The president of Columbia, Gustavo Petro, called the continued U.S. air bombings of Caribbean boats without a shred of criminal evidence against the victims to be little more than an “act of tyranny,” according to an interview he had last month with BBC News.
At about the same time as the interview, Petro spoke before the before a U.N. General Assembly and simply referred to the bombings as “murder.” During his speech, Petro called for criminal proceedings against US officials if investigations find Colombians were killed in the attacks.
These bombings have continued, well into November. The most recent bombing in the Caribbean appears to have occurred on Nov. 10th, in which four people were killed. There has been no form of judicial oversight of these deadly activities, or even of Trump’s accusations that the destroyed crafts are ‘drug boats’.
The Columbian president is effectively calling for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to begin an official investigation into the affair. The ICC – also known as “The Hague,” thanks to its seat in The Hague, Netherlands – is the legal body empowered with investigating potential crimes like this, and conducting criminal proceedings if warranted.
For his part, Trump has claimed that such bombings are necessary strikes to curtail the shuttling of such illegal drugs as fentanyl into the U.S.
But Trump seems to have remained quiet on why he could not have a policy that reveals to U.S. and international powers the evidence that proves the guilt of those killed. Or why he could not obtain a quiet, international sanction or oversight of such violent activity against citizens of other nations. He also doesn’t seem to have explained why he could not have called for an international legal proceeding of any kind before deciding to drop bombs on people, who may well be innocent of his unproven presumptions.
Lawmakers and other legal actors have wondered if these actions constitute an obvious disregard for international law and for long-established human rights.
“All available evidence suggests that President Trump’s lethal strikes in the Caribbean constitute murder, pure and simple,” declared Jeffrey Stein, a staff attorney working for the ACLU’s National Security Project.
“The public [around the world] deserves to know how our government is justifying these attacks as lawful, and, given the stakes, immediate public scrutiny of its apparently radical theories is imperative.”
Columbia’s president certainly agrees.
“Why launch a missile if you could simply stop the boat and arrest the crew?” Petro stated to BBC News. “That’s what one would call murder.”
Petro also told the news source that there should be “zero deaths” in any routine stop of people merely suspected of potential drug smuggling.
“We have a long history of collaborating with American agencies and other agencies of carrying out maritime seizures of cocaine,” he said to BBC News. “No one has ever died before. There is no need to kill anyone,” continued Petro.
President Petro also pointed out that the moral and legal principle of ‘proper, necessary force’ is violated at such times “if you use anything more than a pistol.”
Trump claims that the focus of his attacks in international waters are individuals from Venezuela. However, Trump doesn’t seem to have provided much evidence of any kind about those killed by his bombings. Even the one claim Trump has preferred – that the first bombed vessel contained members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang – now seems suspect.
The ACLU legal team wisely seized on these weaknesses in Trump’s stated rationale for the bombings.
“All available evidence suggests that President Trump’s lethal strikes in the Caribbean constitute murder, pure and simple,” Jeffrey Stein, a staff attorney working for the ACLU’s National Security Project, declared in an ACLU press release.
“The public deserves to know how our government is justifying these attacks as lawful, and, given the stakes, immediate public scrutiny of its apparently radical theories is imperative.”
Then the ACLU lowered the legal boom on Trump.
“Attempting to defend the legality of the strikes,” the ACLU declares, “the administration has stated that drug cartels designated as terrorist organizations are ‘non-state armed groups,’ ” and that their “ ‘actions constitute an armed attack against the United States.’ ”
“But the United States is not in an armed conflict with drug cartels,” the press release pointed out, “and the people the government’s strikes have killed are civilians under international law.”
Consider this somewhat vulgar analogy: Suppose someone is trying to sell some questionable thing – say, pornography – to your better half. You may not like that person, for obvious reasons. But you cannot realistically claim that this person is going out of their way to hurt or injure you for political reasons.
At worst, they want to make money off of questionable things you may not like.
Chatham House, a global political think tank, in March 2024, printed a fine research paper entitled, Identifying Co-Parties To Armed Conflict In International Law. Chatham House had this sober analysis of what constitutes a ‘non-state armed group’:
“A state, international organization or non-state armed group does not become a co-party merely because the adversary considers it as such,” said Chatham House.
“Whether or not it is a party depends on its own acts,” continued Chatham House. “The relationship between adverse parties to an armed conflict – either international or non-international,” stated the research paper, “is constituted by conduct that parties carry out against one another, i.e. that is intended to cause harm to the enemy.”
“Criteria for being a co-party to an armed conflict must therefore be drawn from the legal framework of international law applicable in armed conflict, in light of state practice in past and current conflicts.”
So, the chief issue is whether or not a co-party is behaving like a political enemy of a state, or at least of a people. They must center their activities on political policy, and chiefly use violence to achieve those political changes. The drug cartels discussed by Trump, however, are not political groups motivated by a political or social agenda. And if they use violence, it is usually employed either to keep themselves from arrest, or to protect their assets and investments in the their drug business.
That is not a political agenda. It’s an ugly way to make a living, but the illegal drug business is not a political ideology.
The deadly Caribbean bombings have been intended to focus on Venezuela – at least, that’s what Trump currently claims. But again, no claims of Trump on this issue have been verified, so who can say?
Trump simply claims he plans “to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country and to bring those responsible to justice.”
But any attempt at justice must be based on the principles of justice. You begin by giving those you accuse a fair hearing, before a qualified judge. You then follow the ruling of that judge – even if you disagree with them: That is balance of power, and judicial oversight. These are essentials to any action based on justice. Also, you only use deadly force when it is clearly necessary, and not because you find the acts that respect recognized human rights to be frightening and time-consuming.
If you’re to be working to establish something resembling justice, you cannot be the most unjust person in the Caribbean.
