The US Attack on a Drug Boat Was Illegal, Immoral and Stupid

There has been a tremendous, and increasing, amount of discussion about recent reports of the US ordering the destruction of small boats alleged to be carrying drugs off the coast of Venezuela. Secretary of “War”, Pete Hegseth ordered the strikes according to the White House, and they are widely being criticized.

The jist is that a September boat strike, which has been acknowledged to have killed two survivors in a secondary strike, was highly illegal. The report noted that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave an order to “kill everybody” on the alleged drug boat, leading the commander of the operation to order a second strike when the survivors of the first were detected.

The administration is going back and forth with statements blaming Hegseth, then Admiral Bradley – but as far as I’m concerned, EVERYONE involved is culpable and should face the consequences of their orders.

They Violated the US Law of War Manual

According to the Pentagon’s own Law of War Manual, people who are “wounded, sick, or shipwrecked” on the high seas are supposed to be “respected and protected in all circumstances” by U.S. forces, even during hostilities. Here is the stated reason for the Law of War Manual:

1.3.4 Purposes of the Law of War. The main purposes of the law of war are:

• protecting combatants, noncombatants, and civilians from unnecessary suffering;
• providing certain fundamental protections for persons who fall into the hands of the
  enemy, particularly prisoners of war, civilians, and military wounded, sick, and
  shipwrecked;
• facilitating the restoration of peace;
• assisting military commanders in ensuring the disciplined and efficient use of military force, and
• preserving the professionalism and humanity of combatants

The Defense Department’s manual specifically states that “making them the object of attack is strictly prohibited.”

Furthermore, shipwrecked survivors clinging to the edge of a burning boat are clearly hors de combat – french for ”out of combat”, and thus protected persons, when they are unable to participate in fighting.

Here’s a nice summary from Wikipedia:

Hors de combat personnel may not be intentionally targeted. Examples include persons parachuting from their disabled aircraft, shipwreck survivors, as well as the sick, wounded, detained, or otherwise disabled. Intentional hostility from assumed hors de combat persons removes any legal protection on their part and renders them as active combatants once again.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, enemy combatants hors de combat are non-combatants and automatically granted the status of protected persons. 

Since the US Military was used to perform these acts, they are subject to US and International Military Laws, and under BOTH scenarios those who ordered, and those who executed the illegal orders should be subject to the full scrutiny and ramifications accorded by the UCMJ.

What the Uniform Code of Military Justice Has To Say

Because shipwrecked persons are legally classified as hors de combat (“out of the fight”) and are protected under the Law of War, killing them is considered a war crime. This elevates the legal severity of the act, removing “combat” or “following orders” as valid defenses.

Here is the breakdown of the relevant UCMJ statutes and penalties:

1. The Charge: Article 118 (Murder)

Under the UCMJ, killing a shipwrecked person is charged as Premeditated Murder (Article 118, Clause 1) or Intentional Murder (Article 118, Clause 2).

• Why it applies: Once a combatant or civilian is shipwrecked (in the water, clinging to debris, or in a lifeboat), they’re no longer a threat. Deliberately targeting them is legally identical to executing a prisoner.
• The “Unlawful Order” Factor: The Department of Defense Law of War Manual explicitly lists “firing upon the shipwrecked” as a textbook example of a clearly illegal order. A service member is legally required to disobey such an order; if they follow it, they can be prosecuted for murder.

2. The Penalties

The penalties for Article 118 are the most severe in military law.

• Death Penalty: If convicted of premeditated murder (Article 118(1)), the accused can be sentenced to death.
• Life Imprisonment: The mandatory minimum sentence for premeditated murder is imprisonment for life (with or without eligibility for parole).
• Dishonorable Discharge: Any conviction would also result in a dishonorable discharge and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

3. War Crimes Context

In addition to Article 118, such an act constitutes a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions.

