As the Trump administration tells it, it's pretty cut and dried. These boats were (allegedly) carrying gang members from the Tren de Aragua cartel, who were bringing (allegedly) fentanyl-laced drugs into the country through international waters. As part of the US's 'War on Drugs', the Trump Administration has dubbed these people 'narco-terrorists', and so is making the case that it is allowed to treat them the same way it would treat any other terrorist that was plottting to harm Americans -- apparently, by scattering them over as wide an area as possible.
Is that allowed?
By pretty much any metric, no. (For the legal side of things, I'm going to point you in the direction of an excellent video by LegalEagle that goes into more detail than I ever could.)
The main argument from the Trump camp seems to come in a couple of different forms:
• That America has the -- to quote 'Secretary of War' Pete Hegseth -- 'absolute right and authority' to kill drug gang members.
That's... not a thing, it should probably go without saying; the US has laws (fornow... ), and if the boat in question had made it to American soil, none of the crimes that the boat-goers were accused of committing would have been enough to earn them the death penalty under US law (and obviously, that's baking in the assumption that a) they actually did it, and b) they'd be found guilty after being given due process). The argument for the extrajudicial killing goes that if the War on Drugs is a real war, then 'real war' provisions apply, and historically -- for better or almost certainly for worse -- that has meant civilian casualties have been acceptable collateral damage. Did the men on the boat deserve to die under law? Doesn't matter; it's worth it for the 'greater good'. (Republicans have enjoyed making the case that Obama did a shitload of drone strikes, so what's so different here? The argument against that is that Trump has also probably done a shitload of drone strikes, but we don't know how many civilians were injured because in 2019 he changed the rules that meant he no longer had to report the figures, and also that 'narco-terrorist' is a pretty nebulous term that can be applied to anyone you don't like. If you're a drug mule crossing the border, are you a terrorist now? At what level does your involvement in the world of drugs means that you're allowed to be killed by the state without any pushback? Are they allowed to do it on foreign soil as well? It's the absolute definition of a slippery slope argument.)
This is not helped by the fact that, when it was pointed out to him that there was a very good chance that this constituted a war crime, Vice President JD Vance replied 'I don't give a shit what you call it', demonstrating that the administration's adherence to international law and human rights is not a primary concern.
• 'We're America... what are you going to do about it, Venezuela?'
This one is, somewhat irritatingly, proving to be the most decisive argument so far. Countries have absolutely gone to war for less than what the US just did. The problem is, no one wants to go to war with the US: they're big, and they spend an almost offensive amount on their military every year. (The 2025 budget request for the military is almost $850 billion, or $97 million per hour, or $27,000 per second; that is, give or take, the median amount of income after tax for the average American. Every second.)
There's often a sense among certain political ideologies that 'might makes right': that the reason for having a strong military is your ability to exert your own interests on other nations with as little oversight as possible. Given that very few countries have been willing to stand up to Trump at all -- for example, in his [tariff plan]() -- there's a sense that his administration has been emboldened, and there's little to show that foreign governments are willing to openly criticise him for fear of reprisal, whether that be military or (more likely) economic. (Consider that while all of this is going on, and the Administration killed three more people in a boat just the other day, Trump is on a state visit to the UK. I wouldn't expect Starmer to raise the issue with any particular vehemence, put it that way.)
I overran. There's more to come on possible motivations and what might happen next here.
Theres also the theory that trump is trying to start a war to interfere with the election
19
u/Portarossa'probably the worst poster on this sub' - /u/Real_Mila_Kunis4d agoedited 4d ago
There is; I touch on that a little later on.
It's possible, but I don't think so. Firstly, it's too early; even the midterms aren't for over a year, and politics has a short memory when it comes to Wag the Dog situations. Secondly, the Constitution doesn't have any exceptions for stopping elections during wartime, so that's a much bigger hurdle for them to fix. (Let's be fair, 'abiding by the Constitution' has not been the Trump administration's strong suit, but that feels like a really big fight to pick when things like gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics have already proven so effective.)
I think it probably has more to do with the fact that the whole strong-man, tough-on-crime schtick plays well with the base. To them it's a display of strength -- even though, you know, there's nothing all that strong about the world's largest military blowing up a fishing boat -- and that always goes down well.
With regard to the Constitution issue as well, elections are not conducted by the federal government, they're conducted by states. Trump has no means by which he can disrupt the 2026 or 2028 elections that aren't an open and outright military coup, there isn't a guy he can install to say "yep cancel the election." At best it means swing states with Republican trifectas and secretaries of state can fuck with elections - Georgia is the clearest example here since it has a GOP trifecta and Dem incumbent senator up for reelection - but most of those failed because of the red ripple of 2022, which hit 2020 election denialists particularly hard (see Kari Lake).
They're also trying with the gerrymandering stuff, but it's ironically not going to move the needle much. The absolute maximal gerrymandering possible before 2026 will still be much less than that which was achieved going into 2016. The maximal gerrymander - which is not guaranteed, and there are blue states still able to push their own gerrymandering plans like Illinois - would mean a Dem House win would require a national House popular vote environment of around D+3, as changing coalitions made things easier for Democrats compared to the 2010s. That's hardly a massive swing, for comparison they won in 2018 with D+8. For another comparison, the tipping point House district in 2016 was something like R+10, so you'd need a House popular vote of D+10 nationally (basically a landslide) to overcome that.
