By John Q. Hosedrinker 
AP News has learned the identity of some men killed in U.S. military strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats, thanks to reporting done by Regina Garcia Cano. Through interviews with residents and relatives in Venezuelan villages, it was discovered that the deceased were not narco-terrorists as claimed, but rather men involved in drug running for the first or second time. The reporting was met with significant challenges, as sources were fearful of speaking out due to potential repercussions from the Venezuelan government, including searches and detentions. Despite the challenges, the reporting found widespread poverty and a lack of information that is hindering the ability of families to mourn their lost loved ones.
Read the original article here
What a reporter found when she investigated US military strikes on Venezuelan drug boats boils down to a complicated reality, far from the clean-cut narratives often presented. The central finding, and it’s a crucial one, is that the individuals targeted in the US military strikes *were* indeed involved in drug running. That much is clear. However, the story doesn’t end there, and the details revealed by the investigation are far more nuanced, and significantly more troubling.
The key distinction, and where the investigation really digs in, is the nature of their involvement. These weren’t, as the Trump administration seemingly implied, high-level narco-terrorists, kingpins of cartels, or the masterminds of a vast criminal enterprise. Instead, they were more like the grunts, the expendable mules, the people who were doing the dangerous, low-level work of transporting the drugs. This is the difference between the guy who organizes the deal and the guy who drives the boat.
Essentially, the reporter’s findings expose a disturbing picture: the US military was carrying out extrajudicial executions against suspected drug runners, targeting individuals who, while engaged in criminal activity, were not necessarily posing an imminent national security threat as far as any real evidence is concerned. There was no due process, no trials, no chance to defend themselves. This absence of legal procedure is a major issue because it raises serious questions about international law and the very definition of justice. These actions, regardless of the individuals’ criminal activities, arguably constitute war crimes.
Furthermore, the scale of the operation and the resources deployed become a point of contention. The US was spending what is assumed to be an absurd amount of money and military power to take out some of the lowest-level participants in the drug trade. This begs the question: is this really an effective strategy? Is it a genuine attempt to combat the flow of drugs into the US, or is it a show of force, a political statement designed to appeal to a specific audience?
The investigation also sheds light on the nature of the drug trade itself. It’s a complex and layered operation, involving a network of people at various levels of involvement. These aren’t just isolated individuals. It’s not difficult to imagine these are mostly fishermen who are offered an incredible amount of money relative to their typical income, to run drugs for a trip. In these situations, the people at the bottom of the ladder are often the easiest targets, the ones who can be eliminated without disrupting the entire operation.
The responses to this news are mixed and reflect the political divides. Some defend the actions as a necessary evil, arguing that any effort to combat the drug trade is justified. Others, however, see it as a violation of human rights and international law, regardless of the individuals involved. A trial in court is something that should be afforded to those accused, no matter what.
The implications of this investigation are far-reaching. It underscores the challenges of the “war on drugs,” the ethical complexities of military action, and the importance of accountability. It also suggests that the current approach may not be the most effective way to address the problem. The constant use of extrajudicial murder makes it seem as though it is actually not the intention to stop the flow of drugs. The war on drugs is more likely to create headlines and good PR to the Drug Warriors.
The investigation does not diminish the fact that these individuals were involved in drug trafficking. However, it does force a confrontation with a deeper, more troubling question: can the pursuit of a particular goal, in this case, combating the drug trade, justify the suspension of due process, the violation of international law, and the extrajudicial execution of individuals? Even if these individuals were involved in running drugs, they still deserve a proper trial in court.
In the end, what the reporter found is not a simple story of good versus evil. It’s a story of complex morality, of the unintended consequences of the war on drugs, and of the need for greater transparency and accountability in the use of military force. It is the need to do the right thing, even when it is not easy.