By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to two U.S. officials, the Trump administration has yet to provide lawmakers with concrete evidence proving that vessels targeted in fatal military strikes were carrying narcotics, despite claiming they were drug-smuggling boats. The administration has released unclassified videos of the strikes but has not provided further evidence. This has led to mounting bipartisan frustration and questions regarding the legal justifications for the strikes. A small group of administration officials, including Marco Rubio, are reportedly driving the push to carry out strikes against drug cartels, bypassing traditional interagency processes.
Read the original article here
Trump has yet to provide Congress hard evidence that targeted boats carried drugs, officials say, and this lack of evidence raises some pretty serious questions. It’s almost as if the whole situation is a carefully crafted illusion, a spectacle designed to distract from more pressing issues.
The fact that there’s no evidence is, frankly, not surprising. It’s becoming a familiar pattern. We’ve seen it time and again with this former president: the promises, the accusations, the dramatic pronouncements – all lacking the fundamental bedrock of proof. The wall? Still waiting. Election fraud? Still waiting. And now, the justification for potentially lethal actions in international waters? Still waiting.
The core of the issue here seems to be a profound disregard for the law and for ethical considerations. Even if, hypothetically, those boats *were* carrying drugs, the response – potentially blowing them out of the water – is wildly disproportionate. It suggests a willingness to engage in what could be considered extrajudicial killings, executed in international waters for a crime that, in most jurisdictions, isn’t even a capital offense. This raises red flags about due process, international law, and the very definition of justice.
It seems the entire operation might be more about the “shock and awe” of it all. Such an approach, however, disregards the victims, their families, and the broader implications for international relations. A real effort to combat drug trafficking, one that prioritized justice and accountability, would have involved a different approach. It might have involved surveillance, interdiction, and apprehension, followed by a legal process. Instead, what we’re left with is the impression of a rash and perhaps illegal action.
Even if the boats had been carrying illicit cargo, destroying them from a distance is not the smart play. It’s a gamble that destroys any potential for intelligence gathering, of finding out the source or destination. The smart play, for the purpose of investigation, is to capture the vessels, not obliterate them. It suggests a deeper issue; a desire for spectacle over substance, a preference for making headlines over effective law enforcement.
The silence regarding the evidence is telling. The lack of proof raises the obvious question of why. The answer is perhaps quite simple: there is none. The boats may well have been fishing vessels, with fishing crews aboard, and not a single gram of illicit substances. The fact that this hasn’t been clarified adds another layer to this tangled web.
The potential for abuses of power is really what is at the core of the issue. It suggests that those who complied with the orders may have betrayed their oaths and committed criminal acts. It’s a somber thought. It makes you wonder about the commanders involved and the legal justifications they might have used.
The disdain for evidence, for facts, has become a defining characteristic of this administration. The refusal to provide proof is just another example. It’s a dismissal of scientific inquiry, of the importance of verifiable data. It’s all part of a pattern of behavior that has eroded trust in institutions and fostered a climate of cynicism and division.
The whole situation calls into question the integrity of those who issued the orders, and those who carried them out. The world can’t afford to be party to war crimes. It could well have been a blatant disregard for international norms, and a failure to recognize the importance of evidence-based decision-making.
This episode serves as a reminder that the truth matters, and that accountability is essential. It serves as a reminder that those in positions of power must be held to the highest standards. It must be scrutinized, and any wrongdoing must be investigated and prosecuted. It’s about upholding the principles of justice, and ensuring that such actions never happen again.