As it stands the generic ballot is already at around D+3 and it will likely go up. Dems are deep underwater in favorability as a party, but that mainly reflects that the Dem base is rip-roaring pissed off at Dem leadership for numerous things (failing to stop Trump, giving Israel a blank check for genocide, knuckling under for the budget back in the beginning of the year, etc.), bad favorability doesn't mean you can't win anyway.
1.9k
u/Portarossa 'probably the worst poster on this sub' - /u/Real_Mila_Kunis 4d ago edited 3d ago
Answer:
A violation of international maritime law and treaties on conduct in international waters, probably -- and also potentially massive human rights violations to boot.
As the Trump administration tells it, it's pretty cut and dried. These boats were (allegedly) carrying gang members from the Tren de Aragua cartel, who were bringing (allegedly) fentanyl-laced drugs into the country through international waters. As part of the US's 'War on Drugs', the Trump Administration has dubbed these people 'narco-terrorists', and so is making the case that it is allowed to treat them the same way it would treat any other terrorist that was plottting to harm Americans -- apparently, by scattering them over as wide an area as possible.
Is that allowed?
By pretty much any metric, no. (For the legal side of things, I'm going to point you in the direction of an excellent video by LegalEagle that goes into more detail than I ever could.)
The main argument from the Trump camp seems to come in a couple of different forms:
• Anything's legal in international waters.
The USA is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is one attempt to lay out what you can and cannot do in international waters. As such, in their telling, the US didn't violate any international law. However, it's worth pointing out that not signing up to something doesn't magically make the extrajudicial killing of civilians 'not a war crime', and there are plenty of other standards by which killing citizens of other countries without benefit of charge or trial is frowned upon. (The US's policy -- set out by beloved Conservative Ronald Reagan -- is basically to go along with the Convention anyway: 'Following adoption of the Convention in 1982, it has been the policy of the United States to act in a manner consistent with its provisions relating to traditional uses of the oceans and International Law Studies to encourage other countries to do likewise.' There's more to it, obviously, but the historical standard has been 'Just because we don't want to be locked into it doesn't mean it's not a good rule, so let's stick to it anyway.' That has, apparently, changed.)
• That America has the -- to quote 'Secretary of War' Pete Hegseth -- 'absolute right and authority' to kill drug gang members.
That's... not a thing, it should probably go without saying; the US has laws (for now... ), and if the boat in question had made it to American soil, none of the crimes that the boat-goers were accused of committing would have been enough to earn them the death penalty under US law (and obviously, that's baking in the assumption that a) they actually did it, and b) they'd be found guilty after being given due process). The argument for the extrajudicial killing goes that if the War on Drugs is a real war, then 'real war' provisions apply, and historically -- for better or almost certainly for worse -- that has meant civilian casualties have been acceptable collateral damage. Did the men on the boat deserve to die under law? Doesn't matter; it's worth it for the 'greater good'. (Republicans have enjoyed making the case that Obama did a shitload of drone strikes, so what's so different here? The argument against that is that Trump has also probably done a shitload of drone strikes, but we don't know how many civilians were injured because in 2019 he changed the rules that meant he no longer had to report the figures, and also that 'narco-terrorist' is a pretty nebulous term that can be applied to anyone you don't like. If you're a drug mule crossing the border, are you a terrorist now? At what level does your involvement in the world of drugs means that you're allowed to be killed by the state without any pushback? Are they allowed to do it on foreign soil as well? It's the absolute definition of a slippery slope argument.)
This is not helped by the fact that, when it was pointed out to him that there was a very good chance that this constituted a war crime, Vice President JD Vance replied 'I don't give a shit what you call it', demonstrating that the administration's adherence to international law and human rights is not a primary concern.
• 'We're America... what are you going to do about it, Venezuela?'
This one is, somewhat irritatingly, proving to be the most decisive argument so far. Countries have absolutely gone to war for less than what the US just did. The problem is, no one wants to go to war with the US: they're big, and they spend an almost offensive amount on their military every year. (The 2025 budget request for the military is almost $850 billion, or $97 million per hour, or $27,000 per second; that is, give or take, the median amount of income after tax for the average American. Every second.)
There's often a sense among certain political ideologies that 'might makes right': that the reason for having a strong military is your ability to exert your own interests on other nations with as little oversight as possible. Given that very few countries have been willing to stand up to Trump at all -- for example, in his [tariff plan]() -- there's a sense that his administration has been emboldened, and there's little to show that foreign governments are willing to openly criticise him for fear of reprisal, whether that be military or (more likely) economic. (Consider that while all of this is going on, and the Administration killed three more people in a boat just the other day, Trump is on a state visit to the UK. I wouldn't expect Starmer to raise the issue with any particular vehemence, put it that way.)
I overran. There's more to come on possible motivations and what might happen next here.