Idaho’s U.S. Sen. Jim Risch proclaimed in a Dec. 11 meeting of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the “attacks in the Caribbean are absolutely, totally and 100% legal under U.S. law and international law.”

Those strikes have produced a body count nearing 100 since Sept. 2. Oregon U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley effectively debunked Risch’s argument, pointing out that only Congress has the power to declare war under the U.S. Constitution.

Chairman Jim Risch, R-Idaho, speaks during a confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on July 15, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

Risch incorrectly claimed that the killings were “clearly not a war, but kinetic action,” as though that somehow got around the Constitution. His response makes no sense because the violence of war is always kinetic action.

There is no need to get into the legal weeds about the legality of Trump’s Caribbean killings because that has been well established in the last three months. Even the Department Of Defense’s new AI chatbox, which Secretary Pete Hegseth proudly announced on Dec. 9, said that an order to kill two survivors of a boat strike would be “an unambiguously illegal order.”

On Oct. 28, Reuters reported that some U.S. military officials have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements with regard to Trump’s Latin American adventures. That adds an element of guilt awareness to those operations.

Let me give the input of someone who was in the position of pulling the trigger on suspect people on the ground during the Vietnam War. I spent hundreds of hours as an aerial observer flying at about 800 feet in the air in a small two-seat “bird dog” aircraft. I had at my disposal six 8-inch guns (200-pound shells) and six 175 mm guns (165- pound shells) from my heavy artillery battalion.

Most of my combat missions were over “free fire zones” where everyone was presumed to be an enemy. The war had been approved by Congress in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (later found to have been based on false information).

Even though we could fire on practically anyone in the free fire zones, we were prohibited from firing on civilians. I would not have done so anyway. I lived with South Vietnamese soldiers, respected the Vietnamese people and would not have exposed civilians to danger.

On the other hand, I had no qualms about calling fire upon North Vietnamese Army soldiers because my job was protecting U.S. troops and our South Vietnamese friends.

When you saw people near the edges of the free fire zones, you had to evaluate the circumstances and determine whether or not there were indications of military affiliation. The two kids with a water buffalo on the edge of the free fire zones were definitely not targets. The man driving his donkey cart into the free fire zones was most likely a woodchopper. The three guys on bikes in the middle of the free fire zones were definitely North Vietnamese Army and legitimate targets.

The other aerial observers that I knew, and the pilots who flew them, acted in a similar manner. We followed the rule of engagement, which included U.S. and international rules of war.

Had I been overhead for any of the Trump/Hegseth strikes, I would not have pulled the trigger — no declared war, no enemy combatants, clearly civilians and no justification for “kinetic action.” The proper course of action would be to call the U.S. Coast Guard to interdict and search the boats, like they have historically done. Last year, the Coast Guard seized 225 metric tons of cocaine. The U.S. would have to destroy a heck of a lot of narco speed boats to equal that tonnage.

These present boat strikes have a feature that was not in existence back in Vietnam days. Then, the aerial observer and pilot were the only people who knew the situation on the ground. We were largely on the honor system in deciding who should live or die.

Now military personnel up and down the ladder may have eyes on the situation. Not only that, but a video record is being made of each strike. Any person who sees a strike being carried out and does not raise concerns about its legality may be called to account, even years later.

Keep in mind that both Trump and Hegseth have gleefully announced the strikes and vowed to kill all other alleged “narco-terrorists.” They might be surprised to learn that several victims of the Sept. 2 strike were not drug merchants.

The U.S. Supreme Court essentially immunized Trump against any kind of charges that could result from the strikes, but Hegseth and the military personnel with eyes-on participation in the strikes could find themselves in legal hot water down the road for these summary executions.

Sen. Risch should study the law and avoid covering up for MAGA lawbreakers.

Donald Trump has made a dramatic show of making America’s military blow up purported drug boats off the coast of Venezuela, hundreds of miles from American soil. So far, Trump has amassed a body count of 32, who he claims, without evidence, are “narco-terrorists.” He has failed to reveal the identity of the boat crews, what their destination was or why the Coast Guard couldn’t simply have performed its regular task of interdicting and searching the boats to confirm they were carrying illicit drugs.

Trump has publicly claimed the boats were carrying fentanyl, when almost all of that drug is widely known to be transported across the U.S. border with Mexico. Over 90% of fentanyl seizures in the last five years have come from Mexico.

Obliterating the boats is a stupid tactic because it destroys the evidence and does not allow for interrogation of the suspects. Dead suspects cannot disclose valuable intelligence to use in going after the drug kingpins. The tactic violates U.S. law because Trump has not gotten congressional approval to use lethal force against the suspects, having failed to show they pose an imminent threat to the U.S.

The boat attacks also violate rules of international law that top U.S. military lawyers have urged the services to observe. With its scofflaw attitude, the Trump regime has tarnished the reputation of the United States as a beacon for the rule of law. We became the most powerful nation on Earth because of our dedication to lawful conduct. When we repeatedly demonstrate that the U.S. will not follow U.S. and international law, our reputation, trading relations and economy will suffer.

Soon after taking office as Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth fired the top Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) of the military services. He called them “roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief.” He likely understood that Trump had no intention of complying with established laws governing the use of the nation’s military.

He was obviously correct, but unaware of our first commander in chief’s view of the role of a JAG officer. George Washington appointed the first JAG shortly after taking command of the Continental Army. He wrote that “an Army without Order, Regularity & Discipline, is no better than a Commission’d Mob.”

Chairman Jim Risch, R-Idaho, speaks during a confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on July 15, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

Trump’s killing of purported drug traffickers would not pass muster with a reputable JAG officer. However, Trump has plenty of loyal sycophants who will risk their legal reputations to justify his unlawful actions. Our own U.S. Sen. Jim Risch is just such a Trump puppet. Risch took to the Senate floor to prostrate himself at Trump’s feet, claiming that the boats were conducting “an actual attack” on the U.S., even though they were about 1,000 miles from Miami. Without offering a hint of proof, he branded them as “terrorists.”

Neither Trump nor Risch realizes that they are placing military officers charged with carrying out the killings in an untenable position. Strikes like these should be reviewed and approved by a competent and independent JAG officer. If these strikes are unlawful, as they certainly appear to be, service personnel pulling the trigger could later face court martial charges for obeying an unlawful order.

Of great interest in this regard is the surprising and sudden decision of Adm. Alvin Holsey, the commander in charge of the boat destructions, to announce his retirement after less than a year as the commander of U.S. Southern Command. More retirements may be in the offing. Another top officer, Col. Doug Krugman, resigned this month because of Trump’s obvious contempt for the Constitution.

Neither Risch nor Trump served in the military – Trump because of phantom bone spurs and Risch because of “an ulcer” — so they are likely unaware that soldiers are legally and honorably prohibited from giving or following an unlawful order. As an artillery spotter in Vietnam, I was fully aware of the real possibility of a court martial for killing non-threatening civilians, even in an actual wartime setting. Common human decency says you don’t gleefully announce the killing of suspects who could easily be arrested.

In the final analysis, Trump’s repeated killings in the Caribbean are more performance art than military necessity. If he was really interested in pursuing drug kingpins, he would not have diverted hundreds of prosecutors and drug enforcement agents from going after the drug networks. Trump has them wasting their talents on immigration cases. An exhaustive report from Reuters found that drug prosecutions have fallen to the “lowest level in decades” under Trump. Furthermore, Trump has been uncommonly generous in handing out pardons and clemency to drug kingpins.

Perhaps it’s time for him to stop breaking the law and start enforcing it.