There is no obvious legal argument to support President Trump's expanding campaign of strikes against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. And the implications are even scarier.
To what what extent can international law fill the gaps? President Kamala sends a planeload of White House officials and Cabinet ministers on an "all-expenses paid trip to The Netherlands, one-way"?
If these extrajudicial killings are illegal, is this a criminal matter or does it remain solely civil? If criminal, then this is precisely the kind of problem that Justice Sotomayor raised when the Court chose to grant complete immunity to the President for acts committed under his official duties. I think it would be hard to argue that these killings are not directly within the duties of the President, no matter their legality. So, while he may not have "shot someone on 5th Avenue," he has clearly done so on the high seas.
One way to look at SCOTUS's presidential immunity decision is that it was a lie, a devious deception to attack and undermine our Constitution by six judges whose first, foremost and constant duty is "to support" our "Constitution" (U.S. Constitution Article VI) and "support and defend" our "Constitution" against absolutely "all enemies, foreign and domestic" and "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution (5 U.S.C. Section 3331).
No federal judge or court was delegated any power by our Constitution to grant the president immunity from prosecution for committing any crime defined by Congress. Article I delegated to Congress the power (and assigned the duty) to "make all Laws" that are "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" absolutely "all [the] Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." That necessarily means that Congress has not only the power, but also the duty, to "make all Laws" that are "necessary and proper" to govern all the president's men and all the president's powers.
Article VI emphasized that federal law that was "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution is part of the "the supreme Law of the Land" and all "Judges" everywhere under U.S. jurisdiction "shall be bound thereby." Article III emphasized that federal "judicial Power shall extend" no further than permitted "under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties."
The foregoing means that federal judges have the power (and duty) to adjudicate cases regarding claims that a federal law is not "necessary and proper" or not "in Pursuance" of our Constitution. As every SCOTUS justice is very well aware, judges have the power and duty to invalidate an unconstitutional statute, but they have no power to fabricate any exception to any statute that is "necessary and proper" and "in pursuance" of our Constitution.
As a result of the foregoing, another way to look at SCOTUS's presidential immunity decision is that it is essentially irrelevant. SCOTUS said that the president is absolutely protected (has absolute immunity) from prosecution for fulfilling his "core" duties, and he might have some protection (immunity) for performing "official" duties.
The president's "core" and "official" duties are limited to those emphasized by Article II. Article II (and the President's oath of office) prominently emphasized that the first, foremost and constant duty of the President always is (merely) to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to "the best of" the President's "Ability." Fulfilling such duty clearly necessarily includes "tak[ing] Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Clearly, every power of the president is subordinate, first, to the legislative power of the People (our Constitution) and, second, to the legislative power of our representatives in Congress. So if a prosecutor can prove that a president has violated his duties under Article II, then the president clearly can be prosecuted by laws enacted by Congress in pursuance of our Constitution.
Trump hasn't shot (as with a pop gun) any body on the high seas. Or on Fifth Avenue as he early in his career claimed he could do sans criminal scandal or even Bad Publicity!
However, as the judicial hick from the south character on Canada's TV breakthrough in improv ensemble comedy & satire, namely SCTV's Over-the-Top running spoof on North American life's values & verities often put it in Country Cracker Court's over-the-top HEE HA segments:
Although Trump is immune from criminal prosecution because of the recent Supreme Court Court, subordinates (including drone operators) who carry out his unlawful orders to murder civilians carrying drugs have a duty to refuse to obey and unlawful order and can be prosecuted if they fail to do so. Fat chance of prosecution by the Trump Justice Department, but what about the next administration?
According to the Sup Ct, the president is only absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for enumerated (core) constitutional duties. For nonenumerated outer-perimeter official duties, a presumption of immunity. I am waiting for a rebuttal to the latter.
Steve, this is more on topic for the tariffs case, but I posted this comment on today’s NYT David French-Emily Bazelon column. I’m honestly flabbergasted and think it’s time to talk about this:
Maybe the authors could at some point explain what the heck is going on with Alito. Why is he so transparently partisan? Why does he not see the obvious problems Trump is posing for the basic Constitutional order of separation of powers and checks and balances? Alito is going way beyond just supporting the Unitary Executive Theory. Doesn't he care about his legacy? He is completely un-self-aware. Seriously, it's mind boggling and begs a lot of questions.
