By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration, under the direction of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, has conducted a series of lethal strikes on alleged drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean, with the latest occurring off the coast of Venezuela. These strikes, the fourth such incident since early September, have been met with condemnation from critics, including legal scholars and human rights groups, who argue the attacks violate international and federal law. Despite these criticisms, the administration has continued the attacks, claiming they target “narco-terrorists” and are vital for national security, even without providing definitive proof of drug trafficking. Legal experts and members of Congress have expressed alarm, pointing to the lack of legal justification and potential for abuse of power.
Read the original article here
“This Is Murder”: Trump Bombs Another Boat in Caribbean
The core concern here revolves around the actions of former President Trump and the military, specifically the targeting of boats in the Caribbean, and the strong accusation that these actions constitute murder. The central point of contention is the legality and morality of these attacks, and there’s a palpable sense of outrage that these actions are perceived as extrajudicial killings carried out without due process.
The key point being raised, which is critical to understanding the gravity of the situation, centers on the role of Congress in declaring war. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, and it’s being stated clearly that Trump’s actions in unilaterally attacking boats violate this fundamental principle. There is a sense of disbelief and frustration regarding the idea of a president operating outside of constitutional boundaries.
The argument is that such actions should be grounds for impeachment, highlighting the belief that Trump is overstepping his authority. Furthermore, there’s talk of the potential for Trump to be tried for murder for these alleged extrajudicial killings once he is no longer in office, with the suggestion that international courts like the Hague would be the appropriate venue for such a trial.
The discussion expands to explore potential motives, speculating that these attacks are possibly a prelude to a maritime blockade of Venezuela, potentially under the guise of targeting drug traffickers. The absence of transparency and the lack of verified information about the targeted vessels, specifically the amount of drugs recovered from the boats, fuels the suspicion that these actions are driven by political motivations rather than legitimate law enforcement efforts.
The role of military personnel in carrying out these orders is also under scrutiny. The conversation suggests that military officials and soldiers who follow what are considered illegal orders should also be held accountable. The question is, what is the extent of the military’s responsibility to obey orders, especially those that appear to violate international laws?
There’s a lot of concern around the potential for innocent civilians, political dissidents, or even migrant caravans, to be among those targeted in these attacks. The absence of due process—no trial, no presumption of innocence—is presented as evidence of murder. The sentiment is that these actions are not only illegal but also profoundly immoral, with a heavy emphasis on the execution of individuals without any form of legal recourse.
The focus then shifts to the potential use of the situation to manufacture a crisis, where a conflict could be exploited to extend emergency powers, effectively sidestepping democratic processes and the checks and balances of government. The potential for the U.S. military to be entangled in an unjustified war based on dubious claims and political machinations is also being questioned.
The cost effectiveness and justification for this action, with its reliance on expensive weaponry like Hellfire missiles, is also being scrutinized. The attacks on fishing boats is another aspect of the matter that adds to the controversy, and questioning whether this is a cost effective way to combat drug trafficking.
The underlying concern is that Trump is trying to create the circumstances of a war to his own benefit, potentially to postpone elections or gain a political advantage. Some believe his goal is to be a wartime president. The fear is that Congress will be compelled to fund a war that they did not authorize, further eroding democratic norms.
The discussion also mentions the War Powers Act, which allows a president to take military action unilaterally, though it is a point of contention regarding the extent of these actions. The issue is further complicated by the legal immunity that a president might have for actions undertaken while in office, making it harder to hold Trump accountable through domestic legal channels.