The United States is engaged in summary executions on the high seas. That bald fact is being obscured by talk of drug interdiction and war powers and whether we're certain the drugs on those boats were headed for the United States or somewhere else.

Let's be clear. Even if we knew for certain that the boats being destroyed in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific 1) contained illegal drugs; 2) those drugs were headed for our shores; and 3) all on board were criminals, it would still be grossly illegal and immoral to blast them out of the water as we have now done some 14 reported times, killing 61 people. This is not drug enforcement. This is murder.

Drug trafficking is bad. It is a crime. But it is only very rarely a capital offense. In fact, no criminal in the United States has been sentenced to death for drug crimes that did not also include homicide since the death penalty was reintroduced in 1988. But the crucial thing to keep in mind is that the criminals involved were captured, charged and tried. That's what a law-abiding nation does.

The only time you can legally use lethal military force is when Congress has specifically granted authority against an enemy state or entity, or when American forces are attacked and act in self-defense. It was not illegal for American sailors to shoot back at Japanese planes on December 7, 1941. But we are not at war with "narcoterrorists." That simply isn't a thing, even if President Donald Trump has stated that the United States is in an "armed conflict" with drug cartels. Those words are without legal effect.

The "war on drugs" is a metaphor. Or was. Under our laws, suspected drug boats can be interdicted, boarded by the Coast Guard, and in the event contraband is discovered, the drugs can be confiscated and the drug runners can be arrested, tried and punished. That's if they are found in U.S. territorial waters. Interdictions beyond our borders have been controversial, with courts expressing skepticism about the constitutionality of prosecuting (not killing!) drug traffickers captured in international waters.

The administration has not provided evidence that the boats they've destroyed were carrying drugs. For all we know, some were fishing vessels or pleasure boats. Nor have they even suggested that the people on board those vessels were armed, far less that they fired on U.S. ships. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was brutally frank: "At this point, I would call them extrajudicial killings. And this is akin to what China does, to what Iran does with drug dealers. They summarily execute people without presenting evidence to the public."

Some commentators have justified Trump's extrajudicial killings by pointing to drone strikes on suspected terrorists carried out by the Bush and Obama administrations. But those attacks were issued pursuant to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (essentially a declaration of war) passed by Congress in 2001.

Trump is abusing his power to sic the military on criminals — or those he claims (without evidence) are criminals. That is not the military's job. For now, these are foreigners. But he has long expressed admiration for leaders who engage in extrajudicial killings at home. During his first term, he praised Rodrigo Duterte, the president of the Philippines, for doing an "unbelievable job" on drugs. Duterte is now facing charges of murder and crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court. His "unbelievable job" included unleashing police and vigilantes who rounded up and extrajudicially executed — murdered — between 12,000 and 30,000 people.

Trump has a strong yearning for state violence. Regarding the suspected drug traffickers in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, the president is bloodthirsty: "I don't think we're necessarily going to ask for a declaration of war. I think we're just gonna kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. We're going to kill them. They're going to be, like, dead."

Regarding migrants attempting to cross the southern border, Trump instructed aides during his first term to shoot them in the legs, but was advised that this would not be legal. Campaigning in 2023, he suggested that the United States should address shoplifting by shooting people: "We will immediately stop all of the pillaging and theft. Very simply: If you rob a store, you can fully expect to be shot as you are leaving that store."

Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper told NPR that Trump was enraged by the unrest following George Floyd's murder: "He thought that the protests made the country look weak ... and (asked) Gen. Mark Milley ... 'Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?'"

Presidents are sometimes called upon to make decisions that can result in the unintentional deaths of innocents. But when they do, it is after careful briefing, weighing of options and consequences, consideration of all reasonable alternatives and with legal authority. Trump's boat attacks, by contrast, are an almost gleeful bloodletting without any consultation with Congress, evidence or legality. The people in those boats may or may not have been criminals. The people ordering the strikes are.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her latest book is Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism.

Reprinted with permission from Creators