The Erosion of Due Process: How Unilateral Military Action Sets a Dangerous Precedent
Twenty-seven lives extinguished in the Caribbean Sea, justified by an assertion of threat without due process. This isn’t a scene from a dystopian future, but a reality unfolding under the Trump administration, and it signals a chilling shift in the boundaries of executive power. The recent authorization of lethal covert operations against suspected drug traffickers, coupled with the reported concerns leading to the early departure of the commander of U.S. Southern Command, Alvin Holsey, isn’t simply a policy disagreement – it’s a fundamental challenge to the rule of law, with implications that extend far beyond the current “war on drugs.”
Beyond the Drug War: A Pattern of Unilateral Action
The administration’s justification – that traditional law enforcement methods are “ineffective” – is a dangerous oversimplification. As legal scholar David Cole argues, we possess the legal framework to address drug smuggling: investigation, interdiction, arrest, and trial. Instead, the White House has opted for extrajudicial killings, effectively acting as judge, jury, and executioner. This isn’t about pragmatism; it’s about a willingness to bypass established legal norms. The focus on Venezuela, a country not identified as a primary source of drugs entering the U.S. – with the majority originating from Mexico and Central America – further suggests a political motive, a flexing of military muscle against a vulnerable nation. This echoes a broader pattern of unilateral action, from the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani to the escalating tensions in the South China Sea.
The Legal and International Ramifications
The legality of these actions is deeply questionable. Under both domestic and international law, the deliberate targeting of individuals without due process constitutes murder and potentially a war crime. The principle of proportionality, a cornerstone of international humanitarian law, dictates that any use of force must be proportionate to the threat posed. Suspected drug smugglers, even if engaged in illegal activity, do not automatically forfeit their right to a fair trial. As Cole points out, the situation is starkly different if reversed: would the U.S. tolerate another nation targeting its citizens on the high seas based on unsubstantiated allegations? The comparison to former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, currently facing investigation by the International Criminal Court for similar extrajudicial killings, is unsettlingly apt. International Criminal Court investigation into the Philippines
The Slippery Slope and Domestic Implications
The most alarming aspect of this situation is the precedent it sets. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s comparison of alleged drug traffickers to antifa, suggesting similar tactics could be employed domestically, is a chilling indication of where this logic could lead. If the executive branch can unilaterally authorize lethal force against perceived threats without due process, the potential for abuse is immense. This isn’t simply about protecting civil liberties; it’s about safeguarding the very foundations of a democratic society. The erosion of due process abroad inevitably weakens it at home.
The Military’s Role and the Question of Obedience
The resignation of Admiral Holsey, reportedly due to concerns about the legality of the Caribbean strikes, highlights a critical internal conflict within the military. While the chain of command demands obedience, military personnel also have a moral and legal obligation to refuse unlawful orders. Holsey’s actions, though ultimately insufficient to halt the policy, represent a vital check on executive overreach. However, the broader question remains: why did other military leaders not voice similar concerns? The normalization of extrajudicial killings requires not only political authorization but also the complicity of those tasked with carrying them out.
The Role of Protest and Public Scrutiny
The planned “No Kings Day” protests underscore the growing public discontent with the administration’s actions. Demonstrations and increased scrutiny from the media and civil society organizations are crucial to holding the government accountable. The relative lack of widespread outrage thus far is deeply concerning, suggesting a dangerous level of complacency. The principle of accountability demands that those responsible for these actions be held to answer, both domestically and internationally.
The current trajectory represents a dangerous departure from established legal and ethical norms. The unilateral use of lethal force, justified by vague assertions of threat and devoid of due process, isn’t a solution to the drug trade; it’s a symptom of a deeper erosion of the rule of law. The question isn’t simply whether this policy will be effective, but whether we are willing to sacrifice fundamental principles in the name of expediency. The future of American foreign policy, and indeed the integrity of our democratic institutions, hangs in the balance. What steps will be taken to restore accountability and reaffirm the principles of due process before this precedent expands further?
