PIRACY AS POLICY

 

Piracy defined: Acts of robbery, violence or detention at sea.

The unprovoked attacks in the Caribbean Sea being carried out by the US Department of Defense, without investigation, due process or motive for defensive action, harken back centuries to lawless times when colonial powers, privateers and pirates ruled the seas by force, without regard for territories, the law, or any interests but their own. The crimes committed at sea and from the sea back then were a major basis for America’s revolt against colonialism and its struggle for independence from British rule.

In the last three months, the US, under orders from its ever-more-authoritarian president, has carried out 21 military strikes against at least 22 vessels in the Caribbean region, with particular emphasis on boats out of Venezuela. In all cases, the Trump administration has claimed that the vessels attacked and destroyed, usually by drones, were “narco-boats” transporting illegal narcotics. But neither the Department of Defense nor the White House has deigned to provide any evidence at all that this was the case. And even if they were narco-trafficking vessels, without due process, the act of blowing them out of the water without legal standing or authorization is unlawful.  

Indeed, the Trump regime, to date, has  made zero effort to explain its actions—except as bully-posturing, and in terms of cowboy “street justice”—to the American public or to the world.  And now, retired members of the JAG Corps (the US military’s justice system) are indicating that, under international law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the attacks are not only illegal but may well constitute summary execution or murder.

Eighty-three people have perished in these unprovoked attacks. Only two have been captured and repatriated. The victims could just as easily have been fishermen, vacationers or boating enthusiasts as drug-runners, since we only have the word of Trump (long since proven to be a serial liar) and his Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth that the vessels hit by devastatingly lethal US drone attacks had anything to do with narcotics shipments.

Whether Trump and his hijacked Republican Party recognize it or not, all of these attacks have been unlawful at a both national, and global level, constituting gross violations of international law and the Law of the Sea. At a strictly domestic level, they violate a number of federal laws, regulations and the Constitution.

To start with,  the attacks are a violation of constitutional separation of powers. Congress alone is empowered to declare war or authorize captures or strikes at sea, especially in peace time. They also violate domestic criminal statutes and executive-branch prohibitions against assassination or unlawful killing, since these are basically summary executions without any due process whatsoever. Furthermore, they contravene doctrines of due process and the right to life under both US and international human-rights law. Additionally, they infringe on international maritime law and principle of the sovereignty of States over vessels under their flags on the high seas, where the attacker does so without consent from the country involved or from the United Nations General Assembly or Security Council.

And now we must add to this horror new reports that point to the probability that the Department of Defense has at least unofficially been imposing a “no survivors” rule. Backing this theory was information reported this week regarding a September strike that wiped out a vessel, followed by a second strike that killed survivors who remained alive and overboard, clinging to pieces of their craft, following the attack. If these allegations prove true, such an act would unquestionably be a summary execution (murder).

This latest report is stirring outrage in Congress, even among  a handful of GOP lawmakers. But it has also caught the attention of US military law experts. Earlier this week, a statement was released by the Former JAGs Working Group, which indicated that, if the “no-quarter” orders alleged to have emanated from the Department of Defense (DoD) prove true, “both the giving and the execution

of these orders (would) constitute war crimes, murder, or both.”

The Former JAGs Working Group was established in February of this year after Trump unilaterally fired the Army and Air Force Judge Advocates General. The organization, whose members are former military attorneys, created their watchdog group after Trump began “his systematic dismantling of the military’s legal guardrails.” In their statement, they said that, “Had those guardrails been in place, we are confident they would have prevented these crimes.” They added that their assessment of the crimes of which they are potentially accusing the administration was unanimous.

Explaining the legal precedents that led them to this evaluation, the Former JAGs Working Group stated that, “If the US military operation to interdict and destroy suspected narco-trafficking vessels is a “non-international armed conflict,” as the Trump Administration suggests, orders to “kill everybody,” which can reasonably be regarded as an order to give ‘no quarter’, and to ‘double-tap’ a target in order to kill survivors, are clearly illegal under international law. In short, they are war crimes.”

The ex-JAGs made it clear that: “If the US military operation is not an armed conflict of any kind, these orders to kill helpless civilians clinging to the wreckage of a vessel our military destroyed would subject everyone from (the Secretary of Defense) down to the individual who pulled the trigger to prosecution under US law for murder.”

The Former JAGs Working Group made a plea to both Congress and the American people, saying: “We call upon Congress to investigate and the American people to oppose any use of the US military that involves the intentional targeting of anyone—enemy combatants, non-combatants, or civilians—rendered hors de combat (“out of the fight”) as a result of their wounds or the destruction of the ship or aircraft carrying them.”

They also went on to tacitly back the position of retired Navy captain and current Senator Mark Kelly, whom the Trump regime is currently seeking to court martial for reminding Armed Forces personnel that they are under no obligation to obey unlawful orders, no matter who gives them. According to Trump (who, as a 34-count convicted felon, has no regard for the Constitution or any other law), military personnel must obey all orders of the commander-in-chief, no matter what those orders might be.

In their statement, on this point, the ex-JAGs said: “We also advise our fellow citizens that orders like those described above are the kinds of ‘patently illegal orders’ all military members have a duty to disobey.”

They added that, “Since orders to kill survivors of an attack at sea are ‘patently illegal’, anyone who issues or follows such orders can and should be prosecuted for war crimes, murder, or both.”

More specifically, from an international viewpoint, legal experts make it clear that, if the Trump regime orders US forces or agents to carry out lethal strikes on Venezuelan territory, territorial waters, or flagged vessels without a UN Security Council mandate, Venezuelan consent, or a lawful claim of self-defense, such actions are deemed unlawful uses of force under Article 2 of the United Nations Charter. They also constitute violations of Venezuelan sovereignty under customary international law and International Court of Justice doctrine.

Furthermore, US attacks on vessels navigating under Venezuelan flag on the high seas are a violation of the Law of the Sea—an international statute negotiated worldwide in the 1970s and 1980s and in effect around the globe since the nineties. The alleged “double-tap” orders from the DoD are considered extrajudicial executions, and are in violation of international human rights laws. Under international humanitarian law (IHL) and Articles 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute (under which the International Criminal Court was founded) such actions are deemed to be war crimes.   

Bottom line, the face of the United States that the world is seeing right now under the Trump regime is that of an all-powerful but lawless, rogue nation, bent on dominating other sovereign states by force, and in total disregard for long-standing diplomatic and international legal norms. We are being seen as a barbaric and violent people with no respect for the sovereignty of other nations. In short, we are being seen as a nation ruled by a dictator, who, like his erstwhile idol, Vladimir Putin, is willing to make use of all of the devastating power at his fingertips as a threat, so as to impose his whims on the world by force. And we are also being seen as a once democratic nation that is now ruled by an autocrat, and by the corrupt ruling party that he has usurped to serve as his shill in a mere pantomime of representative government.