By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The U.S. military’s recent attack on a vessel in the Caribbean, resulting in the deaths of 11 people, is reminiscent of historical events used to justify interventionism in Latin America. The Trump administration claimed the operation targeted narco-trafficking, but provided ambiguous evidence, echoing the 1898 explosion of the USS Maine that led to the Spanish-American War. This action is viewed as a strategic move to project American strength, particularly in relation to Venezuela, and is supported by figures like Marco Rubio, who is seen as pushing the narrative. Critics argue this continues a pattern of using the “war on drugs” as a pretext for intervention, potentially destabilizing the region and targeting Latino communities in the U.S.
Read the original article here
Trump’s deadly strike on a boat from Venezuela was an act of war. This is not just a strong statement; it’s a jarring reality that demands serious consideration. The very act of ordering the summary execution of foreign nationals and the sinking of a foreign vessel in international waters crosses a fundamental line. It’s a line that separates acceptable diplomatic or even military actions from a clear declaration of hostility.
This kind of action is almost unheard of in modern international relations. Even nations with strained relationships or histories of conflict, like Iran or North Korea, generally operate within established boundaries. They may engage in aggressive tactics, but they rarely resort to this level of outright, unprovoked violence. The fact that no attempt was made to interdict the boat, to offer the crew a chance to surrender, or to verify their identities before the deadly strike is particularly disturbing. It suggests a deliberate intent to kill, not to apprehend or prevent a crime.
The entire situation reeks of an effort to distract from other matters, specifically, the Epstein files. Perhaps the administration saw this as a way to control the narrative, to shift public attention away from uncomfortable truths. The fact that such actions seem to elicit muted reactions, at least in some circles, is troubling. It’s a sign that the norms and expectations of international conduct are being eroded.
The lack of due process is also a key aspect here. In the United States, even those accused of serious drug-related offenses are entitled to legal representation, a trial, and the presumption of innocence. The penalty is not typically death. In this instance, however, there was no investigation, no trial, no opportunity for the accused to defend themselves. The crew was simply eliminated based on an allegation, and the alleged evidence was destroyed along with the vessel. This is not justice; it’s summary execution.
The implications are immense. If the United States can unilaterally decide to execute foreign nationals based on suspicion, it sets a dangerous precedent. It opens the door for other nations to do the same, leading to a potential breakdown of international order. The potential for abuse and miscalculation is enormous. The idea that elections might be cancelled due to war is a chilling thought, another sign of an administration that disregards democratic processes.
The claims that Trump sought to initiate a war is not a new accusation. The assertion that he also started wars with Iran, Venezuela, and Stephen Colbert are serious allegations, all warranting scrutiny. Even the threats made against Canada and Greenland are concerning signs. The alleged deployment of troops within US cities to harass civilians and political opponents is equally troubling. These actions, if true, suggest a pattern of escalating aggression, a willingness to challenge international norms, and a disregard for democratic principles.
This kind of action certainly raises questions about his motivations. Does he see himself above the law? Does he believe that any action, no matter how destructive or illegal, is justified to maintain power? It’s a question that demands an answer, especially in a world where the rules are supposed to be applied equally to everyone.
The correct approach in such a situation, assuming there was legitimate suspicion of illegal activity, would have been to board the vessel, inspect it, and detain the crew. That is the standard operating procedure. This approach protects American interests while upholding international law.
The swiftness with which this action occurred and the subsequent destruction of the vessel and potential evidence is shocking. It smacks of a desperate attempt to eliminate any trace of wrongdoing. The implications of that are enormous.
The idea of war has been used as a pretext for cancelling elections is abhorrent. It denies the fundamental rights of citizens to participate in their government. The actions taken in this situation must be investigated to ensure that justice is served and that this kind of behavior is not repeated.
This is not just a matter of legality; it’s a matter of morality. The lives of innocent people have been taken without any semblance of due process. The world is watching, and the United States’ reputation for upholding the rule of law is at stake. The actions taken are against all humans.