The state of our union can be summed up by questions like this from clearly curious, literate and (somewhat) engaged citizens. UTTER DENIAL!
Of course Supreme Court Justice Alito is not mentally dim to have reached his current station in life. What reasonable alternative does that leave? Exactly what those citizen activists who campaigned against his promotion to the Supremes were pointing out from the records of his corporate case-load and much less patience with street-level crime: He has been an enabler of INSTITUTIONAL CORRUPTION, the #1 Killer of Any Participatory 'd'emocracy.... And he has learned his lessons well!
Who among our elite corporate-captured broadcast news media, (the Number One source of political information for the vast majority of barely literate fellow citizens) heard any substantive review or challenge to Judge Alito's paper trail and record much less challenges to his asserted impartiality during the kindergarten level "interrogations" about his fitness to serve our highest court in the land?
File this under INSTITUTIONAL CORRUPTION CAN RELY ON A DOCILE NEWS MEDIA!
Points taken. I guess some of us still are surprised by the depths of depravity that exist within the highest echelons of these United States. It's apparently just too much to ask for someone as accomplished, esteemed(?) and supposedly vetted enough to wear the robe of a Supreme Court Justice to have been the weakest shred of conscience and fidelity to the law.
Every Supreme Court justice enters the position enjoying a rebuttable presumption that he or she is a neutral arbiter of the law. Sam Alito has rebutted his presumption many times over.
Thank you for shedding more light on how Trump's conduct is illegal and unconstitutional regarding the power to wage war. But it's at least as important to bear in mind one self-evident truth about Trump: he lies and lies and lies to pretend to justify what he's doing or wants to do. There is no good reason to take as true Trump's purported justification (war with Venezuela or an invasion by Venezuela).
Regarding this matter, it's most simple and straightforward to judge Trump and Hegseth as if they were on trial for murder and we were the jury. Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1111) defines "Murder" as "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." So we should think for ourselves about the substance of Trump's killings and his own admissions regarding those killings. We should think for ourselves about whether such killings are "unlawful." Our Constitution is paramount among the supreme law of the land, so any conduct that is unconstitutional (i.e., violates our Constitution) is necessarily unlawful (illegal).
By Trump's own public admissions, Trump and Hegseth are killing people outside U.S. jurisdiction for no better reason than that Trump is merely pretending to predict a future crime in a U.S. jurisdiction (mere purported drug smuggling). Nothing in our Constitution vested power in Trump or Hegseth to merely pretend to predict a future crime in a U.S. jurisdiction and summarily execute everyone they merely contend is guilty of such crime while they are far outside U.S. jurisdiction.
Trump and Hegseth are knowingly and deliberately undermining some of the most vital principles and safeguards of our own lives, liberty and property in our Constitution. For the first time in history, in the 1780's constitutions governing the conduct of all government employees were written and ratified by the People to turn public officials into public servants and to require the separation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers. All this and much more was done to protect the People from abuses of powers that had been granted or usurpations of powers that had not been granted by the People to our public servants.
In Federalist No. 47, for example, James Madison emphasized the following (and even more):
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many” is “the very definition of tyranny.” “[T]he preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.”
Madison quoted Montesquieu (in the Spirit of the Laws published in 1754) saying, "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates," or, "if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."
"The reasons on which Montesquieu grounds his maxim are a further demonstration of his meaning. 'When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body,' says he, 'there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner.' Again: 'Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for THE JUDGE would then be THE LEGISLATOR.
Were it joined to the executive power, THE JUDGE might behave with all the violence of AN OPPRESSOR.' "
With the foregoing in mind, our Constitution separated powers very carefully and emphatically. Our Constitution emphasized that no public servant was given any power to violate our Constitution. Article VI established that our Constitution was paramount as the "supreme Law of the Land," and it bound all state and federal public servants "to support" our "Constitution." Article II further emphasized that the president's powers were limited to those necessary to "preserve, protect and defend" our "Constitution" to "the best of" the president's "Ability."
Our Constitution (Amendment V) expressly and specifically commands that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."
Article III commands that "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed."
Amendment VI clearly commands that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to" a "public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."
The primary problem with the presumption or pretense that Article II somehow put all the powers of government into the hands of Trump is that it makes legislators, judges, grand juries and trial juries entirely irrelevant. Stated another way, Trump is unconstitutionally usurping the powers of legislators, judges, grand juries and trial juries. That is exactly what all the founders expressly opposed vehemently.
