A drone was responsible for a devastating attack on a vessel in the Caribbean last week, revealed a Republican senator. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky voiced concern over the Trump administration’s tacit endorsement of killing individuals without due process, branding the ‘deadly assault’ as a violation of long-standing engagement norms. It was Paul who unveiled the news of the assault being orchestrated by a drone, a detail both the Department of Defense and its Secretary, Pete Hegseth, opted to keep under wraps. The first instance of Paul’s objections surfaced during an online exchange with Vice President JD Vance.
JD Vance had retorted rather dismissively to charges of the strike being tantamount to a war crime, expressing indifference to the labels assigned to it. Responding on Saturday, Paul condemned Vance’s nonchalance towards the issue of killing individuals in the absence of a trial, describing such a stance as ‘abhorrent and unreflective’. Speaking to The Intercept, Paul clarified that his issue was not with the use of drones in warfare per se, but with the summary execution of individuals bereft of due process rights.
An outspoken senator, Rand Paul’s tenure has seen him consistently criticizing the deployment of drones on civilian targets, particularly American citizens. Citing the recent drone attack on a small-powered boat located over 2,000 miles from U.S. coastlines, Paul expressed his concerns over the disregard for ingrained Coast Guard engagement rules which included steps for identification, warnings to halt, using non-lethal force for capture, and employing lethal force only in self-defense or resistance.
Concerning the assault, Rep. Gregory Meeks, a Democrat from New York and the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, expressed his alarm. In his statement released on Tuesday, he lamented the fact that even a week after the assault, the Foreign Affairs Committee members remained uninformed about the use of force in this assault, pointing out the contradiction, given the Committee’s jurisdiction. Emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal frameworks, Meeks criticized President Donald Trump’s unilateral decision-making.
President Donald Trump had, the previous week, posted a video clip on social media that depicted a speedboat with four engines speeding through the water carrying numerous passengers onboard. The boat met its ill-fated end in a subsequent explosion, as seen in the video. As per Trump, the fatal strike claimed the lives of 11 individuals he referred to as ‘narcoterrorists’. No substantiating evidence has been put forth by the administration in support of these claims.
Subject-matter experts assert that regardless of the identities of those onboard, the assault typified an extrajudicial execution by the Trump administration, even going as far as to label it a murder. Advocacy director for the Center for Civilians in Conflict, Annie Shiel, reminded us that irrespective of location or the accused crime, all individuals are vested with inalienable rights, including their right to life and due process.Such high-handed use of lethal forces circumventing due process norms outside of an acknowledged armed conflict zone is tantamount to extrajudicial killing and does not constitute an act of war.
A former State Department lawyer who specialized in counter-terrorism matters and the regulations of warfare, Brian Finucane, reflecting on the evidence that came to light, the official pronouncements by the government, and consultations with fellow security law practitioners, concluded that the legality of the assault was questionable. In an interview with The Intercept, he shared, ‘I’m significantly more predisposed to label this as a straightforward case of homicide. And I’ve gone to great lengths to interpret the government’s actions generously.’
Finucane added, ‘The U.S. has traditionally had the rights to resort to lethal forces, but that has always been contextualized within armed conflicts against legitimate targets, such as enemy soldiers. However, the Trump administration hasn’t even made an effort to put forth that argument. They’ve failed to claim that the U.S. is engaged in an armed conflict bound by the laws of warfare. They have articulated no arguments, let alone any supporting evidence, that the target of this assault was a legitimate one. Outside of the context of an armed conflict, the premeditated killing of individuals is synonymous with one word, murder.’
Additionally, Finucane expressed his issues with the government’s tortuous use of the law to justify complicated exchanges between organized armed factions in the U.S. and criminal entities in Latin America. A high-ranking Pentagon official described last week’s assault in the Caribbean as a civilian-targeted criminal assault. He went on to state that despite drug dealers being recognized as criminals, they shouldn’t be viewed as combatants.
In a significant revelation, a Pentagon executive commented, ‘The U.S. is now directly targeting civilians. While drug traffickers are indeed criminals, they are not soldiers.’ He further added, ‘Upon Trump’s dismissal of the military’s chief legal advisors, others took notice and realized that instead of serving as a crucial isolation barrier, they were becoming accomplices in this crime.’ The Pentagon remained tight-lipped about the official’s interpretation of the strike.
U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, asserted that the U.S. had the option to bring the ship to halt and apprehend its crew, but chose to execute them summarily. In responses to the event, he asserted ‘We chose to destroy it upon the president’s command – and we will do so again.’ Meanwhile, Todd Huntley, a former Staff Judge Advocate who served as a legal adviser on Joint Special Operations task forces, conducting drone strikes in Afghanistan and elsewhere, warned of the potential for such actions to endanger American citizens.
At Georgetown University Law Center where he presently heads the national security law program, Huntley discussed his concern about the strike potentially paving the way for attacks on Americans, even within U.S. borders. Drawing a parallel with counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency initiatives during conflicts with Afghanistan, Iraq, and in the War on terror, he points to the increasing militarization of policing within the United States. According to Huntley: ‘If the President is willing to carry out an attack on a boat in international waters, would he then be willing to use the same force against a vehicle carrying members of a cartel? What if there was a civilian present – a partner or an American citizen? We are veering dangerously close to a slippery slope.’
The post Drone Strike on Caribbean Vessel Unveiled by Senator Rand Paul appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
