By Matt Underwood Pentagon says it struck another suspected drug boat in Pacific, killing three, and the immediate reaction, it seems, is a mix of outrage and disbelief. The very notion of taking a life based on mere suspicion is deeply unsettling. The term “suspected” throws everything into question, raising valid points about due process and the right to a fair trial. The complete absence of evidence, of definitive proof of wrongdoing, seems to be a major concern, and rightly so. Many are asking if there are other ways to handle these suspected drug smugglers, such as sending out boats to verify the contents of the boat. The primary concern is that potentially innocent people are being killed, and that raises serious ethical and legal implications.
The act of killing someone on the basis of suspicion, especially without any form of trial, is being compared to murder. This is not simply a matter of legality or illegality, but of fundamental human rights. There are worries about the escalation of these actions. It’s easy to imagine how this could extend to other scenarios: shooting down planes, targeting hikers, all based on a similar level of suspicion. The fear is that the definition of what constitutes a threat to national security will continue to broaden, paving the way for the elimination of anyone the powers that be deem a threat.
The nature of the drug trade itself presents a challenge, as it is difficult to distinguish legitimate maritime activities from illicit ones. Fishing boats, recreational vessels, and commercial ships all share the same waters as drug smugglers. It’s not like the smugglers are announcing their presence. This raises questions about how the authorities are able to identify and target these boats with any degree of accuracy. There are concerns of a potential “slippery slope” leading to the unjust killing of anyone who is perceived as a threat.
The very fact that these operations are being carried out in secret, without any public oversight, increases the likelihood of abuse. The government can choose to share the information about these activities. This lack of transparency only fuels suspicion and allows for the potential of corruption and abuse of power. The idea that these are war crimes or crimes against humanity is not easily dismissed. The argument that the United States is operating outside the bounds of international law is also a serious concern.
The argument that the US intelligence agencies are the best in the world and are capable of accurately identifying drug smugglers is countered by those who believe that the targeting of the boats is simply a cover-up. The fact that the Pentagon is not providing evidence or details to anyone seems to be a clear indication that it has no real proof. This lack of transparency and accountability is deeply troubling. The claim that they are just targeting the boats that appear suspicious is troubling.
Many people are questioning the legality and the ethics of these actions. They are also questioning what authority the US has to kill people in international waters, even if they are carrying drugs. The focus remains on the “suspected” designation. Even if the boats were proven to be carrying drugs, the lack of due process and the extrajudicial nature of the killings is an issue. The idea that the US can simply declare someone a threat and then eliminate them, especially on foreign soil, raises serious questions about the nation’s respect for international law and human rights.
There is a sense that the government is operating with impunity and that these actions are part of a larger pattern of abuse. The feeling is that the government is just racking up more war crimes. The question of whether these actions are acts of war is an important one. The possibility that these actions could eventually be brought before international courts, such as The Hague, is not out of the question.
The lack of public outrage over these actions is quite perplexing, given the seriousness of the allegations. It suggests a certain level of apathy or acceptance of the actions, which is dangerous in a democratic society.