I called in artillery in Vietnam — I can tell you Trump and his henchmen are full of it

Idaho’s U.S. Sen. Jim Risch proclaimed in a Dec. 11 meeting of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the “attacks in the Caribbean are absolutely, totally and 100 percent legal under U.S. law and international law.”

Those strikes have produced a body count nearing 100 since Sept. 2.

Oregon U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley effectively debunked Risch’s argument, pointing out that only Congress has the power to declare war under the U.S. Constitution.

Risch incorrectly claimed that the killings were “clearly not a war, but kinetic action,” as though that somehow got around the Constitution. His response makes no sense because the violence of war is always kinetic action.

There is no need to get into the legal weeds about the legality of Trump’s Caribbean killings because that has been well established in the last three months. Even the Department Of Defense’s new AI chatbox, which Secretary Pete Hegseth proudly announced on Dec. 9, said that an order to kill two survivors of a boat strike would be “an unambiguously illegal order.”

On Oct. 28, Reuters reported that some U.S. military officials have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements with regard to Trump’s Latin American adventures. That adds an element of guilt awareness to those operations.

Let me give the input of someone who was in the position of pulling the trigger on suspect people on the ground during the Vietnam War. I spent hundreds of hours as an aerial observer flying at about 800 feet in a small two-seat “bird dog” aircraft. I had at my disposal six 8-inch guns (200-pound shells) and six 175 mm guns (165- pound shells) from my heavy artillery battalion.

Most of my combat missions were over “free fire zones” where everyone was presumed to be an enemy. The war had been approved by Congress in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (later found to have been based on false information).

Even though we could fire on practically anyone in the free fire zones, we were prohibited from firing on civilians. I would not have done so anyway. I lived with South Vietnamese soldiers, respected the Vietnamese people and would not have exposed civilians to danger.

On the other hand, I had no qualms about calling fire upon North Vietnamese Army soldiers because my job was protecting U.S. troops and our South Vietnamese friends.

When you saw people near the edges of the free fire zones, you had to evaluate the circumstances and determine whether or not there were indications of military affiliation. The two kids with a water buffalo on the edge of the free fire zones were definitely not targets. The man driving his donkey cart into the free fire zones was most likely a woodchopper. The three guys on bikes in the middle of the free fire zones were definitely North Vietnamese Army and legitimate targets.

The other aerial observers that I knew, and the pilots who flew them, acted in a similar manner. We followed the rule of engagement, which included U.S. and international rules of war.

Had I been overhead for any of the Trump/Hegseth strikes, I would not have pulled the trigger — no declared war, no enemy combatants, clearly civilians and no justification for “kinetic action.” The proper course of action would be to call the U.S. Coast Guard to interdict and search the boats, like they have historically done. Last year, the Coast Guard seized 225 metric tons of cocaine. The U.S. would have to destroy a heck of a lot of narco speed boats to equal that tonnage.

These present boat strikes have a feature that was not in existence back in Vietnam days. Then, the aerial observer and pilot were the only people who knew the situation on the ground. We were largely on the honor system in deciding who should live or die.

Now military personnel up and down the ladder may have eyes on the situation. Not only that, but a video record is being made of each strike. Any person who sees a strike being carried out and does not raise concerns about its legality may be called to account, even years later.

Keep in mind that both Trump and Hegseth have gleefully announced the strikes and vowed to kill all other alleged “narco-terrorists.” They might be surprised to learn that several victims of the Sept. 2 strike were not drug merchants.

The U.S. Supreme Court essentially immunized Trump against any kind of charges that could result from the strikes, but Hegseth and the military personnel with eyes-on participation in the strikes could find themselves in legal hot water down the road for these summary executions.

Sen. Risch should study the law and avoid covering up for MAGA lawbreakers.

• Jim Jones served eight years as Idaho attorney general (1983-1991) and 12 years as justice of the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017). He also publishes at substack.com/@jjcommontater.