The Trump administration's deadly strikes on boats in the Caribbean and Pacific have alarmed legal experts, Democratic lawmakers, and a small number of Republicans in Congress since they began in early September, but new reporting Thursday revealed that before the White House began the campaign that has now killed more than 80 people, a high-level military lawyer warned officials that the attacks would not be lawful—and was swiftly pushed aside.
NBC News reported that Senior Judge Advocate General (JAG) Paul Meagher, a Marine colonel at US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) in Miami, raised legal concerns in August about planned operations involving lethal strikes on alleged drug boats in the region.
Other military lawyers also raised concerns, according to two senior congressional aides and one former senior US official who spoke about Meagher's attempt to stop the strikes from happening.
Meagher specifically said that killing people aboard boats that the administration suspected of carrying drugs could amount to extrajudicial killing and expose service members involved in the operations to legal disputes.
President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have called the victims of the strikes "narco-terrorists" without providing any proof publicly of their crimes. They have insisted that the strikes are part of an "armed conflict" the US is engaged in with Venezuela, which they have claimed is harboring drug cartels that are "poisoning" Americans with drugs including fentanyl.
US agencies and the United Nations have assessed that Venezuela plays virtually no role in the trafficking of fentanyl to the US. It is a hub for the transport of cocaine, mainly from Colombia, which is sometimes sent via boat to the US, but the military has previously intercepted boats, arrested those aboard if contraband was found, and seized the drugs.
Meagher's concern that the administration was planning to commit extrajudicial killings was not previously known, but it has been echoed by US-based legal experts, Venezuela's ambassador to the UN, and an official with Amnesty International.
Months after Meagher raised the concern that US service members could face legal repercussions for carrying out the attacks, an American lawyer last week said he was preparing to file a legal claim on behalf of the family of one Colombian fisherman who was killed, Alejandro Carranza.
“This is murder, and it is destroying rule of law," said the lawyer, Dan Kovalik.
Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell told NBC News Thursday that the agency "categorically denies that any Pentagon lawyers, including SOUTHCOM lawyers, with knowledge of these operations have raised concerns to any attorneys in the chain of command regarding the legality of the strikes conducted thus far because they are aware we are on firm legal ground."
He repeated the administration's claim that the strikes are lawful under "both US and international law."
Congress has not authorized any military action against Venezuela or drug cartels. Lawmakers in recent weeks have introduced war powers resolutions to require congressional authorization for strikes against either target, but they were voted down by the Republican majority.
A current JAG who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity said that "there is no world where this is legal."
Considering the concerns raised by Meagher, veteran and former trial lawyer John Jackson asked: "Where are the veterans who serve in the GOP right now? There’s no place left to hide."
From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.
Pressure continues to mount for Keir Starmer as Andy Burnham won’t rule out a leadership challenge. Plus: New exclusive data shows how climate protesters, not the far-right, are being silenced, and Aditya Chakrabortty on whether a wealth tax will make much of a difference in dealing with inequality in Britain. With: NoJusticeMTG, Steven Methven, Ayeshah […]
From Novara Media via This RSS Feed.
The author of the new book, "No Neutrals There: U.S. Labor, Zionism, and the Struggle for Palestine," discusses how U.S. labor unions have played a key role in building and maintaining the state of Israel.
From Mondoweiss via This RSS Feed.
After its near-unanimous approval in Congress and following months of sustained public pressure, President Donald Trump signed a law on Wednesday releasing the files from the FBI's investigation into the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
The law is called the "Epstein Files Transparency Act," but critics fear that a key provision could allow the US Department of Justice to keep critical information from coming to light.
The law requires Attorney General Pam Bondi to "make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials" related to the investigations into Epstein and his partner and coconspirator Ghislaine Maxwell within the next 30 days.
But critically, it gives Bondi expansive power to redact large amounts of information, potentially burying material that may be incriminating to the president, whose relationship with the disgraced financier has become the subject of greater speculation with each new set of documents released.
One provision allows Bondi to redact documents to strike information that "would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution." Last week, Trump ordered Bondi to open investigations into Epstein's connections with several prominent Democrats: Among them are former President Bill Clinton, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and Democratic donor Reid Hoffman.
Lawmakers have raised fears that these investigations were enacted to give Bondi greater leeway to scrub information from the record. On Monday, Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.), the law's Republican cosponsor, warned that the DOJ "may be trying to use those investigations as a predicate for not releasing the files."
But another largely overlooked section may give her even more sweeping authority. The law states that information may also be redacted "if the attorney general makes a determination that covered information may not be declassified and made available in a manner that protects the national security of the United States, including methods or sources related to national security." It also allows her to redact information deemed "to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy."
