By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On April 26, the US military, under the direction of SOUTHCOM commander Gen. Francis L. Donovan, conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel in the Eastern Pacific, claiming it was involved in narco-trafficking and operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations. This action, which resulted in the deaths of three individuals, is part of a broader series of attacks that have led to an estimated 185 fatalities. Human rights experts and legal scholars argue that such operations at sea, regardless of the alleged criminal activity, lack justification under international maritime law and constitute extrajudicial killings. These incidents echo concerns raised regarding similar alleged extrajudicial killings in the Philippines, where a former president faces charges of crimes against humanity.
Read the original article here
The sheer scale of the reported killings, reaching at least 185, is truly staggering and demands immediate attention. Describing these actions as anything less than murder feels like a deliberate attempt to downplay the gravity of what has transpired. The notion that entire boats and the people on them are being obliterated at sea without any attempt at capture or due process is deeply disturbing. This isn’t about drug interdiction; it’s a pattern of summary executions that raises serious questions about legality, morality, and adherence to international law.
It’s incredibly unsettling to see such a significant loss of life being relegated to the sidelines of news coverage. The disconnect between the severity of these alleged “murders” and the public’s awareness is genuinely alarming. When the press focuses on the potential impact on markets rather than the undeniable human cost, it suggests a fundamental misplacing of priorities, bordering on complicity. The rhetoric used to justify these actions, if indeed they are justified at all, seems to bypass fundamental legal principles like the right to a trial and the presumption of innocence.
The idea that a nation’s military is acting as judge, jury, and executioner on international waters, especially under the guise of national security or counter-terrorism, is a dangerous precedent. The claim that these actions are necessary for national security rings hollow when alternative methods, like those employed by the Coast Guard in the past, yielded different results, with a notable percentage of apprehended individuals found to be unconnected to the drug trade. This suggests that intelligence might be flawed, or worse, that the intention is not capture and justice, but elimination.
The comparison to other nations or historical figures, while sometimes illustrative, can also be a distraction from the core issue. The focus needs to remain on the specific actions attributed to this administration and their immediate implications. The fact that many of those forced to operate these boats may have done so against their will adds another layer of complexity and tragedy to an already grim picture. If these are indeed “narco-terrorists” as alleged, the argument for attempting capture rather than resorting to outright destruction becomes even more compelling.
The notion that the “party of law and order” would seemingly embrace extrajudicial killings is a profound contradiction. The very foundation of a just society rests on principles of due process and the rule of law. When these principles are discarded, even for those suspected of serious crimes, the integrity of the entire system is compromised. This isn’t just about the individuals on those boats; it’s about what these actions say about the values of the nation carrying them out.
Furthermore, the alleged lack of clear proof and the tenuous connection of some of these actions to the drug trade in America, particularly concerning countries like Venezuela and fentanyl, further undermine the justifications offered. If the primary rationale is to combat the flow of illicit substances that harm American citizens, then evidence of a significant contribution from the targeted groups should be readily apparent and publicly verifiable. Without such proof, these killings appear more like indiscriminate violence than targeted law enforcement.
The international implications of such alleged war crimes are also significant. The potential for accountability through bodies like the International Criminal Court is a crucial check and balance on state power. The question of why Congress or international tribunals haven’t taken more decisive action is a pressing one, especially given the magnitude of the reported casualties. This isn’t just about domestic political discourse; it’s about international law and the responsibility of nations on the global stage.
The assertion that these individuals are not enemy combatants, but rather victims of what appears to be state-sponsored terrorism, is a critical distinction. While conflicts and retaliatory actions occur, the argument for differentiating between combatants and civilians, or even alleged criminals, is paramount. The precedent of labeling nearly everyone bombed as an enemy combatant is a problematic one, and applying it to situations where no clear combat engagement is evident, as with boats at sea, is particularly concerning.
Ultimately, the language used to describe these events matters. Calling them “murders” is not just hyperbole; it’s a direct accusation that reflects the perceived illegality and immorality of the actions. The demand for accountability, for trials, and for a clear understanding of the evidence is a reasonable one, and its absence speaks volumes. The fear that such a reality is barely making headlines is a chilling indictment of our current information landscape and the public’s engagement with critical issues.