By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The United States military struck a suspected drug-carrying vessel in the Caribbean, marking the first time survivors were taken into custody during the Trump administration’s attacks in the region. President Trump confirmed the attack, which brought the death toll from the strikes to at least 28. Legal experts have questioned the legality of the strikes due to the use of military force and the authorization of covert action in Venezuela. The survivors are being held on a U.S. Navy vessel, and their future remains unclear, with questions arising about their legal status.
Read the original article here
The U.S. has seized survivors after a strike Thursday on a suspected drug-carrying vessel in the Caribbean, according to AP sources, marking a concerning escalation in the region. This is the first time since President Trump initiated these deadly attacks in the Caribbean that the U.S. has taken survivors into custody, adding a new layer of complexity and ethical considerations to the situation. It’s hard to ignore the gravity of this development, as it raises questions about the long-term implications for these individuals and the ongoing military operations.
This recent incident brings to light the fact that this is believed to be at least the sixth strike since early September. However, it’s the first one to produce survivors who were recovered by the U.S. military. The details about the people’s fate are not immediately clear, adding to the uncertainty surrounding this operation. Reports suggest that these survivors are currently aboard a U.S. military vessel, but their ultimate destination and legal status remain unknown. It makes you wonder how these people are being treated, and what kind of due process will be given to them.
The fact that this strike has not yet been publicly acknowledged by the Trump administration makes the situation even more opaque, as these reports are based on information from anonymous sources. This lack of transparency and acknowledgement by the government only fuels further suspicion and questions about the motivations behind these actions. In a sense, it feels like we are dealing with a clandestine operation, with the public and any potential oversight being kept out of the loop.
Based on these attacks, the death toll from the Trump administration’s military action against vessels in the region is now at least 28. This number is just a stark reminder of the human cost of these operations and the devastating impact they have on the people involved. The question that comes to mind is: Is this the only option? With the number of fatalities and no real end to the problem, one could question the effectiveness of these attacks as a strategy.
The justifications for these strikes, as stated by the Trump administration, are based on the premise that the United States is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels. This is done by relying on the same legal authority that the Bush administration used when it declared a war on terror after the Sept. 11 attacks. This includes the ability to capture and detain combatants and use lethal force to eliminate their leadership. This certainly brings about an interesting debate as to whether this is a just method to go about handling the problem, and is a worrying precedent if this is the only legal authority being used.
With the capture of survivors, the future is uncertain and a complex legal landscape is being created for these individuals. The question of whether they are prisoners of war or defendants in a criminal case is a question that needs to be answered. Without comment from the White House, the fate of these survivors is unknown, leaving those of us observing to wonder about how this issue is going to be handled.
The initial reports of the strike were released by Reuters. Many raise concerns that the military is not doing enough to ensure that the vessels that are suspected of illegal activity should be inspected instead of simply destroyed. This is a reasonable question, which leads many to wonder if there are other ways to go about catching smugglers and preventing any further attacks on innocent people.
Some comments suggest this whole situation is an abduction of civilians on the open water. This brings about the question: What has actually happened? In the absence of evidence and a failure to follow due process, the U.S. is potentially operating outside of the bounds of international law. It’s easy to see why some may interpret this as a tactic that is more fascist than anything else.
One person who may have been involved in the situation claims to be a fisherman, which brings another question into the mix. Is this about stopping drug trafficking, or a way to get people off the streets? The issue of drug trafficking is a serious one, but the lack of transparency and evidence is a great cause for alarm. This is a very complex problem that may be getting handled in a heavy-handed fashion.
It’s been suggested that the U.S. may have seized these survivors because they could prove they were just fishermen. The government may also be trying to destroy evidence in an attempt to justify what they are doing. These accusations do bring a sense of distrust in the motives of those involved.
There is a sense of indignation as many wonder how the U.S. is able to take these actions on international waters. This could potentially be against international law, which could be creating future problems for the U.S. It may come as a surprise to those involved, but the world is watching, and is likely to start responding in the near future.
It’s clear that many people feel that there are better ways to approach this problem, such as interdiction, rather than straight to missiles. These attacks and the seizure of survivors raises moral and legal questions, and is a stark reminder of the human cost of the so-called war on drugs. The U.S. has now been labeled as “kidnapping” civilians with no evidence, which could be setting a dangerous precedent for future international relations.
It is interesting to note that one of the things that the U.S. could be facing is that these captured survivors may also have a story to tell, which could create a difficult situation for the U.S. With the lack of details on this whole situation, it will be interesting to see what the future holds for the survivors, and what actions the U.S. will take next.