“Kentucky Senator Rand Paul was absolutely right to describe these strikes as “extrajudicial killings,” a term that has come to be used to refer to targeted uses of force by the state against specific individuals. But they’re even worse than that, for they are, near as I can tell, blatantly unlawful as a matter of U.S. domestic law—and a quickly spreading stain on whatever is left of the executive branch’s commitment to the rule of law.1”
As I recall, the US Sup Ct immunity decision did not address international law.
(The US does not recognize the International Criminal Court [ICC], but neither does Israel, yet the ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu for war crimes.)
Here's another recent example (The Phillippines also does not recognize the ICC.) - BBC 22 Sept 25 - "Former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte has been charged with crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
"The 80-year-old is accused of being criminally responsible for dozens of murders that allegedly took place as part of his so-called war on drugs, during which thousands of small-time drug dealers, users and others were killed without trial."
I didn't watch the live broadcast, but I was disconcerted by a comment by Joyce or Steve that one person on the chat had posted "ZZZZZZZ". Assuming that this was not a troll, it illustrates the problem of informing people. This was 1/2 hour of expert and clear commentary on the issue, but for at least one person this was too boring to listen to.
This seems pretty simple to me: The Administration is, without indictment, arrest or trial, simply killing people it thinks are drug dealers. The government is taking justice into its own hands and acting as judge, jury, and executioner, a power the Constitution doesn't give it. In common parlance, this is called 'premeditated murder'. The government's conduct is even more egregious given that even if these drug runners were properly tried and convicted, they would, at most, be subject to imprisonment, not the death penalty.
In the absence of a war, I doubt they can be considered war crimes. But in the absence of any legal justification, they can be considered crimes - notably murder. Murder is contrary to international and domestic (US) law. At present there may be nobody willing to prosecute for either crime, but that could change.
See Duterte (Phillippines) case and ICC. BBC 22Sep25
"Former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte has been charged with crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court (ICC). . . for dozens of murders that allegedly took place as part of his so-called war on drugs."
Does the code of conduct applying to military personnel provide any basis for potential redress? Could the Judge Advocate General's office conclude that there is no legal basis for the use of military force and direct the armed forces to discontinue using these drone strikes?
Also, has there been any effort using FOIA or Congressional subpoenas to get the legal rationale for the Administration's actions here?
Recall that Trump fired most of the senior judge advocates general soon after his inauguration, no doubt contemplating extensive and probably illegal use of the military, abroad and at home.
I think it's possible that, apart from the dubious and flawed excuses Trump has given for the attacks and murders in the Caribbean and Pacific as you described, his inner child simply likes showing off what he can do with his toy guns and boats, etc.. His secondary gain is that so far he is getting away with it.
Stepping back from specific questions of legality, what are the implications going forward for the US and for the safety of Americans internationally? If we act this way, what's to stop another country from arbitrarily arresting or even murdering (oh, sorry, "killing extrajudicially...") US citizens they accuse of terrorism, drug trafficking or some other offense without evidence? Sure, the Trump administration could escalate or retaliate, but that is cold comfort to anyone caught up or killed in the mean time. Lawlessness begets lawlessness.
Sadly, I suspect that the murder of people on the high seas is just another attempt to distract Americans from everything else Trump is doing. Murder as theater in service of a wannabe dictator.
"Because Americans contribute disproportionately to climate change, which leads to thousands of additional deaths each year, we consider American cruise ships in international waters to be legitimate military targets as a matter of self-defense."
Signed,
Whatever country wants to rely on Trump's logic to bomb U.S. cruise ships
To what what extent can international law fill the gaps? President Kamala sends a planeload of White House officials and Cabinet ministers on an "all-expenses paid trip to The Netherlands, one-way"?
If these extrajudicial killings are illegal, is this a criminal matter or does it remain solely civil? If criminal, then this is precisely the kind of problem that Justice Sotomayor raised when the Court chose to grant complete immunity to the President for acts committed under his official duties. I think it would be hard to argue that these killings are not directly within the duties of the President, no matter their legality. So, while he may not have "shot someone on 5th Avenue," he has clearly done so on the high seas.
