By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration’s campaign of bombing small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific has continued, with a recent strike resulting in two deaths and one survivor. This marks the third such attack in five days and the 57th overall under the administration, bringing the death toll to 192, a practice criticized as illegal summary execution by human rights advocates. Despite claims of significantly reducing drug flow into the US, evidence suggests no impact, with some relatives of victims asserting those killed were merely fishing. The administration has also failed to provide evidence linking the targeted vessels to drug trafficking, and even when survivors are present, as in a recent instance where the Coast Guard was activated for search and rescue, the campaign has persisted with no discernible effect on drug imports.
Read the original article here
It’s deeply concerning to witness what appears to be a disturbing pattern of deadly boat strikes under the current administration, with reports indicating a third fatal incident in just five days. The gravity of these events is underscored by the stark accusation that “each of these is a murder.” This isn’t just a matter of accidents or unfortunate collateral damage; it’s a serious allegation that demands thorough examination and accountability. The lack of clear evidence provided by the administration to support claims that these boats were involved in drug trafficking is particularly troubling, especially when relatives of the victims assert that many were simply out fishing.
The notion that drug boats are routinely seized, and the fact that these incidents allegedly involved fishing boats, raises significant questions about the justification for such lethal force. If the boats weren’t demonstrably involved in illicit activities, then these strikes become even more indefensible. The absence of concrete proof and the conflicting accounts from those affected paint a picture that is far from reassuring, suggesting a potential disconnect between official narratives and ground realities.
The idea of adding these incidents to a “list for the Secretary of War Crimes” highlights the extreme nature of the accusations. The call for prosecuting everyone in the chain of command, from those giving orders to those executing them, stems from a profound sense of frustration and a belief that accountability has been abandoned. When laws appear to be meaningless because those in power seem untouchable, it erodes the very foundation of justice and creates a climate of impunity.
Even if, hypothetically, these individuals were engaged in drug trafficking, the lack of due process is fundamentally un-American. In the United States, the death penalty is not a punishment for trafficking, and the system often favors leniency for the wealthy. To resort to extrajudicial killings, regardless of the alleged offense, stands in stark contrast to core American legal principles. It’s a betrayal of the values we ostensibly uphold.
The repeated characterization of these events as “accidents” or mere “escalations” feels disingenuous when they occur with such frequency. A pattern of three deadly strikes in less than a week suggests a deliberate course of action rather than isolated unfortunate events. The administration’s reluctance to release intelligence justifying these strikes, particularly the assertion that specific boats were carrying drugs and headed for the U.S., fuels suspicion and deepens the public’s distrust.
The comparison to past presidential actions, such as the strike that killed American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, serves to illustrate a broader concern about the executive branch’s authority to use lethal force against individuals, whether citizens or not, without judicial oversight. While the context of al-Awlaki’s alleged involvement in terrorism differs, the underlying principle of bypassing due process for a fatal outcome is a recurring theme that warrants scrutiny.
Furthermore, the argument that these individuals, if not American citizens, are not entitled to American rights and can be classified as “global terrorists” is a precarious legal and ethical stance. While international treaties and codes of conduct exist, the application of such classifications to justify immediate lethal force, rather than interception and capture, raises serious concerns about international law and the U.S.’s standing in the world. The designation of individuals or groups as terrorists by one nation does not grant universal carte blanche for lethal action, especially when alternative means of engagement exist.
The assertion that the cartels are more sophisticated than simple speedboat drug runs and might employ methods like drone submarines is a valid point in questioning the simplistic justifications for these attacks. The reliance on outdated imagery of drug smuggling, as if from an 80s television show, fails to acknowledge the evolving tactics of criminal organizations. This also ties into the concern that AI, when used without clear human oversight and accountability, could provide data that is manipulated or misinterpreted, leading to tragic and irreversible consequences. The absence of a paper trail in AI decision-making further complicates the issue of responsibility.
The commentary suggesting that the administration might be acting to “gain respect from his cult” points to a potential political motivation behind these aggressive actions, rather than a purely security-driven imperative. If these strikes are indeed driven by a desire to appease a specific political base, it further divorces the actions from legitimate law enforcement or national security concerns and moves them into the realm of dangerous political theater. The perception that the administration is engaging in a “video game war game” with human lives, rather than pursuing tangible, lawful objectives, is a deeply troubling implication that speaks to a disregard for the sanctity of life.
Ultimately, the recurring theme across these criticisms is the lack of accountability and the perceived erosion of legal and ethical standards. The belief that “accountability is gone” and that “laws are meaningless when the criminals are more powerful than the law’s ability to enforce itself” reflects a profound disillusionment. If these actions are not met with consequences, it sets a dangerous precedent, normalizing extrajudicial killings and undermining the principles of justice and human rights, not just domestically but on a global scale. The international community is watching, and the perception of the U.S. engaging in what many see as indiscriminate killings, regardless of the alleged offenses, can have far-reaching and damaging implications for diplomacy and global cooperation.