Trump’s Deadly Boat Strike Was Blatantly Illegal Conor Lamb on why the strike on a boat from Venezuela was illegal, unconstitutional, unnecessary, and dangerously for the United States MeidasTouch Network and Conor Lamb Sep 5 Guest article by Conor Lamb The saga of Trump's illegal and unconstitutional actions continues, now in international waters. The Administration’s deadly attack, killing 11 people on a boat coming from Venezuela, is blatantly against the law and risks setting a dangerous precedent. Congress hasn’t authorized war with Venezuela, we haven’t declared war on Venezuela, and Trump’s own intelligence people don’t believe Venezuela even controls Tren de Aragua. Furthermore, even if we were at war, principles like military necessity apply. If we knew enough to know there were illegal drugs on this boat, and they were destined for the U.S. (both claimed but unproven), how could this strike be necessary, since we could so easily convict these people in court? We do that all the time, and we don’t sentence people to death. I can’t really emphasize that enough. If death isn’t necessary within our borders, how could it possibly be necessary at sea? My first job out of law school was as a military lawyer with the Marines, and I was taught that the law mattered to us. It was important for our internal discipline, and we believed in leading by example. Our job was to protect America, and we felt that America was safer in a world where the rule of law meant something. A good way to convince others of that was by obeying the law ourselves. Up to this point I’d forgive you for reading this and thinking, wow, another pencil-pushing lawyer objects to Trump, the man of action. But I have a confession to make. After the military, I prosecuted heroin and fentanyl traffickers full-time for the Department of Justice. I listened to them on wiretaps, saw all the jewelry, cars, and houses they bought with the proceeds of killing people, and met the parents of people who overdosed. There were times that I hated our targets. (We had a wiretap call of two traffickers laughing and joking with each other while one watched a person overdose right in front of them, and the person died.) So even if you feel that way, here are some practical reasons why we shouldn’t be doing what Trump just did: Perhaps most important, virtually no heroin or fentanyl comes to the United States from Venezuela. Venezuela is a transit point for cocaine, which does not cause nearly as many overdoses as heroin, fentanyl, and other opioids. Drug traffickers are sophisticated and their operations are complex. It takes time and patience to catch them, but when you do, the public appreciates it because they’re able to understand the threat you’ve eliminated. All of us have seen the pictures of tables full of drugs and guns. Here, have we seen anything like that? How do we know this attack even eliminated any drugs? Serious investigations should allow you to move up the chain to find the trafficker’s origins. Here, the chain dies with the 11 people on the boat. So we took out some cocaine with no idea where it came from? Fail. At the start of an investigation, even with experienced agents who’ve spent their whole careers on this, we were often wrong about who the truly guilty people were and what drug they were actually trafficking. It’s common for agents performing surveillance to suspect someone of selling heroin and figure it out later. If it was cocaine or even marijuana, this changes the severity of the crime and sentence. It’s also common to think someone is a bigger deal than they actually are. Once the wiretap goes up, you discover they were a small fry and gradually, the previously unknown kingpin reveals himself. Patience is worth it. If unsanctioned attacks are allowed, what else is? Could a future Democratic president assassinate people on the high seas for the massive wage theft that goes on, thereby suppressing the demand for American crews and fair wages? What about people who burn rainforests in Brazil, making climate change worse—are they fair targets once they’re in international waters? Could they have killed Epstein on his yacht? If those examples sound ridiculous, they are, but you could argue they’re about as defensible as what Trump just did. While Trump wants us to continue to react to him, there are powerful moral arguments against extrajudicial killing that I’ve left out here. Both are fine objections. But Trump tends to poll somewhat well on keeping people safe, using the military, and crime. Plus, we have an intolerably high level of drug overdose deaths in this country, and people in places like Western Pennsylvania, where I live, are desperate for aggressive action. Trump’s show of force won’t deliver for them, but if we aren’t afraid, we can make a forceful case. Conor Lamb is a former U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania, federal prosecutor, and Marine officer. He is currently a lawyer at Kline & Specter and an avid town hall participant. Meidas+ is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. A guest post by Conor Lamb Former US Representative, federal prosecutor, and Marine officer. Currently Kline & Specter; democracy seminars at Duquesne Law; town hall participant.