‘We Intended the Strike to Be Lethal’ Is Not a Defense

National Review ^ | By Andrew C. McCarthy

[RandFan]

An explosive Washington Post report, the subject of so much discussion the past two days, says that, in the first missile strike the Trump Defense Department carried out against operatives of a boat suspected of transporting narcotics on the high seas off Venezuela, two survivors were rendered shipwrecked. As they clung to the wreckage, the U.S. commander ordered a second strike, which killed them.

If this happened as described in the Post report, it was, at best, a war crime under federal law. I say “at best” because, as regular readers know, I believe the attacks on these suspected drug boats — without congressional authorization, under circumstances in which the boat operators pose no military threat to the United States, and given that narcotics trafficking is defined in federal law as a crime rather than as terrorist activity, much less an act of war — are lawless and therefore that the killings are not legitimate under the law or armed conflict. (See my Saturday column, with links to prior posts on this subject.)

Nevertheless, even if we stipulate arguendo that the administration has a colorable claim that our forces are in an armed conflict with non-state actors (i.e., suspected members of drug cartels that the administration has dubiously designated as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs)), the laws of war do not permit the killing of combatants who have been rendered hors de combat (out of the fighting) — including by shipwreck.

To reiterate, I don’t accept that the ship operators are enemy combatants — even if one overlooks that the administration has not proven that they are drug traffickers or members of designated FTOs. There is no armed conflict. They may be criminals (if it is proven that they are importing illegal narcotics), but they are not combatants.

[iamgalt]

I would agree we have a handful of pretenders here. Their names are known to us.

[zeestephen]

If the primary intent is to destroy the drug cargo and sink the boat, the dead men are collateral damage.

What Conservative critics are claiming is that the USA military has no legal authority to stop drug shipments to the USA main land if drug criminals are killed or injured in that process.

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

Order a strike on the National Review, mutiple ones if needed.

Mene mene tekel upharsin

[Does so]

Near Guadalcanal, US Mitchell bombers were ordered to strafe survivors of Japanese troop-carrier sinkings.

‘Seen as necessary, as US Marines at Guadalcanal were hard-pressed already by Japanese troops dropped off days earlier.

(Guadalcanal having a critical airfield for air-supremacy over Japan’s fleets operating in Rabaul / New Britain).

Japan was NOT a signatory to the Geneva Convention

[MortMan]

That being said, it may well be illegal under U.S. laws and/or treaties to which we are a signatory.

I'm curious what treaty we have signed that applies to non-uniformed combatants - which terrorists (and narco-terrorists) clearly are.

[AFreeBird]

Funny thing… I took some fentanyl last October. Prescribed by a doctor, right before emergency appendectomy.

[Red6]

Call it defeatist, but I am of the belief that you can’t fight supply nor demand.

There is something in the human (many - at various times) which makes them seek drugs.

—All societies I know have them.

—All societies through all of time have had them.

—Even the most remote and isolated societies have them.

We’re really trying to fight human nature.

IMHO: This is an issue best dealt with by trying to manage it.

—

Provide access to services for those seeking help / get out from dependence.

Accurate and truthful education, not this idiotic crap like with marijuana years ago where the government ends up discrediting itself.

Containment, preventing people from being molested by the the nuisance it poses. Prevent criminal organizations from spreading and gaining control over areas, etc. Ensure the criminal organizations are suppressed and never gain political influence.

Discourage use by maintaining a negative stigma and keeping it illegal, with consequences for the user but without crushing these people (you don’t want to make them unproductive members of society). Government should not condone dangerous and unhealthy behavior.

***I would focus on the demand and supply side, BUT my idea is to have reasonable expectations, approach it empirically and pragmatic. Try to avoid the grandstanding by politicians and knee jerk reactions which make for dumb and frankly counter productive policy. If it don’t work, get rid of it. Use the dollar spent on Intel and law enforcement in a way where we can demonstrate the maximum ROI regards management of this problem.

How much effort we exert depends on the extent of the problem at the time. Trump is right. The US today faces a drug crisis: https://nida.nih.gov/sites/default/files/images/fig1_2025.jpg. We should be focusing on the problem. Every year two times as many Americans die from drug overdoses than from the entire Vietnam war!

—

However, this idea that we’re in a war where you have a beginning and end, a victory that can be achieved is nonsense.

Drugs are part of the human condition and they are not going away even if you execute people for distribution.

We should stop trying to see this like a winnable battle or where through brutality we can win.

It’s more like struggling to maintain your body weight and not become obese (if you’re not blessed with a natural thin figure). It’s an endless struggle where you should not give up (it’s a necessary struggle but not something per say “winnable”).