There is a single individual who can never confront any consequence for the demise of people clinging to an alleged narcotics vessel in the Caribbean last September.
That person is Donald Trump, who as US president was afforded extensive vindication for official conduct by the Supreme Court the previous year while serving.
From there, matters become muddled in a complex thicket of military, civilian, and global statutes.
Does Trump’s immunity for killings outside of legal process extend down to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who gave the directive to guarantee the assault eliminated everyone aboard, but asserted he did not command the subsequent strike that claimed survivors holding onto the hull?
What about Adm. Frank Bradley, who did authorize the second assault, apparently, subsequent to conferring with a legal advisor? Or the military personnel who initiated the action?
Some legal scholars deem the second strike as homicide, but that might not be relevant, at least not in the immediate future. While a future Department of Justice or Defense could pursue indictments against parties linked to the strikes, it seems illogical that Trump’s Department of Justice will seek responsibility under US statutes, or that his Department of Defense will seek responsibility under military codes.
Trump could also always grant clemency to anyone involved with the strikes, conferring his immunity upon whomever he chooses.
Existence Mimicking a Supreme Court Deliberation
It should be clear to everyone that the hypothetical situation that fueled the Supreme Court discussions regarding Trump’s immunity involved a president ordering SEAL Team Six to eliminate a political adversary.
The Washington Post reveals it was SEAL Team Six that executed the vessel attack that many specialists argue is unlawful.
What was omitted from those Supreme Court debates is whether SEAL Team Six ought to carry out an illicit directive.
The Rules of Engagement Do Not Apply When the US is Not Engaged in Warfare
A former military attorney who has been critical of Trump’s alleged narcotics vessel operation maintains that the second strike on the ship in September should shift the focus back to the broader concern that the Trump administration is employing the military without direct consent from Congress.
“All this discussion concerning the laws of armed conflict is truly misplaced because they aren’t relevant,” Major General Steven Lepper, a retired Air Force counselor, informed me.
In his estimation, the entirety of the military’s utilization is illegitimate since the administration has endeavored to draw a parallel that has no basis in US law between narcotics entering the US and projectiles endangering Americans.
Responsibility Outside the Justice Framework
“We must adopt a broader outlook on what accountability signifies,” stated Brian Finucane, a senior consultant at the International Crisis Group and a former legal advisor at the State Department.
In the short run, Finucane contended that responsibility should emanate from Congress, which is examining the strike and he trusts will move towards “compelling the administration to halt this bloodshed at sea.”
Another engagement was conducted Thursday, according to a social media entry by US Southern Command, even as dispute mounted over the September strike in Washington.
Finucane commented that in the longer term “the succeeding administration may possess the political will to seek accountability.”
What About Military Justice?
The military judicial structure has been structured around the line of command, where leaders are a vital element of the procedure for bringing charges when military statute is violated.
Any type of court-martial against a senior official like Bradley would be determined by a panel of fellow senior officials.
That presupposes a matter would ever be commenced. Military justice proceedings are initiated by what is termed a “convening authority,” which is typically a commanding officer. But recent modifications to the framework – enacted to facilitate removing sexual misconduct claims from the chain of command – now also permit military advocates, special trial counsel, to press charges.
All of that represents an exceedingly distant prospect at this juncture.
What About International Law
A Colombian family has submitted a formal grievance to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), which might eventually result in compensation for the demise of Colombian mariner Alejandro Carranza.
The US has a record of thwarting any international culpability for itself or its partners. But no hostilities have been declared, meaning members of the US military could even hypothetically be subject to the legislation of other nations.
The fine points of who directed a second assault on the initial targeted vessel in September have dominated media reports this week.
The US military caused the deaths while executing orders from Hegseth to eliminate the alleged narcotics boat. The general approach had the endorsement of Trump, although both he and Hegseth stated they were not immediately cognizant of the second assault.
What About an International Tribunal
There exists an International Criminal Court in The Hague, for instance, to prosecute atrocities of war. The global tribunal is structured like International Criminal Courts established for atrocities in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. But the US is conspicuously not a signatory to the organization.
Bill Clinton did sign the Rome Statute, the accord that established the International Criminal Court, as a departing president in December of 2000. However, the accord was never confirmed by the Senate. And indeed, there is a US statute, signed in 2002 by President George W. Bush, that aims to safeguard American service personnel from apprehension or prosecution by the court. The US actually refrains from certain UN peacekeeping endeavors as a consequence of this legislation.
Other major global actors, including China and Russia, are also not members of the court or, in Russia’s instance, have withdrawn.
That doesn’t preclude the court from bringing accusations against individuals from those nations. The ICC issued a warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, and another Russian in 2023, regarding Russia’s plan to indoctrinate Ukrainian juveniles.
The Trump administration has adopted an even more combative stance toward the ICC. Trump in August authorized penalties and visa limitations against court personnel after the ICC commenced an examination of alleged war crimes committed by US and Afghan forces and the CIA in Afghanistan. Trump and his administration object to ICC arrest warrants issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
What About the Laws of Other Nations?
Italy in 2009 convicted almost two dozen purported CIA agents for the alleged 2003 kidnapping, or rendition, of a terror suspect from the avenues of Milan. The Americans did not face incarceration and effectively became fugitives in Italy, but this did not impact relations between the two nations.
About the Author