One way to look at SCOTUS's presidential immunity decision is that it was a lie, a devious deception to attack and undermine our Constitution by six judges whose first, foremost and constant duty is "to support" our "Constitution" (U.S. Constitution Article VI) and "support and defend" our "Constitution" against absolutely "all enemies, foreign and domestic" and "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution (5 U.S.C. Section 3331).
No federal judge or court was delegated any power by our Constitution to grant the president immunity from prosecution for committing any crime defined by Congress. Article I delegated to Congress the power (and assigned the duty) to "make all Laws" that are "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" absolutely "all [the] Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." That necessarily means that Congress has not only the power, but also the duty, to "make all Laws" that are "necessary and proper" to govern all the president's men and all the president's powers.
Article VI emphasized that federal law that was "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution is part of the "the supreme Law of the Land" and all "Judges" everywhere under U.S. jurisdiction "shall be bound thereby." Article III emphasized that federal "judicial Power shall extend" no further than permitted "under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties."
The foregoing means that federal judges have the power (and duty) to adjudicate cases regarding claims that a federal law is not "necessary and proper" or not "in Pursuance" of our Constitution. As every SCOTUS justice is very well aware, judges have the power and duty to invalidate an unconstitutional statute, but they have no power to fabricate any exception to any statute that is "necessary and proper" and "in pursuance" of our Constitution.
As a result of the foregoing, another way to look at SCOTUS's presidential immunity decision is that it is essentially irrelevant. SCOTUS said that the president is absolutely protected (has absolute immunity) from prosecution for fulfilling his "core" duties, and he might have some protection (immunity) for performing "official" duties.
The president's "core" and "official" duties are limited to those emphasized by Article II. Article II (and the President's oath of office) prominently emphasized that the first, foremost and constant duty of the President always is (merely) to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to "the best of" the President's "Ability." Fulfilling such duty clearly necessarily includes "tak[ing] Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Clearly, every power of the president is subordinate, first, to the legislative power of the People (our Constitution) and, second, to the legislative power of our representatives in Congress. So if a prosecutor can prove that a president has violated his duties under Article II, then the president clearly can be prosecuted by laws enacted by Congress in pursuance of our Constitution.
Trump hasn't shot (as with a pop gun) any body on the high seas. Or on Fifth Avenue as he early in his career claimed he could do sans criminal scandal or even Bad Publicity!
However, as the judicial hick from the south character on Canada's TV breakthrough in improv ensemble comedy & satire, namely SCTV's Over-the-Top running spoof on North American life's values & verities often put it in Country Cracker Court's over-the-top HEE HA segments:
"He blowed him up real good!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxSKm79DvnQ
Part 2 SCTV Farm Film Report Celebrity Blow-Up w Big Jim' McBob and Billy Sol Hurok Blow Up Sketch
Via
Tio Mitchito
Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Sifters, Code Shifters, PsalmSong Chasers
Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa (Refuge of A-Tone-ment Seekers)
Media Discussion List\Looksee
Bringing back the failed "War on Drugs" with even worse reasoning and potentially more devastating consequences. MAGA, indeed.
My wife claims "MAGA" stands for Make America God-Awful.
Although Trump is immune from criminal prosecution because of the recent Supreme Court Court, subordinates (including drone operators) who carry out his unlawful orders to murder civilians carrying drugs have a duty to refuse to obey and unlawful order and can be prosecuted if they fail to do so. Fat chance of prosecution by the Trump Justice Department, but what about the next administration?
According to the Sup Ct, the president is only absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for enumerated (core) constitutional duties. For nonenumerated outer-perimeter official duties, a presumption of immunity. I am waiting for a rebuttal to the latter.
Steve, this is more on topic for the tariffs case, but I posted this comment on today’s NYT David French-Emily Bazelon column. I’m honestly flabbergasted and think it’s time to talk about this:
Maybe the authors could at some point explain what the heck is going on with Alito. Why is he so transparently partisan? Why does he not see the obvious problems Trump is posing for the basic Constitutional order of separation of powers and checks and balances? Alito is going way beyond just supporting the Unitary Executive Theory. Doesn't he care about his legacy? He is completely un-self-aware. Seriously, it's mind boggling and begs a lot of questions.
Absolutely on target. Alito's attitude and actions continue to horrify, mystify, and disgust me in near-equal measures.. UGH!!
The state of our union can be summed up by questions like this from clearly curious, literate and (somewhat) engaged citizens. UTTER DENIAL!