While the law requires Bondi to issue a written justification for each piece of redacted information and also clarifies that no file shall be "withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary," it does not define the criteria Bondi must use to determine whether something is in the interest of America's "national security," "national defense," or "foreign policy."
— (@)
"One glaring loophole will prevent full transparency: It’s called national security," wrote independent journalist Ken Klippenstein Monday, as the House moved toward a vote on the files. "Not national security that has anything to do with the national defense or harm to the nation, but the self-serving kind that protects the system from the people by depriving them of information."
There are many cases in recent memory of the US using national security as a justification to withhold information from the public. Earlier this year, the Trump administration used its "state secrets" privilege to deny a judge's request to turn over information related to its extrajudicial deportation flights to El Salvador, arguing that it would compromise its diplomatic relations with that country. Meanwhile, past administrations have used national security to justify keeping the public in the dark about everything from the military's use of torture to the government's mass surveillance of American citizens.
While the primary interest in Epstein surrounds his alleged role in facilitating a sex trafficking ring for the political and economic elite, there are clear cases where the government could attempt to use national security as a justification to keep information hidden.
For example, recent documents have revealed the extent of his involvement with foreign intelligence and dealmaking. Drop Site Newshas reported extensively on Epstein's long history working as an informal fixer for former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to secure deals with several foreign nations that benefited Israel and attempted to shape global politics, including in the United States, to its interests.
— (@)
Klippenstein has also raised concerns about the inclusion of the word "unclassified" in the bill, which he noted "is an official word that in theory only exists when it comes to national security matters; that is, that the release of such information could cause 'harm' to national security."
He said he asked Massie and the law's Democratic cosponsor, Ro Khanna (Calif.), for comment on why that word was included at all since the law does not relate to national security. Neither responded.
But Massie told journalist Michael Tracey back in September that a similar provision to redact info related to “national defense” was included because, "You have to put that in there if you’re going to get them to sign it."
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who fought against the release of the files until the bitter end but ultimately voted for the bill along with all but one member of the House, invoked what he called "national security concerns" in a last-ditch effort to stop the discharge petition that brought the Epstein bill to the House floor.
It echoed what Bondi herself said back in March when asked on Fox News why any information besides victims' names would need to be stricken from the record: "Of course, national security."
— (@)
"If large sections of the files remain redacted or withheld, the public may face a truncated version of 'transparency,' one that protects many of the powerful rather than exposes them," wrote independent journalist Brian Allen. "This is not just a story about Epstein. It is a stress test of our system of accountability."
From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.
Democratic and Independent lawmakers on Thursday reacted with alarm and scorn on Thursday after President Donald Trump called for a handful of Democrats to be tried and executed for sedition after they called on active duty US soldiers and intelligence officials to uphold their constitutional duty not to obey unlawful orders.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) posted a video denouncing the president's social media posts on the matter, saying Trump's call for the execution "is not normal" and that "we cannot allow this to feel normal."
"As far as I know," Murphy said, a president saying such a thing "has never happened before in the history of the country," adding that "every Democratic member of the House and Senate, their life is in jeopardy right now" in the context of those threats.
The President of the United States just called for Democratic members of Congress to be executed. "HANG THEM", he posted.
If you're a person of influence in this country and you haven't picked a side, maybe now would be the time to pick a fucking side. pic.twitter.com/NtQhUe5wyn
— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) November 20, 2025
"The president of the United States just called for members of Congress to be executed," said Murphy, visibly angry. "If you are a person of influence in this country, maybe it's time to pick a fucking side."
"If you are a Republican in Congress, if you are a Republican governor," he continued, "maybe it's time to draw a line in the sand and say that under no circumstances should the President of the United States be calling on his political opposition to be hanged."
Murphy said the nation "is at a very dangerous moment right now," with President Trump "engaged in the wholesale incitement, endorsement, and rationalization of political violence in this country. This is a very slippery slope that we are on."
The senator added that now is "a moment for people to step up," especially those in positions of power or influence, to denounce a president who would call for the "murder of his political opposition."
Murphy was far from alone in condemning the president's remarks.
"Clearly, Trump has learned something from his good friend MbS: If you don't like what your political opponents say, execute them," said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), referencing the president's meeting this week with Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. "Unfortunately for Mr. Trump, that's not what we do in America."
Meanwhile, Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) asked the question: "Will the FBI investigate President Trump's call for the deaths of sitting Democratic lawmakers?"
From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.