If we accept the White House’s tweet as true, the U.S. military has destroyed a boat, some drugs, and some Tren de Aragua members (before they had a chance to enrich us via immigration):
Even if everything that the White House says is true, how is it legal to do this? We didn’t know for sure that these noble enrichers/merchants were heading to the U.S., right? They could have been going to some other country. Maybe there is some country on this planet where whatever cargo was in the boat was legal to possess. Or maybe the enrichers were going to dump the cargo overboard prior to docking and meeting for margaritas with Maryland Senator Van Hollen?
We were informed that we couldn’t drive an AC-130 up and down the coast of Somalia and destroy pirate vessels from the air, thus ending the Somali pirate industry at a negligible cost. We had to use multi-$billion Navy ships and board the Somali vessels, take the noble future Minneapolis residents into custody, etc. But now we’re allowed to do “Death from Above” in international waters?
I asked ChatGPT “Can a military legally destroy a boat that it knows to be carrying drugs if the boat is in international waters?” and it gives a long answer with the following conclusion:
A military cannot simply destroy a drug-carrying boat in international waters under international law. The lawful course is to seek flag-state consent, board, seize, and possibly scuttle—but not to sink the vessel outright with people or cargo on board. Destruction without consent or imminent threat would generally be illegal.
Loosely related…
In February 2025, the U.S. Department of State officially designated the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).
Is this any different than the droning of terrorists, which a variety of administrations have been doing for decades?
Anon: Why couldn’t we have designated the Somali pirates as an FTO, as well, then?
I guess you’re right that hitting freedom fighters (“terrorists”) on land should also be against what passes for international law. They’re not in international waters but in fact situated on sovereign land where, generally, the ruler of that land approves of their existence/actions.
What’s the limit to this, though? Could we designate Emmanuel Macron’s wife as a foreign terrorist because she keeps slapping him and then blast her via drone as she teeters around Paris?
My follow-up to ChatGPT: “What if we believe the people on the boat are members of Tren de Aragua, which has been designated by the U.S. government as a Foreign Terrorist Organization?”
Answer:
. International Law on the High Seas
Even if suspected terrorists are aboard, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) still governs.
International waters are not “law-free.” States generally must respect the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state.
To act lawfully, the U.S. (or any state) would normally need:
Flag-state consent, or
A recognized right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter (e.g., if the vessel posed an imminent threat of attack).
….
Being an FTO does not itself make a vessel and its occupants lawful targets for destruction on the high seas.
Military destruction is only legal if:
The vessel poses an imminent threat (e.g., suspected suicide boat, arms transport preparing an attack), or
The flag state consents (rare).
Otherwise, the lawful approach remains boarding and seizure, even if the occupants are terrorists.
@Anonymous
> Is this any different than the droning of terrorists, which a variety of administrations have been doing for decades?
Barack Hussein Obama, II had a “secret kill list” of terrorists, a decent body count (including Osama bin Laden), and a Nobel *Peace* Prize. So, um, no?
“War” is another one of those words whose semantics keep evolving.
I wish they would have seized the boat intact (remember the neutron bomb? destroyed people, saved valuable real-estate?). I would probably bid $100 for that boat at the government auction during the Stuart FL Boat Show. 🙂 They could (partially) reload the Gatling-gun on the AC-130 with the proceeds.
¡Hasta la vista!
I think the difference is that Middle-Eastern pirates are viewed as more precious and special and less coordinated and astute then South American drug gangs. West seem to like that midle-eatrners are ideological and hate Jews. Latin American gangs are more money oriented and live in the present and thus are perceived as more of a threat and competition for western elites.
Isn’t “international law” kind of a bogus concept? If you didn’t think that before surely the way it has been applied to Israel should be dispositive. Where should the relatives of the dead gang members seek restitution in the court of international law?
Mitch: I agree with you that international law in practice seems to follow the “might makes right” principle. But on the other hand we were apparently constrained by international law in dealing with the more adventurous among the Somalis. We didn’t simply say “Somalis aren’t allowed to operate boats until further notice” and then sink any presumed pirates as they came out of their harbors.