After a U.S. strike on three boats in the Pacific Ocean on December 30, the U.S. military abandoned its search efforts for survivors who had jumped into the sea. The Coast Guard called off the search citing a “declining probability of survival,” and a government official confirmed the individuals were presumed dead. These deaths are a part of a larger campaign, with at least 117 civilians killed in 35 attacks since September. Experts and members of Congress have denounced the strikes as potentially illegal extrajudicial killings, as the U.S. has shown a pattern of not assisting survivors and withholding key information regarding the strikes.
Read More
US strikes 3 alleged drug vessels and leaves survivors — now a search-and-rescue operation is a story that has many layers, and the more you learn about it, the more complicated it becomes. The core of it involves the U.S. military targeting suspected drug trafficking vessels, resulting in casualties and, notably, a subsequent search-and-rescue operation for survivors. Let’s break it down.
The initial reports came from the U.S. Southern Command, stating that they had engaged three vessels in international waters, claiming these were being used by “narco-terrorists” for drug trafficking. The report indicates that the military action took place on December 30th.… Continue reading
A recent report reveals that a boat targeted by the U.S. military during a drug-trafficking campaign in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific contained marijuana, marking the first physical evidence of the campaign. The attack, which occurred in the Gulf of Venezuela and resulted in three fatalities, took place in international waters and was followed by the discovery of the bodies by local fishermen. Since then, the Trump administration has conducted 30 strikes against alleged drug vessels, escalating the death toll to at least 107. Despite these actions, legal experts and lawmakers have criticized the operation, particularly a strike that killed survivors, raising concerns about extrajudicial killings and the lack of transparency surrounding the campaign.
Read More
The Defense Secretary’s aggressive tactics against alleged narcoterrorists have backfired, potentially enabling them to evade prosecution. A recent bombing on a boat suspected of carrying drugs from Ecuador, directed by the Secretary, destroyed crucial evidence that could have been used to arrest the survivors. Consequently, the Ecuadorian government was forced to release one of the survivors, who had a history of drug trafficking. This outcome directly contradicts the Secretary’s tough-on-narcoterrorism stance and has raised questions about the effectiveness and legality of his methods, potentially jeopardizing his position.
Read More
The Trump administration’s use of lethal force against alleged members of “designated terrorist organizations” in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean raises concerns about expanding executive power. The administration’s refusal to clarify if similar actions could occur within the U.S., particularly against groups designated as “domestic terrorist organizations” under NSPM-7, fuels fears of extrajudicial killings. Experts and lawmakers warn that the broad application of this term lacks legal basis and could be used to suppress dissent. Critics highlight the dangers of labeling actions such as drug trafficking as armed conflict to justify lethal actions.
Read More
On September 2, U.S. military forces attacked a vessel, leaving two survivors clinging to the wreckage for roughly 45 minutes before a second strike was ordered by Adm. Frank Bradley, resulting in their deaths. Although the survivors were seen waving towards aircraft overhead, potentially signaling for help, Bradley claimed they still posed a threat. He justified the follow-up strikes by alleging the men could have been transporting drugs and would rejoin the fight. However, sources and experts have questioned the legality of these actions, highlighting that the men did not pose an imminent threat and that these strikes are illegal extrajudicial killings.
Read More
Shipwrecked or Not, All These Bombings are Murder. Let’s be clear: this whole situation, the recent attacks, and the resulting deaths, are unequivocally wrong. We’re talking about a significant number of lives lost – 87 people already, and the number keeps climbing. It’s time to call this what it is: murder.
The core issue here is the blatant disregard for due process. The administration claims these were legitimate targets, but they’ve presented no concrete evidence. Even if they had, the proper venue to present that evidence is a court of law, not a missile strike. This isn’t how we handle any crime, let alone something as complex as drug trafficking.… Continue reading
The US military says it killed four men in a strike on a suspected drug vessel. That’s where we start, isn’t it? The core of this whole thing, the crux of the matter: four lives extinguished, not because they were definitively proven to be criminals, but because they were *suspected* of being involved in drug trafficking. It’s a word, “suspected”, that carries a chilling weight when it’s coupled with the irreversible act of taking a life. It’s a word that opens up a Pandora’s Box of questions, anxieties, and a gut feeling that something is fundamentally wrong.
The US military says it killed four men in a strike on a suspected drug vessel, and the immediate reaction is one of disbelief, frustration, and a deep-seated feeling of injustice.… Continue reading
The US military conducted another lethal strike in the eastern Pacific, targeting a boat suspected of carrying narcotics and killing four individuals. This marks the 22nd such strike since September, resulting in at least 87 fatalities. The Pentagon faces growing questions about the legality of these attacks, particularly after reports of the defense secretary’s directive to “kill them all.” Legal experts are challenging the administration’s justification, which claims these actions are lawful under the rules of war, with some highlighting that killing incapacitated individuals is a violation of the law.
Read More
Lawmakers were disturbed by the explanation provided regarding the justification for killing two incapacitated men, with the implication that they were still considered threats. The administration maintained that the men were still involved in drug trafficking, thus perpetuating the idea that they were engaged in armed conflict with the U.S. despite being shipwrecked. This rationale contradicts the laws of war, which generally prohibit killing those no longer actively participating in a conflict. The core argument is a dangerous extension of executive power, allowing for summary military execution of civilians in international waters.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood