By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The US military conducted a lethal strike on a boat in the eastern Pacific, targeting alleged narco-trafficking operations. This incident is part of a broader campaign that has resulted in at least 178 deaths since September, though detailed evidence supporting the drug trafficking claims is lacking. Legal experts and human rights groups contend these attacks violate domestic and international law, with families of victims initiating legal challenges and UN officials condemning the campaign as a human rights violation. The administration asserts the strikes are legal under conflict laws and necessary to combat drug trafficking and prevent overdose deaths in the US.
Read the original article here
The U.S. military recently engaged in a strike on what was alleged to be a drug boat in the Pacific, resulting in the tragic deaths of two individuals. This incident raises significant concerns about the application of force at sea, particularly when the targets are suspected of illicit activities. The idea that individuals, even those allegedly involved in drug trafficking, should be summarily killed rather than apprehended and brought to justice is deeply troubling. The principle of due process suggests that even in cases of alleged criminal activity, a trial is the appropriate avenue for determining guilt and assigning punishment, not execution by military action.
The individuals who ordered and carried out this strike are facing accusations of murder, and the sentiment is that such actions constitute unlawful killing, even if the boat was indeed carrying drugs. The operational procedures in such scenarios are being questioned, with many suggesting that alternative, less lethal approaches should have been prioritized. The concept of issuing warning shots to compel a vessel to stop, followed by boarding and arrest if drugs or weapons are discovered, is presented as a more reasonable and lawful course of action. The notion that stopping the drug trade justifies such lethal force, especially without prior warnings or attempts at apprehension, is met with strong disapproval.
This incident underscores a broader frustration with the pace of progress in addressing issues like the drug trade, with some observations suggesting that political approaches, whether from the left or the right, are proving ineffective or excessively slow. The implication is that decisive action is desired, but that lethal force is not the answer. Furthermore, there’s a palpable fear that the military’s willingness to use lethal force against non-citizens abroad could eventually extend to its own citizens, drawing parallels to actions by agencies like ICE. The core of the criticism lies in the belief that apprehension and legal proceedings should always be the preferred method, unless there is clear and immediate evidence of hostility directed at U.S. forces.
The incident is viewed by some as a display of governmental indifference, with analogies drawn to the casual consumption of entertainment while such events unfold. This disconnect between the public and the government’s actions is fueling calls for more widespread and sustained protests against what is perceived as a pattern of governmental overreach and violence. The idea that eliminating drug boats one by one might be an ineffective strategy, or even a misguided attempt to influence market prices for seafood, highlights the perceived absurdity and futility of such actions.
The current geopolitical landscape is described as being burdened by multiple conflicts, including a “petro war,” a “narco war,” a “cold war,” and a “hot war,” all of which are characterized as contributing to a climate of violence and injustice. The desire for accountability and prosecution for those responsible for these “murders” is a strong undercurrent, with a hope that justice will eventually be served. There is a critique that certain leaders exhibit a “bloodlust,” suggesting a motivation to use violence for distraction or other purposes, rather than for genuine security.
The specific incident is framed as a preventable tragedy, with accusations that decisions were made without adequate verification of targets, potentially relying on outdated information and maps. The description of a “double-tap” strike, aimed at maximizing collateral damage and preventing rescue efforts, evokes comparisons to actions attributed to other nations and raises alarms about a shift towards more aggressive and indiscriminate military tactics. The concern is that this approach signifies a deliberate choice to act as a “bad guy” on the global stage, mirroring tactics previously condemned. The question of whether these boats have the range to reach U.S. shores suggests a disconnect in the justification for such aggressive interception far out at sea.
The prevailing sentiment is that such actions are not isolated events but part of a continuous pattern of what is perceived as American involvement in atrocities. The speed at which attention shifts from one tragedy to another, like the leveling of a school in Tehran, is seen as indicative of a problem that goes unaddressed. This ongoing cycle of violence and lack of accountability is leading to profound disillusionment, with a feeling of having aged significantly under the weight of these events. The motivation behind targeting what are perceived to be fishing boats, rather than genuine threats, is attributed to a desire to appease a domestic base and engage in violence against marginalized populations.
The idea of a “reckoning” is put forth, suggesting that the current trajectory is unsustainable and does not reflect the ideals of America. There’s a belief that change is possible, but it requires collective effort and a fundamental shift in the nation’s approach to foreign policy and military intervention. The deep-seated corruption within governmental structures is seen as a significant obstacle, preventing meaningful reform and perpetuating a system that benefits a select few at the expense of justice and human well-being. The hope for prosecution and a change in course persists, though the likelihood of achieving it in the current climate is viewed with skepticism by many.