• 18 U.S. Code § 2441 (War Crimes): While this is federal law (not strictly UCMJ), it applies to U.S. military personnel. It specifically criminalizes killing persons who are hors de combat (including shipwrecked persons).
• Penalty: Like the UCMJ, the penalty under this statute is life imprisonment or death if the victim dies.

Expert Note: The distinction regarding “shipwrecked” persons is critical because it removes the “fog of war” defense. In a standard engagement, a soldier might argue they couldn’t tell if a target was a threat. However, maritime law and the Law of Armed Conflict are clear that persons in the water away from their vessel are defenseless by definition, making the “intent to kill” easier for prosecutors to prove.

Unacceptable False Positives Rate

So clearly, the order to execute or even fire upon shipwrecked people is vastly illegal, but to make matters worse there is now no way whatsoever to actually prove that the ship fired upon was actually carrying drugs!

False Positives Rate

U.S. Coast Guard performance reports (specifically from Fiscal Year 2024 and others cited by critics like Senator Rand Paul) indicate that roughly 27% of the time they board a suspected vessel, no drugs are found. In these cases, intelligence or aerial surveillance (as in this case) identifies a boat as “suspicious.” When the Coast Guard intercepts and boards it, they find no contraband.

This high “false positive” rate is a major point of contention regarding the recent lethal airstrikes. If 1 in 4 suspected boats is actually clean (e.g., fishermen), using lethal force from a distance without boarding first carries a distinct probability of killing civilians.

We don’t allow law enforcement to treat criminals this way within US borders, so there is no reason to deem it acceptable to kill 25% of innocent people even if we’re getting 75% criminals!

The Military Can’t Fire Into Civilian Targets

The next logical question is whether the US can fire into an area with civilians if they are not under eminent attack. Since we absolutely can’t know if any of the people on the boat were involved or not in anything illegal (hostages? children? decoys?) we MUST assume that there might be some innocent casualties in an attack like this. So is it legal to fire into a group of people in a situation like this? ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOT!

If the military is not under imminent threat, firing into a civilian area is legally considered an Extrajudicial Killing or an Indiscriminate Attack, both of which are crimes.

Here is the breakdown of why the “imminent threat” standard is the hard line:

The “Imminent Threat” Hard Line

In any situation that is not a declared “total war” (and drug interdiction is not supposed to be total war), the military must operate under International Human Rights Law (IHRL).

• The Rule: You cannot use lethal force unless there is an imminent threat to life.
• The Violation: If a drug runner (or combatant) is sleeping, eating, or standing in a crowd of civilians – and is not pointing a weapon or about to detonate a bomb – there is no imminent threat. Firing a missile at them in that moment is murder under this legal framework.

“Indiscriminate Attacks” are War Crimes

Firing into civilians describes what is legally known as an Indiscriminate Attack (prohibited by Article 51 of the Geneva Conventions Protocol I).

• Definition: An attack that is not directed at a specific military objective or uses a method (like a missile into a village) that cannot distinguish between the bad guy and the family next door.
• The Law: You cannot fire blindly into an area just because “bad guys are there.” If you cannot precisely target the combatant without disregarding the safety of the civilians, the attack is illegal.

The “War” Loophole (and why it fails)

The only reason there is “discussion” about this is because the U.S. government unilaterally attempts to reclassify these police actions as “Armed Conflict.”

• The Trick: By calling it a “war,” they try to switch from Conduct-Based rules (shoot only if they shoot at you) to Status-Based rules (shoot them because they are “members” of a cartel).
• The Reality: Most of the world (and the International Committee of the Red Cross) rejects this. They argue that drug cartels are criminals, not armies. Therefore, the Imminent Threat rule still applies. By ignoring it, the U.S. is effectively conducting executions from the sky, violating the sovereign rights of the foreign-flagged vessel’s nation (a ship is considered floating territory of the country whose flag it flies), and the human rights of the people on the boats.

