Murder on the High Seas! Trump Crosses the Line
When did executions replace justice in America?
When a U.S. president proudly posts a video of suspected smugglers being blown to pieces on the open sea, we’ve crossed into dangerous territory.
This isn’t law enforcement. It isn’t justice. It’s execution without trial—an act many experts already call extrajudicial killing.
And if Trump gets away with it, what stops the next strike from targeting anyone, anywhere, without evidence or due process?
👉 Don’t miss the next deep dive—subscribe free today and stay informed.
The Strike That Sparked Outrage
On September 2, Trump announced that U.S. forces hit a vessel he claimed was carrying drugs from Venezuela and tied to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. (Administration officials designated the group a Foreign Terrorist Organization in February.)
He posted a video of the explosion on Truth Social. U.S. officials said the strike occurred in international waters and killed eleven people.
Administration officials have not provided coordinates, the platform or munition used, or independently verifiable evidence that the boat or those aboard posed an imminent threat to anyone.
Venezuela’s government condemned the action and questioned the video’s authenticity; major newswires report the clip is being reviewed but not proven fake. [1][2]
The administration frames this as part of a new crackdown on “narco-terrorists,” pointing to recent terrorism and sanctions actions against Tren de Aragua. But a Foreign Terrorist Organization designation is mostly a legal tool for criminal prosecutions and sanctions—it is not a blank check to hunt and kill abroad. [3][4]
Why this looks like an extrajudicial killing under international law
Outside of a war, states at sea are supposed to stop, board, arrest, and prosecute. They are not supposed to vaporize suspects. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) recognizes a limited “right of visit” on the high seas; it does not authorize summary destruction of vessels for alleged smuggling.
International tribunals—including the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in the M/V Saiga (No. 2) judgment—have stressed that any enforcement must be necessary, proportionate, and protective of life. [5][6]
Likewise, the 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances sets out cooperation and boarding/seizure procedures for drug interdiction at sea—not missile strikes. It envisions contacting the flag state, boarding, and evidence-gathering, because the goal is justice, not execution. [7]
Human rights law also applies. Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the right to life forbids arbitrary deprivation of life and limits intentional lethal force to situations strictly necessary to protect life.
The U.N. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials codify the same standard: necessity, proportionality, precaution.
If the target boat wasn’t firing, ramming, or presenting an imminent lethal threat, a “kill first” strike is presumptively unlawful. [8][9]
The two escape hatches—and why they don’t save this strike
Escape hatch #1: Self-defense under the United Nations Charter. Article 51 allows force in response to an armed attack, or a truly imminent one. Drug trafficking—even at scale—does not, by itself, constitute an “armed attack.”
Most mainstream scholarship rejects stretching self-defense to non-military criminality. On the facts disclosed publicly, the administration has not claimed an impending attack that would make instant lethal force the only way to save lives. [10][11]
Escape hatch #2: The laws of war (International Humanitarian Law). To treat suspected gang members like wartime combatants, the U.S. would need to show an armed conflict with Tren de Aragua—sustained organization and hostilities meeting the non-international armed conflict threshold.
There is no public evidence of an armed conflict between the U.S. and this gang that would transform ordinary law enforcement into wartime targeting. Without that, the laws of war don’t apply—and you’re back to the law-enforcement/human-rights box above. [12]
“But they were terrorists.” That still doesn’t authorize executions.
Yes, the State Department designated Tren de Aragua a Foreign Terrorist Organization this year; the Treasury Department followed with sanctions actions against its leaders.
Those steps toughen prosecutions, material-support charges, asset freezes, and international cooperation. They do not amount to an Authorization for Use of Military Force and do not override international law’s limits on killing outside armed conflict. [3][4]
How this endangers Americans—everywhere
If the United States normalizes lethal maritime enforcement based on allegations of smuggling, other governments will copy it—against our citizens, our ships, our journalists, our aid workers.
UNCLOS jurisprudence has condemned even threats of force in peacetime enforcement (see the 2007 Guyana v. Suriname award). If “suspected trafficking” becomes a license to kill, then any state can sink first and explain later. That precedent will not stop at the Caribbean. [6]
Even our own practice says don’t do this. In real-world interdictions, the United States Coast Guard trains to warn, disable, and board—escalating only as necessary to protect life.
Blowing up a boat to avoid the work of interdiction flips that ethic on its head and invites tragedies, mistakes, and political assassinations masquerading as “drug busts.” [13]
The politics you’re not supposed to notice
This strike arrives alongside a highly publicized naval buildup and a messaging blitz portraying a hemispheric war on “narco-terror.”
Even as that spin churns, U.S. officials have withheld the details that matter: coordinates, platform, weapon, forensic recovery of narcotics, and proof of membership or imminent threat.
We are being asked to accept killing as legitimate via a Truth Social post. That’s not transparency; that’s impunity. [1]
What we don’t yet know (and why it matters)
Facts still emerging could worsen or mitigate culpability. If the Pentagon produces verifiable coordinates, sensor footage, and evidence of an imminent attack on U.S. forces or civilians, the legal analysis changes.
If the video turns out manipulated, the scandal deepens. Either way, democracies don’t kill people and then ask the public to fill in the blanks. We need the blanks filled by evidence, not social media posts. [2]
What accountability looks like—now
Immediate disclosure: release coordinates, the platform and weapon used, the legal basis memo, and any recovered evidence. [1]
Congressional oversight: demand the required War Powers reporting and hearings on the legal basis for using military force against non-state criminal groups at sea.
Independent review: invite an outside investigation into compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the U.N. Basic Principles on the Use of Force. [8][9]
Return to law enforcement: re-center maritime drug interdiction on stop-board-arrest-prosecute, as reflected in UNCLOS and the 1988 U.N. Drug Convention. [5][7]
The Bottom Line
With what the government has shared so far, this looks like an extrajudicial killing—a textbook case of lethal force used without an imminent threat and outside the bounds of law.
Until all the facts are in, the full culpability and ramifications remain unclear. But we’ve already crossed a line: we celebrated killing via social media.
If America accepts that, the next target could be a tourist boat, a fishing crew, a journalist’s skiff—your boat. The rule of law won’t protect us if we trade it for likes.
🙏 A huge thank you to every single reader—free and paid—for keeping this community alive. If you want to go further, paid subscriptions make it possible to keep researching, writing, and exposing the truth without paywalls or ads. Your support fuels the fight for accountability—and helps ensure stories like this one don’t get buried.
Footnotes:
Reuters, “Trump posts video of Caribbean boat strike,” Sept 2, 2025.
Associated Press, “Venezuela questions U.S. strike video,” Sept 2, 2025.
U.S. State Department, Foreign Terrorist Organization Designation of Tren de Aragua, Feb 2025.
U.S. Treasury Department, Sanctions on Tren de Aragua leadership, 2025.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Article 110.
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, M/V Saiga (No. 2), 1999; Guyana v. Suriname, 2007.
1988 United Nations Drug Convention, Article 17 (Illicit Traffic by Sea).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 6 (Right to Life).
United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, 1990.
United Nations Charter, Article 51 (Right of Self-Defense).
Mary Ellen O’Connell, The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense, ASIL, 2002.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tadić (1995), test for non-international armed conflict.
U.S. Coast Guard Use of Force Policy and Maritime Law Enforcement Manual (2023 update).
When most of us have a temper tantrum, maybe a dish gets broken. When Trump has a temper tantrum, people die.
> When did executions replace justice in America?
No later than the Obama era. He really spearheaded that particular part of US domestic & foreign policy. Which I notice there's no mention of any of the democrat extrajudicial executions here.