A recent report detailing a 'double-tap' strike where US forces killed two survivors of a drug boat attack has ignited congressional fury, exposing a broader pattern of 87 alleged murders ordered by the Trump administration against suspected drug runners. The author argues these are not war crimes but outright murder, as the US is not in an armed conflict with drug cartels, and warns of the dangerous precedent set by summary executions without due process.
The article discusses the controversial killings of suspected drug runners off the coasts of Venezuela and Colombia, ordered by Donald Trump and defense secretary Pete Hegseth. Initially, Republicans in Congress were largely silent, but a Washington Post report on November 28 detailing a 'double-tap' strike—where US forces returned to kill two survivors clinging to a destroyed boat—has sparked widespread outrage. This incident has prompted some Democrats and a few Republicans to call for broader scrutiny of these operations, which have claimed 87 victims in 22 attacks. The Pentagon's justifications for killing the two survivors—that they might have been trying to radio compatriots or right the boat to salvage cocaine—have been refuted by congressional representatives who have seen the full video, stating the men posed no threat and were 'barely alive.' The author argues that while attacking shipwrecked individuals in an armed conflict would be a war crime, the US is not in an 'armed conflict' with drug cartels. Instead, these are criminal networks, and interdiction should be a law enforcement operation governed by international human rights law, which permits lethal force only as a last resort against an imminent threat. Trump's attempt to declare an 'armed conflict' is criticized as a dangerous evasion of legal requirements, allowing for summary executions without trial or due process. The article emphasizes that an 'armed conflict' is an objective inquiry requiring sustained hostilities between organized armed forces, which is not the case with drug cartels. The author warns that this precedent could allow a president to summarily execute anyone deemed an 'enemy,' undermining the rule of law and fundamental human rights globally. The piece concludes by urging Congress to challenge the blatant illegality of these killings, not just the 'double-tap' incident, and to uphold the rule of law even for unsympathetic suspects like alleged drug runners.
