In spite of having launched an unprecedented assault on the rule of law, members of the Trump administration have faced precious little accountability up to this point. However, that may be changing now that it appears as though someone in the Pentagon could be guilty of having committed a war crime.

While the overall legality of lethal strikes against boats that, according to the administration, are carrying drugs is very much in question, there is no doubt that attacking and killing the defenseless occupants of those vessels after the ships were disabled violates the law of war.

In fact, as we pointed out, that very scenario is the actual example used in the Defense Department’s own manual to describe what an illegal order to commit a law of war violation would look like.

This is so bad that even Republicans on Capitol Hill want to look into it.

And not just that. To much of the rest of the world, war crimes are a serious issue, so it is quite possible that the International Criminal Court will look into these strikes in international waters. And while the US does not recognize the ICC (specifically because it does not want to be held accountable for violating international law), finding yourself in the crosshairs of the court is no small matter.

Just ask Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu why his plane took such a circuitous route when travelling to the US in September. And, since you likely won’t talk to Bibi, we’ll just give you the answer: Netanyahu had to avoid EU airspace because the ICC has issued a warrant for his arrest for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, and European countries would have to execute that warrant if he set foot on their territory.

Therefore, if it were to be determined that these attacks in general, and the September 2 “double tap” in particular, constitute an illegal use of force and extrajudicial murders, then all of those involved would find it more difficult to travel to any of the 125 countries that recognize the authority of the ICC.

So far, the administration’s main reaction to reporting from the Washington Post that former Fox News morning show host and current Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered all occupants of these alleged drug boats to be killed has been predictable.

After initially claiming that this is all just “fake news” (and later acknowledging that it was not), everybody is now trying to pass the buck.

Trump himself said he would not have ordered a second strike on defenseless boat occupants while Hegseth has been doing his best to throw Admiral Frank Bradley, the man who gave that order, under the bus.

But none of that makes for a good narrative, and it’s certainly not a good look for the administration, which is why White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and Hegseth’s former colleagues at Fox News are trying to make Democrats out to be the bad guys (even though Republicans have also been highly critical of the boat strike).

Specifically, Miller is trying to make it sound as though objecting to war crimes is the same as supporting the bad guys.

“This is the first time I can ever think where a major political party has sided with narco-trafficking murdering terrorist scum,” he shrieked on Fox News Wednesday evening.

And multiple hosts of the right-wing propaganda outlet also suggested that violating the rules of war to kill these “terrorists” could not possibly be wrong.

That is, of course, nonsense.

Even if you were to believe that drug traffickers are “terrorists,” which is quite a stretch, simply pointing out that there are laws in place stipulating how you can treat them is not the same as “siding” with them.

Nobody is saying: “Hey, instead of killing the people in those boats, let’s invite them into the United States and give them cookies and milk.”

What Democrats (and, in this case, plenty of Republicans) are saying, however, is that the rule of law applies even to the worst offenders and that they, too, have rights.

That is one of the bedrock principles upon which the United States was founded.

When it comes to armed conflicts, which the Trump administration claims that its fight against the cartels is, these rules are not only detailed in US laws but also in the Geneva Conventions, which stipulate how enemies must be treated in times of conflict.

And it’s not by blowing them up when they are clinging to the wreckage of their boats in international waters.

Earlier on Wednesday, Fox News host Jesse Watters seemed baffled by this concept.

But these rules are in place for a reason. US laws, for example, are supposed to protect all Americans from government overreach. After all, if you can take people’s rights away simply by declaring them to be “terrorists,” then what would stop a president from proclaiming that all Catholics or redheads or library card holders are terrorists?

And the countries that signed the Geneva Conventions did so in large part because they want their own soldiers and civilians to be treated well during times of war.

The Trump administration, however, doesn’t want to be bound by any of these rules. Not the Constitution, not international laws, and not even norms of common decency.

By the way, this isn’t the first time that propagandists like Miller, with an assist from Fox News, have tried to convince people that standing up for due process and the rule of law is the same as siding with criminals.

That was also their main argument when Democrats fought for the immigrants that the administration had shipped off to a prison in El Salvador.

Back then, administration officials had also claimed that insisting individuals like Kilmar Abrego Garcia have rights is the same as defending “terrorists.”

While that argument might have worked with the MAGA crowd, polling shows that most other Americans were not buying it. Instead, they wanted the administration to abide by court rulings and, in the case of Abrego Garcia, they believed he should have been returned to the US.

We can only hope that Miller’s demagoguery will fail once again in this case, and that Americans understand that the rule of law is sacrosanct, even when it protects real or alleged bad guys.