Without an imminent threat to the soldiers or the U.S., firing a missile into a civilian area effectively bypasses the judicial process and violates the fundamental protections against arbitrary killing.

Literally Not Destined for the US

So the final question is whether the boats being targeted in the open seas are even carrying anything that is going to end up in the US? Well, let’s examine…

• The Boat Type: These are typically 20-30 foot open fiberglass vessels with outboard motors. While traffickers often modify them into “go-fast” boats by adding extra engines and fuel drums, the base vessel is a simple, open hull.
• The “100 Mile Range”: A standard panga with a standard fuel tank has a limited range, often under 100 miles.
• “2000 Miles Away”: The strike occurred off the coast of Venezuela – roughly 2,000 miles from the continental United States (Miami).

The Geography Problem: “You can’t get there from here”

If a panga has a 100-mile range and is 2,000 miles from Florida, it physically cannot be heading to the U.S.

• The “Trampoline” Effect: Drugs leaving the Venezuelan coast in small boats are almost never heading directly to Miami. They are heading to a nearby Caribbean island to “cool off” and be repackaged.
• Trinidad and Tobago: This island nation is only 7 miles off the coast of Venezuela. A small boat can easily make that run.
• The Chain: Once drugs hit Trinidad, the Dominican Republic, or other islands, they enter a global supply chain. They might sit in a warehouse for months before moving again.

The Destination: Europe, not the USA

The drugs are usually not even destined for the USA!

• The European Preferred Route: Historical data shows that a massive percentage of the cocaine leaving the Venezuelan coast (via the Caribbean) is destined for Europe, not the U.S.
• Why? The U.S. Pacific coast (via Mexico) is the main entry point for American cocaine. The Caribbean/Atlantic route is the main entry point for European cocaine (via West Africa or Spain).
• The Logic: If you destroy a boat off Venezuela, statistically, you are likely stopping drugs headed for Spain, the UK, or the Netherlands, not the United States. This makes the U.S. claim of “Self-Defense” even harder to justify legally, as the “attack” (drugs) wasn’t even aimed at the U.S.

The “Feeder” System (How they could reach the US)

The only way the U.S. can claim these drugs were U.S.-bound is by arguing this small boat was a “feeder.”

• The Transfer: The small panga drives 50-80 miles out to international waters, meets a larger fishing vessel or semi-submersible (the “Mothership”), offloads the drugs, and returns home.
• The Mothership: The larger ship then travels the remaining 2,000 miles.
• The Problem: Without boarding the panga or tracking the transfer, you are guessing. You are killing the “taxi driver” because you think he might drive a passenger to the airport who might get on a plane to New York.

NOTHING About This is Acceptable!

It is inconceivable that anyone could put forth any legal argument whatsoever justifying bombing survivors clinging to a destroyed wreckage in the middle of the ocean. There is no major nation on Earth, including the U.S., China, or even Russia, that officially has a law or military doctrine saying, “It is legal to kill shipwrecked people.” In fact, the prohibition against killing shipwrecked persons is one of the oldest and most sacred rules in warfare, predating even the Geneva Conventions. Violating it is universally considered a War Crime. 

Even if it was legal, there is no way to know who was being targeted and whether they were actually doing anything illegal, or whether they were innocent victims. Not to even mention that there are no drug possession or distribution crimes in the United States that carry the death penalty! So no matter what they were doing, it was illegal to indiscriminately bomb them.

Even if it wasn’t a war crime, AND it was legal to bomb the shit out of drug mules destined for the United States, there was no reason to believe the drugs (assuming they were onboard) were even coming here! A tiny boat on the water 2,000 miles away poses no immediate threat to the US, and the majority of Venezuelan drug exports are destined for other nations.

So we killed people we can’t prove were actually guilty or involved, on a boat that couldn’t reach America, which wasn’t likely destined for America, and then bombed the shipwrecked survivors rather than rendering aid.

Illegal. Disgraceful. And disgusting.