ICE BECOMES AUTOCRATIC TOOL

It is generally accepted that, historically, a common survival strategy for autocratic leaders includes forming a personal paramilitary support group. These groups serve to counterbalance the regular military, strengthen security services and provide an armed force loyal directly to the leaders, rather than the state or constitution. The difference between military and paramilitary is that the military consists of a nation's official state-run armed forces for external defense, while a paramilitary is a civilian force with military-like structure and training, typically focused on internal security, law enforcement, or border patrol, often under a different ministry like Homeland Security, or even operating independently. While these support groups generally engage in official functions, their purpose over time may transition into focused enforcement of the doctrine of a ruling faction or individual. Examples are plentiful. Hitler's "Schutzstaffel' (Protection Squadron or S.S.) became the most powerful and feared entity in Nazi Germany, responsible for enforcing the party's racial policy. Mussolini's "Black Shirts," the paramilitary wing of his Italian Fascist Party, morphed from internal security to being used for widely feared political terror and implementing genocide. "Fedayeen Saddam" in Iraq, "Janjaweed" in Darfur, the "Staci" in East Germany, Soviet/Russian "Spetsnaz" and others are among an overwhelming number of examples. Many of these have been credibly accused of maintaining political control by instilling fear and carrying out campaigns of ethnic cleansing. These often amount to forcibly removing unwanted ethnic or religious groups from a given territory through a combination of violence, terror and displacement. Given the political turmoil and upheaval emanating from our federal government, and the egocentric decision making process emerging from the president's cabinet, have raised the question whether Donald Trump is a wannabe dictator. His rhetoric, challenge of Democratic norms, public threats to opponents, praise for foreign autocrats, and determined pursuit of replacing non-partisan public servants with personal loyalists have many political analysts convinced that he, in fact, is. Just as important is the question whether "ICE" (the U.S. "Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency") is being groomed to become Mr. Trump's personal paramilitary group. ICE was created in March of 2003, as part of the new "Department of Homeland Security" following the 9/11 attacks. Its purpose was to better secure the nation by consolidating enforcement, identifying security vulnerabilities, and promoting public safety through the enforcement of immigration and trade laws. It is not an independent paramilitary group. However, under the Trump administration, ICE tactics, a significant increase in funding and manpower, and a perceived shift in mission, have led critics, including civil rights organizations and media commentators, to describe the agency as operating with paramilitary behavior and function as a de facto "secret police" or a personal paramilitary force. Secret police are a quintessential feature of an authoritarian regime. From Azerbaijan's State Security Service to Zimbabwe's Central Intelligence Organization, these agencies typically target political opponents and dissidents through covert surveillance , imprisonment and physical violence. Since President Trump assumed power in January, ICE has become a far more visible and fearsome force on American streets, and, although it is ostensibly still bound by constitutional restraints, the way it has been operating bears the hallmarks of a secret police force in the making. ICE members are now targeting political opponents and dissidents. Even though the agency does not report directly to Trump, ICE is controlled by people who have shown intense loyalty to him - like DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Border Czar Tom Homan. Ice agents operate in secret. They have procured increasingly more sophisticated intelligence capabilities. They conduct arbitrary searches. And while it does not yet resemble history's most feared secret police force, there have been very few constraints on how it operates. The question of whether ICE actions related to the removal of immigrants amount to ethnic cleansing is a subject of significant debate, political rhetoric and legal challenges. Critics argue that mass deportations and racial profiling disproportionately affect Latino and non-white communities regardless of their legal status. In effect, Latinos make up 90% of ICE arrests. Donald Trump has made it clear that he prefers immigrants from western European countries, like Norway. He referred to immigrants from other countries, like Somalia and Haiti as "garbage," coming from "shit hole countries" who he does not want in our country. His administration appears to slant towards favoring a white population as its "master race." According to the Department of Homeland Security, as of December 10, more than 2.5 million "illegal aliens" have left the U.S. A reported 1.9 million have voluntarily self-deported. ICE operations have resulted in 605,000 deportations. The organization is operating a network of over 200 major detention facilities, including jails, private prisons and other temporary holding areas. Critics have compared some of the larger detention centers in Florida, Texas and Arizona to notorious concentration camps, because of overcrowding, poor conditions, and family separations. Moreover, human rights organizations have documented hundreds of cases where inmates have disappeared from tracking systems, making their location essentially unknown. These statistics, countless cases of abuse, excessive force, deporting migrants back to countries they had fled for security reasons, or transferring individuals to countries where they have never been, or never even heard of, would make us believe that we are gradually descending into a totalitarian abyss. When combined with its obvious shift towards targeting U.S. citizens for dissent and disobedience, it is not much of a stretch to suggest that ICE has become a tool in support of a creeping autocracy. Theo Wierdsma

