Somewhere off the Coast of Venezuela
Double Effect on the High Seas
The Trump Administration has ramped up its pressure on the Maduro regime in Venezuela.
The US has been in conflict with Venezuela since at least 1999 when Hugo Chavez was elected to implement his “Bolivarian Revolution.” This was a socialist experiment that continued in 2013 when Chavez died and Maduro took over. The most recent Nobel Peace Prize winner, María Corina Machado, is part of a resistance movement in Venezuela against Maduro. (She dedicated her prize to Trump, by the way.)
Presidents Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden, and Trump again have been pretty consistent in opposing the Venezuelan government. Trump is raising the stakes.
He moved a significant number of naval vessels into the Caribbean, including an aircraft carrier group. Many of his moves look like he is planning an invasion of the country.
So far, the most significant actions have been the destruction of “drug boats.” These are open boats (no closed cabin) with several outboard motors and are very fast. The US Navy uses a variety of means to blow them up.
A controversy has arisen because of a recent incident where a boat was struck and then hit again. Anonymous sources in the Washington Post accused the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, of ordering the second strike, a “double tap,” to kill two men holding on to the wreckage.
A number of issues arise.
What is he legality of sinking boats in international waters?
What is the morality of killing shipwrecked men?
These questions are complicated by the fact that these are, indeed, international waters. Military action in the middle of the seas does not violate anyone’s geographical integrity, so there really isn’t any standing to complain.
From the American side, although Congress has not declared war on Venezuela, American presidents for the last fifty years, at least, have proceeded in military adventures abroad without congressional approval. The Constitution gives a great deal of discretion to the Executive branch when it comes matters outside of the country.
There is also what is known as the prerogative power, that is, the power to decide when the laws need to be suspended. Consider this passage from John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government:
Many things there are, which the law can by no means provide for; and those must necessarily be left to the discretion of him that has the executive power in his hands, to be ordered by him as the public good and advantage shall require: nay, it is fit that the laws themselves should in some cases give way to the executive power, or rather to this fundamental law of nature and government, viz. That as much as may be, all the members of the society are to be preserved: for since many accidents may happen, wherein a strict and rigid observation of the laws may do harm (chapter XIV, sec. 159).
Although it may not be a policy one would choose, it is unlikely that anyone can sustain an argument that a president does not have the power to engage in these kinds of actions, especially given the last half-century of precedent.
So this issue really came to a head only after the accusation that stranded men were killed. No one really made a fuss until this happened. Let’s consider this.
As always, some facts are in dispute while others are not.
Note in dispute:
A boat allegedly carrying drugs was struck by the US Navy. (I don’t know the means and haven’t looked it up because it doesn’t matter to the debate.)
Two men were not killed by the initial strike.
A second strike was ordered and these men were killed.
In dispute:
Some say the Secretary of War personally ordered the second strike, some say Admiral Frank M. Bradley.
Some say the two men were the targets of the attack and some say the boat was the target.
The reason the first dispute is important is because, to the extent this is a political matter, opponents of the President and his policies would prefer to criticize the already polarizing figure of Pete Hegseth than a highly respected, very senior member of the military.
As for the target, this is actually very important. Killing defenseless men is a war crime. German U-boat captains were tried and executed for this after WWII. But if the target was the boat and the men died as a result, then this is different. This is what is called “double effect.” If your primary object in performing an act is legitimate but it may have a secondary effect that is not, it may still be permissible.
For example, pushing old ladies is bad, but pushing one out of the way of a bus is good. Obviously, this does not give anyone permission to go around pushing old ladies.
In the case of the drug boat, it is alleged that (a) the boat was not disabled and since it was legitimate to destroy it in the first place, taking a second shot is also legitimate; and (b) there are reports that the two men were trying to salvage the boat and secure the cargo, meaning the initial intention of destroying the boat was not achieved and a second strike would be legitimate.
Unique in the history of warfare, we now have video recordings of most incidents. The recording of the attack is classified and will likely remain so. But some Senators have been shown the video and, predictably, their responses are mixed. Some say the second strike was justified and others that it was not.
I hope this brief account helps you understand how complicated the issue is. Neither “never harm anyone” nor “kill them all” are sufficient positions in this world. But that leaves a lot of room in between for debate, discernment, and the trembling of souls.