He portal NBC News reported that the “main military lawyer” of the Southern Command would have expressed his “legal concern” regarding Donald Trump’s government, regarding lethally attacking alleged drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean Sea.
They specify in the text that according to “6 sources” the jurist would have disagreed about the “legality” of the attacks, however, his opinions were dismissed.
“The top military lawyer for the combat command overseeing lethal attacks on alleged drug trafficking vessels near Venezuela did not agree with the Trump administration’s position that the operations are legal, and his opinions were marginalized, according to six sources with knowledge of the legal advice, the text of the news states.
The lawyer, who serves as senior judge advocate general, or JAG in military parlance, at the US Southern Command in Miami, raised his legal concerns in August, before the attacks began in September, according to two senior US officials, two senior congressional aides and two former senior US officials.
His opinion was ultimately dismissed by senior government officials, including officials in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, the six sources said.
Extrajudicial executions
Likewise, the information indicates that “other military lawyers and lawyers of various ranks also spoke out about the attacks on the boats. It is not clear what their opinions were, but some of the military lawyers, both civilian and military, also expressed concerns to senior officials in their units and the Department of Defense about the legality of the attacks, according to two senior congressional aides and a former senior US official.
The Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Southern Command is responsible for providing legal advice on military matters, interpretation of international law, laws related to armed conflicts, as well as expressing legal opinions.
In the case of the attacks on vessels, the JAG specifically expressed concern that attacks on people on ships in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean, whom administration officials call “narcoterrorists,” could constitute extrajudicial killings, the six sources said, and thus legally expose service members involved in the operations.
The opinion of the chief legal advisor of the command in charge of a military operation is often crucial in determining whether it is carried out or not. Although senior officials can disavow such advisors, it is rare for operations to advance without taking their recommendation into account, the note states.
The Pentagon denies illegality
However, chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell stated: “The War Department categorically denies that any Pentagon attorneys, including those in Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), with knowledge of these operations, have raised concerns with lawyers up the chain of command about the legality of the attacks carried out to date, as they know that we acted within the legal framework. Our current operations in the Caribbean are legal under both US and international law, and all of our actions fully comply with the law of armed conflict”.
