U.S. troops not liable in boat strikes, classified Justice Dept. memo says

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Washington Post

November 12, 2025 at 11:24 a.m. EST


The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) stated in a classified opinion drawn up in the summer that personnel taking part in military strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats in Latin America would not be exposed to future prosecution, according to four people familiar with the matter.

The decision to pursue an opinion, drafted in July, reflects the heightened concerns within the government raised by senior civilian and military lawyers that such strikes would be illegal.

The strikes, now totaling 19, with a death toll of 76, began in September, though interagency discussions regarding the use of lethal force to combat drug cartels started early in the Trump administration.

Top officers, including Adm. Alvin Holsey, the head of Southern Command, sought caution on such strikes, according to two people, who like several others interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/12/trump-drug-boat-venezuela-legal/

---

No paywall (gift)

I expect Kegsbreath will have a meltdown.

[Lovie777]

1. shithole and the Pentagon are.........................

[NotHardly]

12. The word "Nuremburg" means nothing to them...

Imagine how surprised they will be that it works as well as Hitler telling his Nazis they'll be OK if they are ever tried for war crimes.

NOTE: On October 1, 1946, the verdicts on 22 of the original 24 defendants were handed down for the Nuremberg trials. Three of the defendants were acquitted. Four were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from 10 to 20 years. Three were sentenced to life imprisonment. Twelve of the defendants were sentenced to death by hanging.

2nd Note: Twelve of the Nuremberg defendants were sentenced to death by hanging. Ten of them—Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Julius Streicher, Alfred Rosenberg, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Fritz Sauckel, Alfred Jodl, Wilhelm Keitel, and Arthur Seyss-Inquart—were hanged on October 16, 1946. Martin Bormann was tried and condemned to death in absentia, and Hermann Göring committed suicide by swallowing a cyanide capsule before he could be executed.

Two notes were edited for clarification & details.

[Polybius]

20. He's got that immunity

But the rest of his cabinet doesn't...

[Irish_Dem]

2. That's what Hitler told his gestapo.

[in2herbs]

3. If they have immunity for the killing, do they have immunity for complying with the orders to kill? And, if they have

immunity to both orders why are they complying???

[twodogsbarking]

4. Making it legal don't make it right.

[ananda]

6. It would be a law "more honored in the breach than the observance"

as Hamlet might say.

[twodogsbarking]

7. Sounds like you could be contract lawyer. One that is an expert in contracts, not a temp hire.

[ananda]

8. I guess an old English teacher will have to do.

But thanks for thinking that.

[twodogsbarking]

15. Reading and interpreting.

[2na fisherman]

5. International Criminal Court

I wonder if this legal body will bring charges in future since these extrajudicial killings will be swept under the MAGA rug by a corrupt US Supreme Court. This may be a hollow gesture since they have gone after Netanyahu for his crimes against humanity but nothing happens.

[Polybius]

21. They are powerless here though

Even if they bring charges, he can just not travel to countries that threaten to comply with the International Criminal Court.

[bluestarone]

9. Maybe not while you guiys are in control. BUT

Allowing this, would give military the right to kill US citizens, without a trial.

[24601]

10. Remember Anwar Nasser Abdulla al-Awlaki? He was a native-born US citizen killed by a drone strike on September 30, 2011,

in Yemen. There was no trial before the strike. Al-Awlaki was the first U.S. citizen to be targeted and assassinated by a U.S. government drone strike.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

[Prairie Gates]

14. Comparing the al-Awlaki case to these continuing attacks on boats is quite the stretch

Whether Awlaki was an active threat is certainly debatable, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me to say these are the same type of activity or even similar.

Go find the Wikipedia page on even one of the people who has been killed in the boat strikes, for example.

[Attilatheblond]

34. Possibly why Dirty Don ordered his obedient but stupid DOJ to make this particular announcement

Were I a military officer, I am pretty sure believing anything this DOJ says would be a non-starter. This DOJ's batting average is not a rock to stand on.

[miyazaki]

11. Anything can be challenged, and should be. Wtf. nt

[TomSlick]

13. An incorrect and meaningless legal opinion.

Reliance on legal advice may be a mitigating factor but it is not a defense.

Anyone forwarding or executing the orders is guilty of murder.

[BumRushDaShow]

19. They will probably try to hold it to the same level

of the other OLC "opinions" - e.g., the infamous one about not investigating Presidents just before elections.

[TomSlick]

23. Perhaps.

All bets are off as soon as a Democratic President is sworn-in.

At this point, the DOJ is so discredited that OLC opinions are a waste of paper.

[Solly Mack]

16. ...

[Quanto Magnus]

17. How convenient....

their own lawyers are making excuses for them....

[Munu]

18. Just following orders. Right? n/t

[kevinore]

22. Probably

They probably will not answer to the US, but the ICC can, and should investigate the US military and government for atrocities. Any future president should allow the ICC to try and, if guilty, punish the criminals.

[NewEnglandAutumn]

24. Nuremberg

disagrees

[Buddyzbuddy]

25. John Yoo and Alberto Gonzalez come to mind.

Does anybody still believe their B.S. legal opinions about torture.
Finding somebody to write a legal opinion to give permission to do something that is clearly illegal clearly has no obstacles. The consequences if any come later while the illegal action is carried out.

I'm sure you've heard the statement, "it's above my pay grade", no truerer words were ever spoken. The legal opinion gives the actors legal cover. The actions are covered. The court process to challenge those orders move at a snails pace which plays into a tyrants hands that knows how to demand action before it can't be stopped.
For example, tearing down a wing without permits or approval before it can be stopped. Oops, so sorry, oh well.

[Turbineguy]

26. Somebody probably told the Gestapo and the SS the same thing.

[JT45242]

27. The international courts may disagree as will American courts

The corrupt DOJ is not really an authority on the law.

[surfered]

28. John Yoo also wrote an opinion claiming water boarding was not torture.

Even though the people who invented it called it “aqua tortura.” He pronounced it “enhanced interrogation.” Legal now!

[COL Mustard]

29. So.....

"I was just following orders" is now a legitimate defense? How things have changed.

[kacekwl]

30. Says you.

I'm sure many would disagree with this.

[cstanleytech]

31. Didn't a number of German officers and soldiers try the defence that they were just following orders?

[Aussie105]

32. America has an unfortunate track record on extra judicial killings.

Send in the helicopters (Bin Laden), drop a big bomb on Afghani mountain regions where you suspect combatants are hiding in underground caves, zap a few speedboats that may be drug runners, yep, a long sordid history.

'Just following orders' didn't go down well in the Nuremberg trials but I can't see a future where America will be held accountable in the same way.

'Might makes right'?

[moonshinegnomie]

33. i can forsee i latin american government kidnapping top us officials and putting them on trial

especially after the moron is out of office. venuzuela for example could charge kegbreath with murder and once hes no longer protected us marshals after hes no longer sec def simply spiriting him to venezuela to stand trial..

[Wonder Why]

35. Opinions are not facts. Judges and juries will decide such things. And if military people need

assurances that murder is justified, then possibly they need to consult reputable attorneys or make the decision that participation in murder is wrong, albeit, legal.

[republianmushroom]

36. Who would want to trust trumps attorneys.

[mike_c]

37. that's what the SS said, too

"Don't worry, it's all perfectly legal now."