Americans Ambivalent on Extrajudicial Killing
Support is low, but opposition is tepid.
Reuters (“Just 29% of Americans support US military killing drug suspects, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds“):
Only 29% of Americans support using the U.S. military to kill suspected drug traffickers without a judge or court being involved, a rebuke of President Donald Trump’s strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found.
The six-day poll, which closed on Wednesday as Washington continued a military buildup around Latin America that has focused especially on Venezuela, showed 51% were opposed to the killings of drug suspects and the rest were unsure where they stood.
In a sign of division within Trump’s party, 27% of Republicans in the poll opposed the practice, while 58% supported it, with the rest unsure. Three quarters of Democrats opposed the practice compared to one in 10 who supported it.
While it’s perfectly reasonable to read the poll the way the Reuters headline writer does, I find it much less comforting. Looking at the visual depiction
it’s true that these policies are unpopular with everyone but Republicans.
But the questions are worded in the most stilted way and half the country either supports doing these things or doesn’t care enough to have an opinion. This is a shrug, not a groundswell.
Omg
Personally, I am horrified and ashamed of these murders in our name.
Your take on this is, and I’m trying to be civil, is contemptuous.
@becca: You misunderstand me. These killings are illegal, immoral, and unwise. But the fact that a question worded “Should the US Government kill suspected drug traffickers without judicial process?” only gets 51 percent opposition is alarming. If it had been worded “Should the US Government stop illegal drug trafficking by any means necessary?” the opposition would likely be much smaller.
NYT (gift) has a Guest Essay today on the impossibility, as proven by history, of halting drug use by various forms of prohibition. Much as we like to feel otherwise, of course the ends justify the means. But if your means are incapable of attaining your ends, you have no moral justification.
Morally and legally, we are committing murder.
@James Joyner: then I sincerely apologize.
There are so many values we were taught to cherish that have been shat on by this administration. We are ruled by degenerates at the top.
I wonder what the poll results would be if the question were modified to say:
Should the US Government kill members of the Sackler family without judicial process?
After all oxycontin resulted in 900,000 deaths.
Judge says he’ll approve opioid settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue and Sackler family
I think this is the same territory as the question of “How did half the country come to vote for this terrible person in 2024?”
You’re asking “How is it that only half of the country thinks this is bad, but not all of it?”
I appreciate this. I feel it.
I think so many of those Republicans are there because they will say they support Trump no matter what he does. At least when a pollster is asking.
And there’s those who have adopted the whole “win at any cost” mentality, cloaking themselves with righteousness, certain that they are the “good guys” who must prevail or all is lost.
It seems like an easy solution, a direct response — flat out kill the drug purveyors. But the Trump-MAGA-Project 2025 is pure theater aimed at our visceral need for resolution to a long, long festering, seemingly intractable problem. The “coddling, pointy headed approaches of intelligensia’ has left us with the same steaming heap on our doorstep. Bring on the warfighters! We got the hammer and there’s a boatload of nails to the south of the “Gulf of America,” by golly!
But the problem with this hyper violent militarized approach is two-fold:
1. It won’t work. The personalities behind the illicit narcotics supply are every bit as determined to succeed as Trump is in stroking his own ego. Probably more so. What ever barrier or tactic the US devises, the narcos will test out a dozen work arounds. And the narcos have the financial largess of small national economies at their disposal. Plus the cultural conditions that support their operations are not going to change. We deploy drones and A.I. — they deploy drones and A.I. We blow things up, enough things — maybe they start blowing things up. The only real shot we have at lessening the impact of drugs on our society is to devote of massive amount of effort, money, and brainpower to change the cultural conditions both among the drug producing and among the drug consuming societies. And that means a lot of social/behavioral safety nets, a lot of conscientious problem solving, and a ginormous amount of political will. (Good luck with the latter).
2. When a society approves of its government to behave immorally, breaking all legal and moral standards to achieve expediency, there is a price to pay, a blow back, that will be visited upon the heads of all in the form of eroding standards by which we all have received the benefits of a “civil” society governed by the rule of law.
There really is no end to the string of “bad ideas” issuing forth from the MAGA-Trump-Project 2025 movement. The years of living stupidly are upon us.
@Scott: Dude, get with the program. The Sacklers are rich and white. Trump-approved murder is reserved for the poor brown fishermen of South America.
@Mikey: Actually, my thought is that sometimes these questions are too theoretical for people to respond with any kind of actual thought behind their answers. For instance, how many folks (including Democrats) would go “hell, yes, kill the Sacklers”. Look at how many respondents either skipped or said don’t know.
Which is another way of saying what James wrote.
I challenge the validity of gaining any actual knowledge from these kinds of polls.
We’re not as ethical and moral as we presume, but we knew that.
The destruction of the boats was never simply about drug interdiction, but about pushing Maduro out of power. Fentanyl is the excuse, but little of that comes through Venezuela and it was only after several weeks and numerous individuals pointing out that it comes in through the Pacific coast, that attacks on boats there began.
The felon has built up a large military force in the Caribbean, far larger than the incursion into Grenada or into Panama to capture Noriega. That force isn’t sustainable, he has to hope that his bluff succeeds and Maduro abdicates or he needs to either use it or withdraw. Any withdrawal would be a victory for Maduro and an embarrassment for TACO. He’s painted himself into a corner.
@Scott: I don’t think the Sacklers will receive the proper judgements in a court of law, but I question whether government sponsored extrajudicial killing is the right approach.
I’m pretty conservative by nature, if not by policy, and don’t think that the government should be providing services where private enterprise can do better, and I would think that extrajudicial killing is one of those areas. I’m not someone who rants about smaller government, but I don’t think we should expand it Willy-nilly either.
If the government finds it against their interests to prosecute the wealthy, I think the government will face the same challenges in launching military strikes against the wealthy.
I prefer the Luigi method — a private individual implements the extrajudicial killing, and then there is judicial review (ultimately falling to a jury) to determine whether the person killed actually needed killin’. It adds a set of checks and balances to the extrajudicial killings, as the Founding Fathers would have wanted.
I’m a little ambivalent on whether the “he needed killin’” defense should be admissible in court, or whether justice is served by having it be made in a more public forum before the judicial review, with only implicit calls for jury nullification being made in the court. I can see an argument either way — more people should be comfortable saying “I don’t know” on policy decisions.
I guess it’s something we should leave to the states for the moment, as the states are the laboratories of democracy.
Americans aren’t ambivalent, James.
MAGA is ambivalent.
This is the predictable result of Republicans drawing gunsights on Democratic politicians for 40 years. I teach gun safety by saying and enforcing the concept that flagging is bad. Republicans think flagging is not just good but the thing to do — and now that they’re flagging while pulling the trigger, anyone is shocked?
The general public has always favored the exercise of power by their rulers. When Stalin died, Moscow streets were filled by weeping people. Stalin did not conduct himself with adherence to legalities. Our country celebrates the exploits of Dirty Harry Callahan, and his sobriquet is not a reference to his personal hygiene. Trump’s first overtly political action was an ad that he placed calling for the death penalty for the Central Park Five. He stands by his original opinion, and he certainly has a finger on the pulse of the people. We need more education.
Narcotics trafficking organization
Terrorist organization
Narco-terrorist
Defining each of these coherently is a fool’s errand—the kind of legal task that paves a nice avenue for ambitious authoritarians.
The first term seems obvious, but it is not.
The legal definition of a narcotic is unlikely to be coherent within one single perspective, much less when possible definitions attempt to account for multiple contexts, e.g. cultural and/or religious tradition*, individual health risk, social risks, individual and community economic risks, legal legitimacy, crime stemming primarily from prohibition vs. crime stemming from the characteristics of black markets** vs. crime stemming from abuse/addiction.
Terrorism has 100+ proposed definitions. Every one of them is either too strict or too narrow.
How do we define NGO? If, say, the CIA, funds private groups in Chile that use violence to destabilize a democratically elected socialist government, do we say the CIA is engaging in terrorism? Some of the legal basis used for the prosecution of the war on terror suggests that it should be.
Needless to say, if no consensus can be reached on the definition of the two root concepts, narco-terrorism cannot be defined.
If the intent of a firm that traffics illicit drugs is primarily economic, many definitions of terrorism exclude its activities. But if a drug organization stages violence as a means to affect policy, then it becomes narco-terrorism. But is this limited to interfering with electoral processes and assassinations? Is it limited to attempts to affect narcotics policy?
Moreover, if an American sov-cit group intent on overthrowing the US government engages in drug trafficking to fund their political project, what do we call that? Does it depend on the percentage of total revenues gained from trafficking? What about firms that supply inputs to processing?
Similar to the CIA question above, if say, Al-Qaeda, engages a drug cartel for the purpose of laundering money, does that implicate the cartel in subsequent acts of terror?
Whether it is through resurrection of dead-letter laws enacted in the early decades of the US or interpreting laws centered on poorly delineated definitions, this administration takes a mile for any arbitrary inch afforded by language.
*laws and norms interact to determine how to define drug, defaulting to the dominant culture’s views. Largely arbitrary. In many cases, determined mostly by social inertia (tradition). Over time, subject to widening and narrowing based on an amalgam of social forces.
**does prohibition indirectly or directly create a black market?
@Rob1:
And, as related, I will add: When the ones who lay claim to moral high ground – White evangelical Christians – are the ones who completely support the least moral, least ethical, and most openly corrupt president in American history, it is very hard to believe that a return to ‘normalcy’ with respect to morals and ethics will be led by these same moral midgets.
@Kurtz:
Re definitions, this is a keen point. Witness the inclusion of non-narcotics (eg, cocaine) in discussions of NARCO trafficking.
Part of that imprecision is normal to everyday language use. No problem there.
Another (bigger) part is strategic. To work from a precise definition, with clear boundaries, is to force one’s hand. To sharpen one’s position.
Of course, that is unpalatable. Among other things, it forces one to confront questions and policy implications that are rather uncomfortable.
This is one of my biggest frustrations with modern socio-political discourse. And it’s annoying AF to ask for more precision — hell, I only strategically ask it of myself.
@Mimai:
Some, not sure if all, US code includes cocaine in its definition of narcotics. Hell, look at the hemp legislation from a few years ago—crafting legislation around even scientifically defined chemical compounds can cause unintended consequences.
Whatever one thinks of linguistic relativity, it’s important to recognize that language and its relationship to meaning are the foundation of all social relations.
As annoying as it may be, understanding the meaning of terms is necessary for effective communication.
I also note that it is fairly common for even professional philosophers and theorists to play fast and loose with definitions over the course of a detailed work. It need not be intentional.
Define “intentional” 😉
UK law includes the option for a Royal Warrant authorising lethal force outside of UK jurisdiction ( the basis of the “licence to kill” tales), but only if that falls within the norms of international law, or the laws of war, if applicable.
Unless, of course, Crown-in-Parliament decided otherwise.
Which is why the UK has ceased providing intelligence to the US on drug smuggling in the Caribbean.
Because US actions are clearly breaching normal rules of law.
This is not a decision UK government will have taken on a whim.
There are also reports that Dutch and French agencies are also refusing to cooperate if such intel sharing may result in unlawful killing.
If the Trump administration wants to initiate a war against Venezuala, then it can do so without us.
Trump might have done better to actually make a case for removing Maduro on political grounds, and to refrain from pissing off Colombia, Brazil, UK, France, Netherlands, etc etc.
What should really concern everyone is Trump redefining “terrorism” as suits him
And describing domestic political opposition and protest as “terrorist”.
I may sound alarmist, but what happens if Trump declares the governance of, say, California, to be “terrorist aligned” and therefore to be curbed by military force?
@Sleeping Dog:
The problem is, most Venezuelans would probably cheer the departure of Muduro.
But the Maduro regime has armed supporters who will have theit own preservation in mind.
To supress them by force would likely need a US ground force operation.
And then we get into the always nasty contingencies of insurgency operations.
I have a sneaking suspicion the drivers of this are firstly, Rubio, who has a long held animus against the “pseudo-left” of Venezuela and Cuba.
And secondly, the “hemispheric isolationist” camp of the MAGA nitwits, who seem to think that all the US needs to be secure is full dominance of the “Western Hemisphere”
(Which is also the basis of the whole “annex Greenland and absorb Canada” idiocy.)
@Gavin: I had to look up what you meant by “flagging” but now that I have, yeah. Anybody who doesn’t exercise muzzle control as a top priority is someone who isn’t ever going to be in the same room as me.
I think there’s another concept here, though. It’s the “Big Threat” strategy. The Big Threat is meant to scare people, to intimidate them from trying something.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Intimidation is a valuable tool sometimes. It is important to be able to get people to think about what might happen if they try X.
But I think of it as a tool in the toolbox. For someone like Trump, it’s a way of life. It’s the only tool that he has.
The other problem with the Big Threat is that your credibility can get shredded very easily. Frequently the Big Threat is a bluff.
And yeah, bluffing is important, too. But if it’s what you always do, people are going to catch on.
I grew up around people who did not bluff when it came to violence. There were a couple of instances – cars with strangers coming down our (very long) driveway at 11pm were greeted by my father on the steps with his shotgun at port arms. They left. In a hurry.
The point of what Trump is doing isn’t policy though. It’s theater. He wants to play Trump The Tough Guy. Dirty Donald, as it were. Because, unlike Harry, Donald himself is not at risk, so bring it on. Someone else will suffer the consequences.
The very expression “narco-terrorist” is childish and absurd. Drug cartels don’t want to spread terror. They don’t have a political agenda. As the op-ed gVOR10 links to argues, they are capitalists trying to make a buck. Nobody called Capone an “alco-terrorist”.
To pile on the idiocy, the regime is now suggesting fentanyl could be classified as a weapon of mass destruction. Watch out liquor industry, you’re next! https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/us-border-czar-urges-discussion-on-classifying-fentanyl-as-weapon-of-mass-destruction/3724309
@Jay L. Gischer:
The key thing about Trump, in many respects, imho, is his “tough guy wannabe” stance.
See his mob-adjacent stance in New York; and then his whole WWA kayfabe thing.
And now he’s in the White House, and gets to act out his tough guy bullshit, and get the applause of a whole load of similars in the MAGA social media sphere.
It fills me with contempt, to be honest.
As I’ve mentioned before, I grew up, as not unusual among Brits of my generation, with father, grandfathers, uncles, older cousins, neighbours, and family friends, who had up close and personal acquaintance with extreme violence.
They never made it into some sort of “tough guy” pose.
I recall my father saying:
“Having spent several years sat behind heavy guns, I think they have no sensible place in civilised society”
And he also taught me to shoot: “It can be a useful skill.”
Should ask that to two separate groups of same demographic but framed with two different questions for each. 1. Kill Walter White without judicial process and 2. Kill Tuco Salamanca without judicial process.
Basically if our southern neighbors were not brown, but white and Christian, probably different answers. Definitely would shave 20-30% off the “kill em all” GOP graph.
@Gavin:
MAGA is, what, 30 percent of he country? And half the country either supports the killings or has no opinion on them.
@JohnSF: Sounds a lot like my father.
Although, it seems to be considerably harder to get one’s hands on firearms in the UK than in the US.
@Scott:
“Drug dealer”, like “pedophile” is the all-purpose Hollywood villain. In the minds of most people, they aren’t actual people at all, but shadowy demons lurking in the corners.
So it stands to reason that a question “Is it OK to publicly disembowel drug dealers” will get rousing support and tepid opposition.
But of course, once an actual human is identified as a drug dealer or pedophile- The Sacklers, President Trump, the neighborhood priest-
Suddenly the poll numbers go haywire, and people become jailhouse lawyers contorting themselves into pretzels finding reasons why its just commerce, hoocoodanode opioids were addictive, and did you know there is a difference between a 15 year old and an 8 year old? Its ephebophilia, ackshully!
@Jay L. Gischer:
It is very difficult to acquire handguns these days; a special license is required and is pretty much unobtainable by mebers of the public.
But the majority of farmers or other large landowners have shotguns, and get licensed pretty much by default.
Licenses for rifles are obtainable; but require both legitimate reason (sport shooting) and checks re personal background and weapons security.
Any licence may be revoked by the police at any time.