President Trump and the drug boat drone strike
Concern over using military force goes back to the founding of the country. It did not suddenly appear because some people got Trump Derangement Syndrome in 2017.
Back in 2011, President Obama ordered a drone strike to assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Islamist cleric who had "preached" a message of terror supporting Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations. While some Republicans (including most of the candidates for President) endorsed the assassination, some more libertarian-leaning conservatives criticized the Obama regime for killing an American citizen who had never even been charged with a crime.
We warned that the precedent was very dangerous and could be used to kill American citizens on American soil. After all, Timothy McVeigh murdered 168 people, including 19 children in a terrorist attack in 1995. Why could the legal justification for assassinating al-Awlaki not be used to justify the assassination of McVeigh? What about Richard Jewell, a security guard who saved lives when he discovered a terrorist bomb in 1996 but was later fraudulently accused of setting the bomb himself by the Fake News Media? When he was under suspicion, would it have been acceptable for President Clinton to simply order his assassination?
Concern over using military force goes back to the founding of the country. One of the most egregious uses of force on Americans was when President Clinton deployed military force - including tanks - against American citizens in Waco, Texas in April 1993, a couple months after disastrous and ill-conceived paramilitary raid on the compound in February.
Back in 2015, I was the only candidate for Bloomington City Council to openly oppose the Kruzan Administration's effort to acquire a mine resistant, ambush protected (MRAP) military vehicle. Black Lives Matter raised a big stink about a less imposing vehicle in 2018, but had I not raised the issue no one would have been talking about it three years before that.
None of the objections to excessive force are new from either the Right or the Left, and did not suddenly appear as a result of "Trump Derangement Syndrome" earlier this month when President Trump ordered a military strike on alleged drug traffickers and killed 11 alleged gang members. What had been a norm in the past - intercept the boat and board it to search for contraband - was thrown out when a drone sank the boat and killed those aboard. Reason warned that this precedent "makes everyone killable."
Arguing that a military strike on drug traffickers was excessive is not the same as supporting the drug traffickers. That is a simplistic argument from "conservatives" on social media and in conservative media, and many of these people (especially Ben Shapiro) know better. The issue is not whether drug trafficking should be stopped. Certainly we do not want international criminal gangs importing lethal illegal drugs into our country. The issue is what force should be used.
The Trump Administration's open contempt for the rule of law is disturbing. Vice President JD Vance said "I don't give a shit what you call it" when someone suggested the strike was a "war crime." It is one thing to argue that the President has authority to carry out a military strike on drug traffickers - which, again, is a departure from norms. It is another thing entirely to have open contempt for the rule of law. Romans 13 does not only apply to the people obeying lawful orders from government, but also to civil authorities obeying lawful restrictions on their own power.
We should be very concerned with the increasing use of force by law enforcement. The fact that these were not American citizens does not mean that the use of force should not be measured, nor does it erase government's Sixth Commandment obligation to preserve life when possible. Supporting a more measured use of force, instead of an extrajudicial assassination, is not support for the drug cartels or drug trafficking. The Trump Administration and Trump supporters need to stop dishonestly claiming otherwise.