by liberal japonicus
In working on the archive, I was struck by how much lawyers and law talk has been a part of the blog. It had good points (lots of interesting issues) and bad points (lawyers arguing), but the law talk has faded a bit, not only because I Am Not A Lawyer, but also because the rule of law seems like a hopelessly quaint concept. Sort of like free trade, a living wage, etc, etc.
But these two posts (here and here) by Brian Finucane via Cheryl Rofer at LGM, on some of the issues around the Caribbean strikes, suggests that just because you don’t talk about it, doesn’t mean that it isn’t there.
Bonus points for thinking of a term for this cf that doesn’t implicitly grant any of the talking points, which is very difficult because we’ve got no idea who was killed, what they were carrying, where they were coming from or where they were going.
At this point, the best hope for anyone with a small boat in the southern Caribbean is probably the short attention spans of the people in this administration. They’ll likely move on to the next shiny thing soon. Especially since, after they first couple of outrageous instances, it will no longer be generating the media attention they crave.
At some point, with any luck at all, an administration which actually believes in the law may try to arrest and try those responsible. Not holding my breath, especially given the statute of limitations. But as I recall (IANAL either), there is no limitation on murder, so….
I think the contributions of lawyers can be very helpful. I wonder whether, for example, pollo de muerte knows about our move? bj is a lawyer of course, and someone we have heard from over here, but I don’t recall ever getting any criticism of the current regime from that quarter.
At some point, with any luck at all, an administration which actually believes in the law may try to arrest and try those responsible.
In my honest but non-lawyer opinion, not a chance. US Navy action in international waters: the legal questions that may reach civilian courts will be about authorization to use force; those under the UCMJ will be about rules of engagement. Obama and Biden weren’t as bad as Bush and Trump, but all four stretched the hell out of Congress’s AUMFs on terrorism including rules of engagement. To be blunt about it, from 2001 the US military has been in the assassination business. My prediction is the best we might expect is that suspected drug smugglers outside of US waters will be made non-targets going forward*.
Part of me says that this is an inevitable outgrowth of drone technology. The idea has been kicking around for many years. In Real Genius (1985) the purpose of the 5 MW one-shot laser is assassination from a bomber flying tens/hundreds of miles away. The main piece of military porn in Tom Clancy’s The Bear and the Dragon (2000) is smart bombs that can be dumped from high altitude, then autonomously identify targets and strike straight down, wiping out whole divisions’ worth of armor while the top brass watch from the other side of the world via a drone called Marilyn Monroe.
* I have an occasional nightmare that my kids probably and my granddaughters certainly will live to see the day when the 20 km on the Mexican side of the border will be labeled a no-go zone. Spotter drones and artillery will enforce it against climate refugees. And yes, in the nightmare Tijuana and Juárez and all the smaller cities have been reduced to rubble.
More simply than that murk, though, I’d expect that The Papaya of Hate would either pardon or under-bus-chuck whoever oversaw the whole thing, and then sleep secure in the cover that the USSC has given him over presidential immunity.