By Matt Underwood Family of Trinidadian man believed killed in US strike demands proof of drug trafficking, and frankly, it’s a pretty reasonable request. When a life is taken, especially in what appears to be a military operation, the burden of proof shouldn’t be on the bereaved family to *disprove* accusations. It should be on those who authorized the strike to demonstrate the necessity and legality of their actions. Simply put, if the claim is that the man was involved in drug trafficking and that justified his death, then let’s see the evidence.
The argument that even if he *was* involved in illicit activities, blowing up a boat full of people is wrong, is pretty hard to argue with, even without the legal context. We’re talking about due process, a fundamental principle of justice. The idea is that everyone, regardless of their alleged crimes, is entitled to a fair trial, a chance to defend themselves, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This whole idea of summary execution, particularly in international waters, just doesn’t sit right with basic notions of fairness. It’s like the Wild West, where the law of the gun reigns supreme, rather than the law of the land.
And the question of jurisdiction looms large. Where did this alleged strike take place? Did the US have the right, under international law, to take action in that location? Does the US even have the standing in international waters to attack others? We’re told that Trump suspended due process. Regardless of who is in charge, it’s a terrifying prospect. It opens the door to all sorts of abuses, and the fact that it is a frequent occurrence should be concerning.
Now, let’s address the claims of drug trafficking. It’s important to remember that accusing someone of a crime, especially a serious one, doesn’t automatically mean it’s true. The family is right to demand proof, not just vague accusations or assertions. Without concrete evidence, the whole operation just looks like a blatant disregard for human life and the rule of law. And, if they actually had the proof, the cartel wouldn’t know who the leak was. It will never surface.
The argument that a death sentence is deserved just because someone may be involved in drug trafficking opens up a very dangerous precedent. Imagine the implications: any country could potentially justify killing individuals in another country, claiming they were involved in illegal activities, without providing any due process. This would be a massive violation of human rights and international law, turning the world into a very dangerous place.
Think about the bigger picture. If there was indeed technology used to track and destroy the boat, wouldn’t that same technology be capable of tracking the individuals for an arrest? The ability to track doesn’t necessarily mean a reason to destroy. The response shouldn’t be a weapon, it should be an arrest. And the fact that the Coast Guard can’t catch these high-speed cigarette racing boats is quite an irony.
I also wonder, if the US is acting like the world police in this instance, what’s stopping another country from doing the same? How do you prevent other countries from claiming the right to attack American citizens in their own waters? It’s a slippery slope, and the consequences could be devastating.
The current administration, like previous ones, has utilized drone strikes and other forms of targeted killing, too. While there may be attempts to limit civilian casualties, the very nature of these operations raises ethical and legal questions. Some may try to defend it, invoking the “war on terror” narrative, and trying to manufacture consent. But it’s crucial to acknowledge the serious implications of these actions.
Finally, we have to consider the context of these actions. The trade-off of liberty for perceived safety has been a recurring theme since the events of 9/11. Ben Franklin’s words echo through the ages: those who sacrifice essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither. It’s a sobering thought, and one that should give us all pause as we grapple with these complex issues. We should be weary of the claims that something is for our “safety”.