, marking the first of its kind concerning attacks against alleged drug-running boats. The complaint, filed by the family of Colombian fisherman Alejandro Carranza, who was identified by President Petro as a civilian killed in a U.S. strike, accuses Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth of ordering the attack. The petition alleges the U.S. violated human rights by carrying out an extrajudicial killing and violating the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. With over 80 casualties from the military campaign, the IACHR will now review the case and make recommendations.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood