I don't care what happens to people who risk their lives running drugs. I do care that our military not be abused.

I think drug running is a crime, and should be treated as such. Obviously, we are treating the "boat people" as something more than criminals. No effort is made to arrest them or even give them a chance to surrender. No effort is made to track the boats to their destination to learn more about the criminal enterprise.

We have chosen to execute these boat people with our military. Is that legal? If anybody has any direct experience, hearing your opinion would be greatly appreciated.

I have seen people opine that our boat strikes are legal because the people killed are members of FTOs. I can't find any law authorizing use of lethal force just because someone is a member of an FTO. If it exists, please let us know. Thanks

Taking the easy way out, here's what Chat GPT sez:
---------

The designation of a group as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) does not give the United States government a blanket legal authority to kill all members of that group.

Here’s why:

---

1. FTO designation is primarily a domestic legal tool

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1189, the Secretary of State’s FTO designation mainly:

criminalizes material support to the group,

allows asset freezes,

permits immigration-related consequences (e.g., inadmissibility, deportation).

It does not itself authorize the use of military force against the group or its members.

---

2. Lethal force requires a separate legal basis

For the U.S. to use military force—especially lethal force—it must rely on independent authority:

A. Congress: Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)

For example:

2001 AUMF (Al-Qaeda, Taliban, associated forces)

2002 AUMF (Iraq)

An FTO designation does not create an AUMF.

B. Article II presidential authority

Limited to self-defense of the U.S. when there is:

an imminent threat, and

no time for congressional authorization.

C. International law: jus ad bellum + jus in bello

Even in warfare:

Only combatants may be targeted,

Targeting must comply with distinction, necessity, proportionality, and

Persons hors de combat (surrendering, wounded, captured) cannot be lawfully killed.

Being a member of a designated FTO does not automatically make someone a lawful target unless they are part of an organized armed group that is a party to an armed conflict with the U.S.

---

3. Even in armed conflict, not all members are targetable

The U.S. adheres to the ICRC concept (though with U.S. modifications) of:

Continuous Combat Function: only persons who perform continuous combat roles within the group can be targeted at all times.

This excludes:

cooks,

drivers,

sympathizers,

family members,

support personnel without combat roles.

The U.S. government has repeatedly stated that it does not treat FTO membership alone as sufficient to kill someone.

---

4. The U.S. Supreme Court view

Cases like Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Boumediene v. Bush underscore:

The executive’s war powers derive from AUMFs,

Individuals must be part of forces engaged in hostilities,

FTO designation alone is irrelevant to targeting authority.

---

Conclusion

No—designating an organization as an FTO does not legally justify killing all its members.
Lethal force requires:

1. A separate legal authorization (AUMF or Article II self-defense), and

2. Compliance with international humanitarian law, which requires distinction between combatants and non-combatants."