From Deportation to Deadly Force: A Pattern of Escalation

The current policy represents a significant escalation from the administration’s initial focus on increased deportations. What began as an attempt to limit immigration has morphed into a willingness to employ lethal force against individuals suspected of criminal activity, even outside U.S. territorial waters. This shift reflects a broader pattern of framing virtually any challenge to the administration’s policies as a national security threat. The administration has repeatedly characterized migration – both at the border and at sea – as a form of “war,” a rhetorical device used to justify increasingly drastic measures.

This “war” mentality has allowed the administration to circumvent traditional checks and balances, notably congressional approval for acts of war. The targeting of vessels allegedly involved in drug trafficking is predicated on the assertion that these activities constitute a violent attack on the United States, despite lacking concrete evidence of direct threats to American citizens. The initial extrajudicial killings occurred days before a legal justification was formally drafted, raising serious questions about the order of events and the administration’s intent.

The number of these attacks has steadily increased, accompanied by a consistent refusal to provide transparent accounting of the incidents. Information released by the administration has been limited to conclusory statements crafted by legal advisors seemingly prioritizing their continued employment over adherence to legal and ethical standards. The administration continues to search for a legal justification that can withstand mounting legal challenges to its boat strike program.

The OLC Memo: A Shield for Extrajudicial Killings?

Recently, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a classified memo intended to protect military personnel involved in these operations from future prosecution. According to reports, the memo states that personnel participating in military strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats in Latin America will not be exposed to legal repercussions. This decision stemmed from internal concerns raised by senior civilian and military lawyers who questioned the legality of the strikes.

The administration maintains that these operations are lawful under both U.S. and international law, a claim disputed by legal experts and former government officials. The justification relies on a tenuous connection between drug trafficking and a “non-international armed conflict,” arguing that funds generated from drug sales are used to finance violence. However, critics point out that this is a distortion of the facts; drug traffickers are primarily motivated by profit, not by a desire to directly target American citizens with violence.

Adam Isacson, a scholar at the Washington Office on Latin America, succinctly stated, “There is no proof that the gangs are using drug profits with the intent of promoting violence or mayhem in the United States.” He further clarified, “These groups are businesses. If they are carrying out violence in the United States, they are doing it for profit, not for the purpose of sowing terror.”

The release of the OLC memo has prompted resignations from within the military, including Admiral Alvin Holsey, who chose to retire rather than participate in what he viewed as a deliberate disregard for constitutional boundaries and American ideals. Despite these resignations, administration officials dismiss concerns, claiming that the operations are fully compliant with the law of armed conflict.

However, the administration’s consistent pattern of dishonesty casts doubt on these assurances. Spokespeople routinely issue false statements, and the OLC’s justification stretches the boundaries of legal interpretation to an alarming degree. The memo essentially grants a blanket immunity to military personnel, shielding them from accountability for potentially illegal actions.

Did You Know?:

What are the long-term implications of normalizing extrajudicial killings in international waters? And how will this policy impact U.S. relations with countries in Latin America?

Frequently Asked Questions About the Boat Strikes