By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The United States is repatriating two alleged drug traffickers to Colombia and Ecuador following a military strike on their vessel in the Caribbean Sea. The Trump administration is facing scrutiny regarding the legality of these actions. The administration is defending its actions by claiming an “armed conflict” with Latin American drug cartels, who are allegedly tied to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Read the original article here
U.S. to repatriate survivors of drug boat strike to Colombia, Ecuador. Hmm, this whole situation is raising a lot of questions, isn’t it? It seems like we’re dealing with a complex issue here, and the U.S. government’s decision to repatriate survivors of a boat strike back to Colombia and Ecuador is at the heart of it.
If these individuals were truly involved in drug trafficking, wouldn’t the logical course of action be to take them into custody? The fact that the U.S. is not doing so is leading to speculation. Is this an admission that a civilian boat was targeted? It’s a bit perplexing, isn’t it? Apparently, there’s enough intelligence to justify a strike, but not enough to bring charges in a court of law. It’s almost as if the rules are being bent to fit a predetermined outcome, raising serious questions about due process and the nature of these actions.
The whole scenario brings up a range of thoughts. First, it doesn’t make sense to send alleged drug traffickers “home” without any charges or arrests. It seems contradictory. Are these individuals considered narco-terrorists, to be eliminated without trial? If so, why the rescue? It feels like something is missing from the explanation. Why save these people if they are considered enemies? This decision seems to create a potentially dangerous situation. Sending them back to their alleged terrorist organizations could allow them to continue illegal activities and even lead to retaliatory actions.
Then there is the issue of the survivors themselves. The possibility of the administration’s actions to silence any witnesses to any wrongdoing on the part of the US raises serious concerns. If they have witnessed potential war crimes, surely they should be questioned. The U.S. must be clear about their actions. The administration is essentially allowing these people to go free. It makes you wonder: are they actually drug-dealing terrorists, or is something else going on?
The decision to rescue them after an attack also seems curious. If there was a justification for the initial strike, why the sudden change of heart? Is this a matter of trying to save face after a blunder? There’s also the question of the boat itself. Was it a fishing vessel or something else? And the lack of recovered drugs adds another layer of intrigue. Is there a reason why there wasn’t an investigation? This situation has the potential to lead to lawsuits and demands for accountability. This whole situation looks like it is setting the stage for bigger problems down the road.
Now, there are questions around the type of vessel that was targeted. There are reports that the boat was a semi-submersible. If that is true, then that would suggest an increased likelihood of drug smuggling. Of course, this raises questions about the authority to launch such strikes in the first place, and where it is allowed to be done. It’s difficult to get an answer to any of these questions. Why is there a sudden focus on this issue?
The fact that these individuals are being released without charge raises the suspicion of potential cover-up. It’s not uncommon for governments to avoid admitting mistakes. Does this decision point to a lack of evidence or a desire to avoid legal complications?
The situation is complicated by the involvement of Ecuador and Colombia. They will “take care” of the situation. This could be viewed as a way to avoid direct involvement. It is also an indication of some sort of back room dealings. What happens to the survivors remains a question.
The issue of jurisdiction also comes up. The U.S. courts may not have jurisdiction over these actions if they happened outside U.S. territory. It’s possible that this entire event might fall under the purview of military courts. But what about the civilians on this alleged submarine? What were they doing?
There is also the potential that this is all a pretext for war or conflict. The government could provoke retaliation or manufacture evidence to justify escalating the situation. This decision is questionable. What if, it is all just to control oil supplies? Or perhaps, the aim is to influence the upcoming elections.
It’s a tricky situation. On one hand, people are demanding answers. On the other hand, it seems as though the truth is being hidden. There are a lot of details that are still missing. There are also a lot of assumptions. The fact that survivors are being sent back to their home countries is a troubling one. There are also many issues with jurisdiction.