Of course Supreme Court Justice Alito is not mentally dim to have reached his current station in life. What reasonable alternative does that leave? Exactly what those citizen activists who campaigned against his promotion to the Supremes were pointing out from the records of his corporate case-load and much less patience with street-level crime: He has been an enabler of INSTITUTIONAL CORRUPTION, the #1 Killer of Any Participatory 'd'emocracy.... And he has learned his lessons well!
Who among our elite corporate-captured broadcast news media, (the Number One source of political information for the vast majority of barely literate fellow citizens) heard any substantive review or challenge to Judge Alito's paper trail and record much less challenges to his asserted impartiality during the kindergarten level "interrogations" about his fitness to serve our highest court in the land?
File this under INSTITUTIONAL CORRUPTION CAN RELY ON A DOCILE NEWS MEDIA!
https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/justice-alitos-stock-portfolio-stands-apart-on-us-supreme-court/
Tio Mitchito
Mitch Ritter\
Paradigm Sifters, Code Shifters, PsalmSong Chasers
Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa (Refuge of A-Tone-ment Seekers)
Media Discussion List\Looksee
Tio mio!❤️
Points taken. I guess some of us still are surprised by the depths of depravity that exist within the highest echelons of these United States. It's apparently just too much to ask for someone as accomplished, esteemed(?) and supposedly vetted enough to wear the robe of a Supreme Court Justice to have been the weakest shred of conscience and fidelity to the law.
Every Supreme Court justice enters the position enjoying a rebuttable presumption that he or she is a neutral arbiter of the law. Sam Alito has rebutted his presumption many times over.
Thank you for shedding more light on how Trump's conduct is illegal and unconstitutional regarding the power to wage war. But it's at least as important to bear in mind one self-evident truth about Trump: he lies and lies and lies to pretend to justify what he's doing or wants to do. There is no good reason to take as true Trump's purported justification (war with Venezuela or an invasion by Venezuela).
Regarding this matter, it's most simple and straightforward to judge Trump and Hegseth as if they were on trial for murder and we were the jury. Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1111) defines "Murder" as "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." So we should think for ourselves about the substance of Trump's killings and his own admissions regarding those killings. We should think for ourselves about whether such killings are "unlawful." Our Constitution is paramount among the supreme law of the land, so any conduct that is unconstitutional (i.e., violates our Constitution) is necessarily unlawful (illegal).
By Trump's own public admissions, Trump and Hegseth are killing people outside U.S. jurisdiction for no better reason than that Trump is merely pretending to predict a future crime in a U.S. jurisdiction (mere purported drug smuggling). Nothing in our Constitution vested power in Trump or Hegseth to merely pretend to predict a future crime in a U.S. jurisdiction and summarily execute everyone they merely contend is guilty of such crime while they are far outside U.S. jurisdiction.
Trump and Hegseth are knowingly and deliberately undermining some of the most vital principles and safeguards of our own lives, liberty and property in our Constitution. For the first time in history, in the 1780's constitutions governing the conduct of all government employees were written and ratified by the People to turn public officials into public servants and to require the separation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers. All this and much more was done to protect the People from abuses of powers that had been granted or usurpations of powers that had not been granted by the People to our public servants.
In Federalist No. 47, for example, James Madison emphasized the following (and even more):
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many” is “the very definition of tyranny.” “[T]he preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.”
Madison quoted Montesquieu (in the Spirit of the Laws published in 1754) saying, "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates," or, "if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."
"The reasons on which Montesquieu grounds his maxim are a further demonstration of his meaning. 'When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body,' says he, 'there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner.' Again: 'Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for THE JUDGE would then be THE LEGISLATOR.
Were it joined to the executive power, THE JUDGE might behave with all the violence of AN OPPRESSOR.' "
With the foregoing in mind, our Constitution separated powers very carefully and emphatically. Our Constitution emphasized that no public servant was given any power to violate our Constitution. Article VI established that our Constitution was paramount as the "supreme Law of the Land," and it bound all state and federal public servants "to support" our "Constitution." Article II further emphasized that the president's powers were limited to those necessary to "preserve, protect and defend" our "Constitution" to "the best of" the president's "Ability."
Our Constitution (Amendment V) expressly and specifically commands that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."
Article III commands that "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed."
Amendment VI clearly commands that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to" a "public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."