OBEY OR DEFY SUPERIOR ORDERS

Since September of this year, on orders from President Donald Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, the U.S. military executed air strikes on more than 21 vessels in the Caribbean Sea and the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Many of these vessels have been identified as fishing boats, and most of the 83 casualties were believed to have been Venezuelan or Colombian fishermen. On October 16, the Commander of the Southern Command, Admiral Alvin Holsey, a 37 year veteran, after less than a year in his role, following disputes over these military strikes, announced his retirement from the navy and "serving as commander" effective December 12. His announcement came just days after the U.S. conducted its 5th known strike on a boat, killing six people. On October 31, Volker Turk, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, cited that these air strikes violated international human rights law and were executed under circumstances that suggested no justification in international law, and had to stop immediately. Although the U.S. defended its operations as part of its ongoing effort to combat drug trafficking and terrorism, Mr. Turk insisted that the international use of lethal force is only lawful as a last resort, when individuals pose an imminent threat to life. A few weeks later, Senator Mark Kelly (D-Az) , supported by five other lawmakers who had served in the military or intelligence community, speaking "directly to members of the military" posted a video telling them that they "can refuse illegal orders," and "stand up for our laws ... our Constitution." In response, President Trump called the video "seditious" and "punishable by death." He echoed "truth social" posts, including one recommending the six be hanged. All of these developments are related. The illegal, illogical military strikes in the Caribbean continued and generated world-wide reactions and expansive discussions the administration might not have foreseen. While Mr. Trump predictably continued to shoot from the hip, his Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, attempted to temper his public reaction. She suggested that the president did not mean to impose a death sentence on the six, but she cautioned that the video was disrespectful and had the potential of inciting violence. She was adamant that all military orders by Trump must be "presumed to be legal." "You can't have a functioning military if there is disorder and chaos within the ranks." However, the ensuing discussion exposed a contentious topic the administration was clearly not ready for., on a topic which may be controversial in some quarters, but one which is actually straight forward. The United States Military Academy at West Point, at its Constitution Corner, prominently displays a plaque stating: "Our American code of military obedience requires that, should orders and the law ever conflict, our officers must obey the law." It clearly suggests that our military officers swear an oath of loyalty to the U.S. Constitution, not to a person or a leader. It pointedly emphasizes that our Constitution reigns supreme over any individual, breaking a principle with the historical tradition of military leaders swearing allegiance to a monarch. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) would likely consider lethal attacks on fishing boats to amount to unlawful killings, or murder, unless a clear justification for the use of force exists. Attacks on suspected drug vessels are seen by many legal experts as extrajudicial killings that violate international human rights and humanitarian law. Striking a vessel in international waters can't be justified as self defense. Secretary Hegseth's demand to "kill them all" and to "leave no survivors" can legally be classified as a call to murder, and expose our operators to be charged under international law. There is no clear legal basis for using lethal force in this situation, and it underscores the argument made by Senator Kelley et al. President Trump's arguments are incredible, illogical and irrelevant. His claim that each of these strikes saves 25,000 U.S. lives because the maneuvers thwarted drug smuggling lacks veracity - there is no proof that these fishing boats carry drugs - and are illogical on the face of it. All of last year drug overdoses killed an estimated 80,000 people in our country, a 27% decrease from 2023.The math does not add up. Besides, accusations that these boats carry fentanyl are patently untrue. Fentanyl comes in from Mexico, not Venezuela. While throughout history, multiple cases of situations in which military subordinates should have questioned their superiors when confronted with illegal orders can be found, two famous cases readily come to mind: the My Lai massacre, and the heinous crimes committed by Nazi officers during World War II. The My Lai massacre is one of the gravest violations of criminal law ever committed by a U.S. soldier. More than 340 innocent civilians, including women and children were murdered at the hands of Army First Lieutenant William Calley Jr. and his subordinates. This situation presented an extreme example of the contradiction between obedience to orders and obedience to international and criminal law. The "Nuremberg defense," the argument that an individual is not responsible for crimes because they were "just following orders from a superior," famously argued, and just as famously rejected during the trials Nazi officers after World War II, established the principle that individuals are responsible for their actions, and must refuse illegal orders. As a result 161 Nazis were convicted, and 37 were sentenced to death. In short, soldiers are required to disobey unlawful orders, and they can be punished for following them. An order is considered unlawful if it is contrary to our Constitution, U.S. laws, lawful superior orders or if it requires the commission of a crime like targeting civilians or torture. This duty to disobey is a core principle, and refusing a manifestly illegal order can be a legal defense if a service members is later court martialed for refusing to obey an order. Theo Wierdsma