Many years ago, when I was practicing law in Texas, I learned that there were, generally speaking, two types of lawyers when it came to being asked for a legal opinion by a client who wished to pursue a certain course of action.
The first type of lawyer would carefully research the issue and give his honest, independent-minded opinion as to the legality of the proposed action, even if it wasn’t what the client wanted to hear. That type of lawyer had integrity and would not compromise his legal judgment, even if it angered — and risked the loss of — his client.
The second type of lawyer would instead come up with whatever legal reasoning was necessary to please the client, stretching case law and legal analysis in such as way as to justify what the client wanted to do. This type of lawyer had no integrity. His task, as he saw it, was to provide legal cover for his client in case things went the wrong way.
When it comes to President Trump’s and the Pentagon’s extra-judicial drug-war killings in the Caribbean, there is little or no doubt that the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice falls into the second category. Asked to provide a legal opinion as to the legality of such killings, the office has come up with a memorandum containing inane legal justifications, in an obvious effort to provide legal cover for the people involved in the extrajudicial killings. In fact, the still-secret memo expressly assures U.S. military personnel that they will not face future criminal prosecution for their involvement in the killings.
The memo states that the high number of deaths from drug use among American drug consumers constitutes an “armed attack” against the United States. Really? Where are the armaments? Are Latin American drug dealers entering the United States, kidnapping regular American citizens, physically holding them down, and then injecting drugs into their noses, mouths, or other parts of their bodies?
I don’t think so. There is certainly no evidence of that. All of the evidence is that American consumers of drugs are voluntarily buying and ingesting mind-altering substances knowing full well that this isn’t a risk-free endeavor.
Another part of the memo claims that the boats that are suspected of carrying drugs are generating revenue for groups that are supposedly in armed conflict with the United States.
Really? Where are the conflicts? I don’t see any Latin American cartels landing on American shores and killing American citizens. Indeed, I haven’t seen those boats firing at American Naval vessels or at American B-52s. All I’ve seen is massacres of defenseless private individuals in the face of overwhelming U.S. military power.
According to the Intercept: “One senior defense official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, blasted the opinion. ‘I don’t know what’s more insane – that the ‘President of Peace’ is starting an illegal war or that he’s giving a get out of jail free card to the U.S. military,’ said the official, referencing President Donald Trump’s self-proclaimed moniker. ‘Hopefully they realize there’s no immunity for war crimes. Nor is there a statute of limitations.’”
One of the other justifications on which Trump and the Pentagon are relying is their claim that these boat people are “terrorists.” Apparently that governmental accusation means that they are subject to being exterminated without arrest, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and sentence — that is, without any due process of law for what amounts to an accusation of a criminal-law violation, whether it is drug-war-related or terrorist-related.
For some time, Trump has been claiming that Venezuela immigrants have been “invading” the United States. I guess we should be thankful that the Office of Legal Counsel hasn’t yet opined that the U.S. is repelling an immigrant “invasion” of the United States by killing people in those boats.
One of the most fascinating and revealing aspects of these extra-judicial killings is when U.S. forces took custody of two targeted people who survived the attack on their vessel. What happened afterward reveals what a sham these drug-war killings are. U.S. officials released both men back to their home countries.
What? Yes, they took two supposed “narco-terrorists” into custody and then released them, which means that they are now free to engage in more “narco activity” and more “terrorism.” Does that make any sense whatsoever?
The real interesting question is: When they saw that those men had survived the military attack on their vessel, why didn’t U.S. military personnel simply fire missiles at them or just shoot them while they were bobbing in the water? After all, they had just tried to kill them inside their boat. What’s the difference with killing them outside their boat?
I’ll tell you why. Those military attackers felt sheepish about killing those two survivors. Even more, I will guarantee you that they were scared to do so. They were scared that they would ultimately be put on trial for unlawfully killing people. That’s why they stood down and took custody of them instead of just finishing the job and killing them.
Why not instead bring them back as “prisoners of war”? Isn’t this an “armed conflict” against “terrorism”? Why not imprison them at the Pentagon-CIA prison camp and torture center at Guantanamo? Why not torture them into divulging the secret locations of other “narco-terrorists”?
I’ll tell you why. Because U.S. officials didn’t want to take the chance that those two men might challenge their custody in a federal district court. I will guarantee you that U.S. officials had to have freaked out when those two men survived. “Release those ‘narco-terrorists’ immediately so that our inane legal opinion that justifies our drug-war killings cannot be challenged in court,” we can imagine them exclaiming.
Make no mistake about it: These drug-war killings are the equivalent of legalized murder. They are morally illegitimate, legally illegitimate, and constitutionally illegitimate, no matter the inane legal opinion issued by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in an obvious effort to provide cover for the people involved in these killings.
Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.
