U.S. Military Lawyer Discovers 'Extrajudicial Killing' Exists When Done by Trump
During the Trump administration, a senior judge advocate general reportedly warned that airstrikes targeting alleged 'narco-terrorists' in Venezuela might constitute extrajudicial killings. The report from The Independent highlights that these serious legal concerns were conveniently dismissed. (Because international law is for, well, other countries, apparently.) This isn't new; U.S. presidents,
regardless of party, have a rich history of unilateral military actions globally, often sidestepping legal counsel or international norms when convenient. From drone strikes under Obama to interventions in Libya, the 'concerns' of legal advisors often find their way to a shredder when geopolitical interests (or elections) are at stake. It seems the only constant is the selective application of
international law; when it's politically advantageous, it's 'national security'; when it's inconvenient, it's 'activist judges.' Meanwhile, the body count mounts, legal precedent erodes, and the military-industrial complex just keeps chugging along. What were those lawyers thinking, trying to introduce 'legality' into U.S. foreign policy?