President Trump has made a troubling move regarding the rule of law. He instructed the US military to kill 11 drug smugglers operating boats in the Caribbean, even releasing a video of the operation.
This action involves using the military in a way that resembles law enforcement. Historically, federal forces have stepped in during crises, often facing opposition from state authorities and enforcing court orders related to civil rights issues.
Recently, Judge Charles Breyer ruled that Trump acted unlawfully by deploying Marines and federal security personnel in Los Angeles.
Agencies like the DEA and Customs have historically approached drug smuggling as a law enforcement problem, not a military one. It’s crucial for law enforcement to tackle drug-related issues without resorting to extreme measures.
Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, stated that US authorities managed to “capture” the smugglers’ vessel but, under Trump’s command, “We exploded it… and we will do it again.” The intent, it seems, was to send a clear message.
In a subsequent press conference in Ecuador, Rubio explained that authorities would help track these individuals down, suggesting they might act alone if necessary.
This militarization of law enforcement raises considerable concerns. What Trump has ordered crosses a line. Under international law, extrajudicial killings are considered crimes and are condemned worldwide.
Extrajudicial killing refers to lethal actions taken by government agents that bypass the established legal processes. Usually, guilt is determined in a court of law, which is a fundamental aspect of our justice system.
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no one can be deprived of life without due process. The Constitution does not permit the President to take such life-ending actions without a valid justification.
When missiles are fired at boats on the high seas, the outcome is inherently fatal, leaving little room for what most people would perceive as “due process.”
Even if those 11 individuals were truly smuggling drugs toward the US, the legal response should have been to intercept and arrest them — as Rubio acknowledged — allowing for a fair trial to ascertain guilt or innocence.
Relying on intelligence or surveillance to justify the killings is fraught with risks. History shows that intelligence can often be mistaken; many are aware of the misjudgments made during conflicts in Vietnam and Iraq.
We cannot allow law enforcement or the executive branch to label someone guilty of a serious crime and impose a death sentence without due process.
The Supreme Court has made it clear that lethal force can only be used in situations where there’s an immediate threat. Simply killing a suspect without a chance for arrest or trial is unacceptable.
The president and his administration cannot sidestep these constraints by designating people as “terrorists.” While laws exist for targeted actions against terrorists, they do not extend to labeling those involved in drug smuggling or other crimes as such to justify killings.
Former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte is notorious for his extrajudicial actions against alleged drug offenders, labeling many as terrorists and facing significant backlash for it. After being ousted, Duterte was pursued by the International Criminal Court for his role in these extrajudicial acts.
While it may seem like Trump could escape accountability for such directives, his subordinates are not shielded from legal repercussions. Duterte’s experience should serve as a cautionary tale; extrajudicial killings are illegal under international law, and the ICC has a long memory.
Extrajudicial killings represent a severe breach of legal norms, emphasizing the need for checks against executive overreach.
