President Donald Trump could preemptively pardon military members for acts committed during his term.
Demonstrators protest against US military attack on boat near Venezuela
Demonstrators gathered outside the White House to protest a U.S. military attack on a boat near Venezuela and a possible escalation of a ground attack.
The U.S. military has killed more than 200 people in attacks on boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean over the past nine months, and legal experts and former military lawyers generally agree that these are illegal military orders that service members should refuse to obey.
An anonymous hotline for U.S. military personnel says there is no record of troops refusing to comply with these orders, but at least a small number of service members grappling with these issues have sought legal advice.
Before the Trump-era boat raids, the U.S. viewed drug trafficking as a law enforcement issue and tasked the Coast Guard with interdicting boats attempting to bring drugs into the country.
Since then, the Trump administration has not released any evidence that the suspected drug-trafficking ship was carrying drugs or that its crew worked for drug cartels. The identities of those killed have not been revealed, and only a few names have been published in news reports. His family has also filed a federal lawsuit naming their relatives as having been killed by the United States.
The military has released dozens of videos of the attack on social media. This is a grainy black and white video taken from above of a boat speeding through the water before it explodes into a fireball.
And Trump officials continue to say the attack was legal. At a Senate budget hearing on June 2, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that every ship strike “must have a law officer on deck to determine whether the call is legal.”
The Pentagon referred USA TODAY’s questions to U.S. Southern Command, which oversees military operations in South America and the Caribbean. “All operations will be conducted intentionally and lawfully, in full accordance with U.S. law and international law, including the laws of armed conflict,” the military command said in a statement.
“All targeting criteria are developed in accordance with legal, operational and informational requirements.”
Since the first attack on September 2, numerous legal experts and former military lawyers have characterized the attack as an extrajudicial killing or murder. Military personnel are required by U.S. law to refuse illegal orders.
Dan Maurer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and former military attorney, said he hopes the boat attack will set an example for future generations.
“This will be a shameful episode in the history of American military operations. I hope this serves as a case study of what not to do,” he said.
Legal hotline receives calls from boat strike operators
Two organizations that provide anonymous legal advice to military personnel working on orders they fear are illegal said they had received calls from military personnel concerned about the legality of the boat attacks, some from people directly involved in the attacks.
Steve Woolford, a resource counselor for Quaker House and the GI Rights Hotline, said he spoke with about four service members involved in the operation who were seeking legal and ethical guidance. One person discussed cooperating with the strike plan, while the other two were ordered to carry out the strike.
“I think this is exactly what you would call a war crime,” Woolford said one whistleblower told him.
Woolford said some of those callers were connected to lawyers, but none refused the order or took legal action. Callers are “feeling even more worried that if they bring something up, they’ll be punished,” he said.
Brenner Fissel, deputy director of the National Institute of Military Justice, said the institute’s Orders Project, which also advises service members to question the legality of orders, has received a “steady but small number of calls,” including calls from service members concerned that boat attacks are illegal.
Some have expressed a “feeling that they are being asked to do something that is deeply unethical.”
“The general perception is that no one will be prosecuted in this case because Trump can preemptively issue a pardon,” he added.
If a service member refuses to comply with an order, the case can be brought before a military judge to determine whether the order is legal. However, before that call is made, the service member can be immediately removed from duty.
Eugene Fidel, a professor of military law at Yale Law School, said the Pentagon could drop any charges if the illegal order to attack the ship came through the military justice system.
President Trump could also pre-emptively pardon military personnel for acts committed during his term. “With President Trump potentially pardoning everyone in sight, the incoming administration’s hands may be tied in terms of prosecuting those who comply with such orders,” Fidel said.
Service members who oppose war based on their beliefs can seek conscientious objector status with the military and be released from deployment.
Since late February, more than 100 people have contacted the Center for Conscience and War, a nonprofit that helps military members apply as conscientious objectors, said Mike Prisoner, the center’s director.
Asked whether the service members involved in the boat attack refused to comply with orders or were disciplined for doing so, U.S. Southern Command said it “does not comment on unconfirmed reports, speculation or administrative matters.”
Commander who led boat strike retires early
Speculation swirled over the early retirement of Gen. Alvin Holsey, who led U.S. Southern Command through the first months of the boat attack. Mr. Holsey stepped down from his high-level position in December after just one year.
Mr Halsey has not spoken publicly or given interviews since leaving office, but some news outlets reported that he had expressed concerns about the strike.
The boat attack and video of it were posted on social media by U.S. Southern Command, which continues to operate successfully under Mr. Holsey’s successor, Gen. Francis Donovan.
Six Democratic congressmen released a video on social media last year urging soldiers not to disobey illegal orders. The FBI launched an investigation, and the Pentagon moved to punish one of them, retired Navy captain Mark Kelly. A federal appeals court blocked the charges against Kelly.
Last year, anti-war veterans groups installed billboards along the highway leading to the U.S. Southern Command headquarters in Doral, Florida, outside Miami, displaying photos of the struck boats that the military promoted on social media.
“Don’t let them break the law,” one person wrote.
Second attack on survivors raises ethical concerns
Smoldering concerns over boat strikes boiled over last year following news reports that the first-ever boat strike in September left two survivors, who the military killed in a second “double tap” attack about 40 minutes later.
The Pentagon has refused to release footage of that second attack. Lawmakers who watched the incident under classified conditions said it was deeply disturbing.
After viewing the material, Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said, “What I saw in that room was one of the most disturbing things I’ve ever seen in my time in public office.”
“Two people, clearly in distress, with no means of transportation and a destroyed ship, were killed by the United States.”
International law prohibits killing a wounded enemy or an enemy who has already surrendered. But many experts say the attack cannot be considered a war crime because the Trump administration’s claims that it is at war with drug cartels do not stand up to scrutiny.
Maurer, a retired lieutenant colonel, said he felt it was “very unlikely” that a future administration would prosecute the service members involved. The reason for this is both the military’s widespread popularity and Washington’s lack of appetite to pursue anything resembling a “retaliatory operation.”
“I don’t think there will be any criminal charges,” he said.
The mother and sister of Chad Joseph and Rishi Samaroo, two Trinidadian men whose families say they were killed in the Oct. 14 boat attack, are suing the U.S. government for damages for “brutal, intentional and extrajudicial murder,” according to a complaint filed in January. Relatives of Alejandro Carranza Medina, a Colombian man killed in the September strike, also filed a formal complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in December seeking compensation.
Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Stephen Lepper, who organized a working group of former military lawyers after Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the top lawyers across the military, said he believes service members who participate in or comply with illegal orders will eventually become commonplace in the military.
“We are desensitizing the military to the idea that the orders being given may be illegal.”
