By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The US military conducted a lethal strike against a vessel suspected of drug trafficking in the eastern Pacific Ocean on Monday, resulting in the deaths of two individuals. The strike, carried out under Operation Southern Spear, aligns with a campaign initiated by the Trump administration targeting narcotics trafficking. This latest incident brings the total number of individuals killed in such strikes to at least 107. The strikes, which have drawn criticism, are part of a broader strategy against Venezuela, including military build-up and a blockade, as the US government ramps up pressure against the country.
Read the original article here
US strikes vessel in eastern Pacific, killing 2 – the very premise sets off a cascade of questions, doesn’t it? Where, precisely, does the eastern Pacific start and end? It’s a vast ocean, stretching from the icy reaches of Alaska and all the way down towards the Antarctic. Defining the operational area becomes an immediate point of concern, adding a layer of ambiguity to an already troubling situation.
So the official confirmation that two people are dead is, well, something we’ve come to expect in these kinds of reports. They readily provide the death toll. But what about the details? The crucial information that could shed light on what actually happened is missing.
Specifically, there’s a frustrating lack of transparency surrounding this incident. The owner of the vessel, the cargo it carried, its port of origin, and even its direction of travel – these basic details are all absent. The number of people aboard, their identities, their ages, and their professions remain unknown. Details about fuel capacity, which is essential to determine range. More importantly, it is unknown if there were any weapons on board. All these are important pieces of the puzzle that are currently missing.
And what about the victims themselves? There’s a nagging question: Whose fishermen are we targeting? This administration seems willing to label any vessel as a threat, allowing them to engage in lethal strikes without any judicial oversight. It seems the U.S. government is running assassination operations on the world. The administration’s labeling of those killed as “unlawful combatants” and claims of a classified Justice Department finding that grants them the ability to strike without judicial review, is concerning. The lack of due process and the presumption of guilt are deeply troubling.
The potential for this to be a repeat offense is worrying. The idea that any boat is immediately “a drug boat” is a dangerous precedent, and one that undermines the basic principles of justice. This isn’t a situation of war, and there has been no finding of guilt in any court. It seems this is just murder and a lack of accountability.
This type of action should be alarming to everyone. The hypocrisy stings, especially in light of the president’s “peace prize.” This feels like a blatant disregard for international law and human life. We’re left wondering if the intention is to distract from deeper issues.
The question of motivation keeps coming up. Is this about something as simple as stopping the opioid crisis, or is it about something else entirely? Is the administration using these strikes to consolidate power or to deflect attention from something else, like the Epstein files?
The constant cycle of violence is concerning. And what about the people who are cheering it on or turning a blind eye?
The justification for these strikes, as presented, is flimsy. The use of the word “suspected” is a red flag. The vague label of “Designated Terrorist Organizations” gives little clarity. There is no proof, just assumptions. We have become high seas pirates.
The lack of accountability and the dismissive attitude toward due process are alarming. The administration seems more interested in projecting an image of strength through aggressive action than in following the law or upholding basic human rights. It’s a gutless move.
And then there’s the question of the president’s role in this. The administration’s actions seem to contradict their rhetoric. It all feels more like a power grab than a genuine attempt to keep us safe.