We are a Sovereign Nation

Since the founding of the United States, over 1.3 million Americans have died in wars, and more than 1.1 million people have died from drug overdoses since 1970. The total number of U.S. military deaths from all wars—including both battle deaths and non-combat related causes—exceeds 1.3 million. Of these, approximately 666,000 died in battle, and another 674,000 died from other causes such as disease and accidents while serving. The deadliest conflicts were the Civil War, with nearly 500,000 deaths, and World War II, with over 400,000 deaths,

Since 1970, more than 1,106,900 Americans have died from drug overdoses. This crisis has accelerated sharply in recent decades, with more than 100,000 deaths per year reported since 2021. The majority of recent overdose deaths are related to synthetic opioids, particularly fentanyl.

Recently, after President Trump took decisive action by destroying a Venezuelan small boat suspected of carrying drugs, political and legal pundits—as well as various media commentators—have criticized the United States and its leadership, alleging violations of international law and accusations of war crimes. Below is a letter written by a friend who is a respected attorney and has spent much of his career practicing international law at the highest levels, both as a civilian and in government. I do not claim to provide a legal argument equal to his expertise. As a layperson, the core question is simple: In matters of self-defense, must we seek permission from international agencies before acting to protect our people?

His letter to me is presented first, followed by my response, which is based on research through AI tools—Perplexity, Co-Pilot, and X-I research. My work does not match the depth of his legal opinion.

My position remains that our leaders have a moral obligation to uphold their oath to “protect and defend” our Constitution and country. Obligations to foreign courts and agencies, such as the United Nations, are secondary.

“While illicit drugs, particularly fentanyl, are a grave threat that must be addressed, there are right and wrong ways to respond. What occurred this week was definitively a wrong way; murdering eleven unidentified people on the high seas is inexcusable, even if it was purportedly in pursuit of the war on drugs. There was no concrete evidence that the boat was involved in drug trafficking. Typically, drug boats carry only two people—not eleven. Even if it had been a drug boat, killing the crew with military weapons constitutes murder. Proper procedure would be to stop and inspect the boat and, if confirmed as a drug vessel, seize the boat and detain the crew. The precedent set by this incident, which resulted in a blatant breach of international law and the unlawful killing of civilians, is unacceptable. Even a “declaration of war against drugs” does not justify such actions.”

My response, supported by AI-assisted research and my perspective as a concerned citizen:

International courts, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ), hold very limited authority over the U.S. government, especially when the United States acts in self-defense or responds to attacks. The ICC investigates and prosecutes war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, but the U.S. is not a member of the ICC and does not recognize its jurisdiction over American nationals or government actions. The ICC can only assert jurisdiction if alleged crimes take place on the territory of a member state or are referred by the UN Security Council. U.S. law, including the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act, actively deters ICC proceedings against U.S. citizens.

The ICJ settles disputes between nations but has no enforcement mechanism over the U.S. beyond what the United States voluntarily accepts through treaties. According to Article 51 of the UN Charter, all states retain the inherent right to self-defense if an armed attack occurs, and Security Council action would be necessary to limit this right. The alignment of U.S. actions with international law is subject to ongoing debate, and enforcement is ultimately political; real consequences depend on international consensus, Security Council votes—where the U.S. has veto power—and diplomatic pressures.

International courts can publicly judge U.S. actions or recommend remedies, but practical enforcement is minimal unless the U.S. voluntarily complies. The U.S. government asserts national sovereignty and rejects foreign jurisdiction, at times sanctioning international bodies attempting to prosecute American officials. In summary, international courts have no direct authority over U.S. government decisions regarding self-defense, except to issue legal opinions or influence global politics.

The United States has a right to defend itself. Failure to do so would violate the oath sworn to defend the nation “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Some recent leaders have struggled to understand this duty and, instead, prioritized allegiance to international norms, sometimes interpreted as a “New World Order.”

The President’s obligation to defend the Constitution and nation takes precedence over adherence to international law—American law and sovereignty ultimately guide presidential actions. International courts have limited enforceability over U.S. operations, especially regarding self-defense or national security matters. The U.S. does not recognize ICC jurisdiction for its citizens, enforcing its own standards for acts of war or self-defense.

While international human rights norms matter, U.S. policy is determined first and foremost by constitutional obligations and the President’s moral judgment. International agencies can shape public opinion, but they cannot override the President’s duty to protect Americans or the primacy of U.S. law and sovereignty.