On October 12 of last year, Chad Joseph and Rishi Samaroo, two Trinidadian fishermen, boarded a small boat off a Venezuelan beach, hoping to return home. Joseph missed his wife and three children; Samaroo wanted to care for his ailing mother. They knew the crossing was risky—the U.S. military had been targeting boats in the area for over a month—but they finally found a vessel willing to take them.
Two days later, the Trump administration killed them in a military strike, part of a campaign that has now claimed at least 227 lives. As we mark the one-year anniversary of the first strike, it is crucial to recognize that these killings are not only inhumane and ineffective but also illegal.
The boat strikes have been widely condemned as lawless from the start. The U.S. is not in a formal armed conflict with the unnamed drug cartels allegedly targeted, making these strikes premeditated killings of civilians. Elected officials, governments, and international bodies have denounced them as illegal.
But why focus on legality when the strikes are clearly immoral? They have torn apart families across Latin America, killing ordinary men with no ties to drug trafficking, like Joseph and Samaroo. Their families, represented by my ACLU colleagues and me in a wrongful death lawsuit, deserve justice. The immorality of these strikes is perhaps the most powerful critique.
One could also argue the strikes are a policy failure. President Trump claims they have stopped drugs from entering the U.S., but his own DEA reportedly found no effect on cocaine availability, price, or purity. The strikes have failed on their own terms.
Some legal scholars, like Harvard's Jack Goldsmith, argue that debates over the legality of presidential uses of force are "empty." They point to permissive executive branch legal opinions and courts' reluctance to intervene. But abandoning legal arguments would mean abandoning the victims' legal claims. Courts can and should weigh in when rights are violated by illegal military force.
Law matters for our understanding of right and wrong. It remains a vital arena for debating military action and should not be ceded to those seeking unchecked power. The Trump administration has acted with impunity so far, but it has not yet been forced to defend its actions in court. Given the growing number of courts rejecting its national security claims, there is hope for accountability.
Those who fight back against this administration sometimes win; those who concede only invite more lawlessness. The consequences are dire: more illegal uses of force, as seen in Iran. Our institutions must end these killings on the high seas and hold perpetrators accountable—because they are sadistic, futile, and illegal.
Jeff Stein is a staff attorney for the ACLU's National Security Project.