The primary problem with the presumption or pretense that Article II somehow put all the powers of government into the hands of Trump is that it makes legislators, judges, grand juries and trial juries entirely irrelevant. Stated another way, Trump is unconstitutionally usurping the powers of legislators, judges, grand juries and trial juries. That is exactly what all the founders expressly opposed vehemently.
Excellent and to the heart of the matter with,
“Kentucky Senator Rand Paul was absolutely right to describe these strikes as “extrajudicial killings,” a term that has come to be used to refer to targeted uses of force by the state against specific individuals. But they’re even worse than that, for they are, near as I can tell, blatantly unlawful as a matter of U.S. domestic law—and a quickly spreading stain on whatever is left of the executive branch’s commitment to the rule of law.1”
Perfectly said
Trump is, of course, immune by virtue of the SCOTUS decision, but how about Hegseth, Rubio, Miller and even Bondi???!!!
As I recall, the US Sup Ct immunity decision did not address international law.
(The US does not recognize the International Criminal Court [ICC], but neither does Israel, yet the ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu for war crimes.)
Here's another recent example (The Phillippines also does not recognize the ICC.) - BBC 22 Sept 25 - "Former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte has been charged with crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
"The 80-year-old is accused of being criminally responsible for dozens of murders that allegedly took place as part of his so-called war on drugs, during which thousands of small-time drug dealers, users and others were killed without trial."
Anyone who is ever played “6 degrees of Kevin Bacon” realizes you can probably get to millions of innocent people with 3 hops.
Murder by another name.
Execution by the state is still murder.
I didn't watch the live broadcast, but I was disconcerted by a comment by Joyce or Steve that one person on the chat had posted "ZZZZZZZ". Assuming that this was not a troll, it illustrates the problem of informing people. This was 1/2 hour of expert and clear commentary on the issue, but for at least one person this was too boring to listen to.
This seems pretty simple to me: The Administration is, without indictment, arrest or trial, simply killing people it thinks are drug dealers. The government is taking justice into its own hands and acting as judge, jury, and executioner, a power the Constitution doesn't give it. In common parlance, this is called 'premeditated murder'. The government's conduct is even more egregious given that even if these drug runners were properly tried and convicted, they would, at most, be subject to imprisonment, not the death penalty.
Professor, if the strikes are illegal, are those military participating in them guilty of war crimes?
In the absence of a war, I doubt they can be considered war crimes. But in the absence of any legal justification, they can be considered crimes - notably murder. Murder is contrary to international and domestic (US) law. At present there may be nobody willing to prosecute for either crime, but that could change.
See Duterte (Phillippines) case and ICC. BBC 22Sep25
"Former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte has been charged with crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court (ICC). . . for dozens of murders that allegedly took place as part of his so-called war on drugs."
Does the code of conduct applying to military personnel provide any basis for potential redress? Could the Judge Advocate General's office conclude that there is no legal basis for the use of military force and direct the armed forces to discontinue using these drone strikes?
Also, has there been any effort using FOIA or Congressional subpoenas to get the legal rationale for the Administration's actions here?
Recall that Trump fired most of the senior judge advocates general soon after his inauguration, no doubt contemplating extensive and probably illegal use of the military, abroad and at home.
I think it's possible that, apart from the dubious and flawed excuses Trump has given for the attacks and murders in the Caribbean and Pacific as you described, his inner child simply likes showing off what he can do with his toy guns and boats, etc.. His secondary gain is that so far he is getting away with it.
Stepping back from specific questions of legality, what are the implications going forward for the US and for the safety of Americans internationally? If we act this way, what's to stop another country from arbitrarily arresting or even murdering (oh, sorry, "killing extrajudicially...") US citizens they accuse of terrorism, drug trafficking or some other offense without evidence? Sure, the Trump administration could escalate or retaliate, but that is cold comfort to anyone caught up or killed in the mean time. Lawlessness begets lawlessness.
Sadly, I suspect that the murder of people on the high seas is just another attempt to distract Americans from everything else Trump is doing. Murder as theater in service of a wannabe dictator.
"Because Americans contribute disproportionately to climate change, which leads to thousands of additional deaths each year, we consider American cruise ships in international waters to be legitimate military targets as a matter of self-defense."
Signed,
Whatever country wants to rely on Trump's logic to bomb U.S. cruise ships