‘Drug Boat’ Strikes Prompt Questions about Human Dignity, Executive Power
“I have no sympathy for drug traffickers or terrorists whatsoever. That these summary executions took place by executive authority, with no clear legal authorization, says a lot about our culture that I think is deeply disturbing.” - CToday
Image
It strikes me that by simply hitting the boats instead of capturing them, even beyond the obvious "due process" and "act of war" considerations, Trump is missing the obvious chance to say to the world (to make up a few possibilities) "this boat embarked from Caracas on September 30, and was captured off the Caiman Islands loaded with 3 tons of fentayl, and we now have names of those on the boat, but more importantly, we have names and locations of the people and labs making this drug.".
More or less, my view is that Trump understands action, but he really doesn't understand the need for persuasion, and there is a LOT he can do if he simply humbles himself enough to be patient. Alternatively, there's a lot of damage he can do if he does not--there will be a lot of loose ends not tied up that people can and will use to cast doubt on what we're doing.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The US has gathered a significant amount of military force in the region. I wonder if they aren’t just getting a little live fire practice before invading Venezuela.
Then again, sometimes maybe observers and analysts are making too many assumptions that what’s happening is strategic vs. just random flexing. It could be a ruse of some sort or just yet another “I’m doing this because I can” flex from the White House.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
They are not simply randomly blowing up boats. They are ordering the boats to stop so that they can be searched, but the boats are not stopping and are heading for the shores of the United States. They are being blown up after they have refused to cooperate. Article IV section 4 of the US Constitution authorizes the president to protect our states from threats of incursion. These actions are not outside of what the president has been authorized to do.
The destruction of these vessels through military force in international waters is against maritime law as well as the Navy's own conditions of engagement. They are basic vessels with no offensive weapons capabilities of any significance and they are being blown up 1,500 miles from the nearest US coast. These are not threats nor are they threats of immediate incursion. It would take nearly 2 days to reach the US coast. We have no idea if they are being ordered to stop as there is no videos of that action and Congress has said they have not been briefed on that. The military is fully capable of intercepting these boats, seizing the drugs and returning the individuals back to their countries of origin. I don't think these boats are an immediate threat to the largest Navy in the world. These actions are outside of what the president is authorized to do (the killing of foreign nationals in international water that pose no direct threat to the citizens of the US). If they were to beach onto florida or enter US waters, maybe there could be a case. Blowing these up will not stop the drugs, because the people piloting these boats have no choice. take their chances on the high sea, or watch themselves killed after their families are slaughtered in front of their eyes. In addition, the Coast Guard data shows that 25% of all intercepted boats that are thought to have drugs based on intelligence reports are shown not to have the drugs after being boarded.
Do all of these boats have drugs? Maybe, but we will never fully know. I don't know what the value is of blowing them up, verses stopping them, taking the drugs and destroying the drugs.
"I don't know what the value is of blowing them up, verses stopping them, taking the drugs and destroying the drugs."
pour encourager les autres -- Voltaire
We have no idea if they are being ordered to stop as there is no videos of that action and Congress has said they have not been briefed on that.
How did I see the video then?
"pour encourager les autres -- Voltaire"
This doesn't really hold true. The drug cartel is not getting blown up. These are people recruited from poverty stricken hut under force of their wife, children and family being slaughtered. They have a 1 in 10 chance of being blown up or a 1 in 1 chance of being killed by the cartel. I think people in the US are naive about who these people really are driving the boats and the conditions they live under. Blowing up a boat is not going to stop them.
JD Miller,
Would love to see the video if you have a link. Normally how the US stops boats is that they verbally warn them, then they fire shots over the bow, if they still don't stop a guy in a Coast Guard helicopter puts a .50 caliber round from a rifle into the engine block. Then they board them. You don't need to shoot them with a Hellfire missile from a drone if they refuse to stop. Coast Guard stops them all the time including high speed boats going over 100mph with just a rifle. They pull the drugs off, the take the people into custody and then they sink the ship. I live in Florida, it happens very routinely here
Would love to see the video if you have a link. Normally how the US stops boats is that they verbally warn them, then they fire shots over the bow, if they still don't stop a guy in a Coast Guard helicopter puts a .50 caliber round from a rifle into the engine block. Then they board them. You don't need to shoot them with a Hellfire missile from a drone if they refuse to stop. Coast Guard stops them all the time including high speed boats going over 100mph with just a rifle. They pull the drugs off, the take the people into custody and then they sink the ship. I live in Florida, it happens very routinely here
The video I saw was linked from a news article I saw quite a while ago. I read from a lot of different sources so I am not sure where it came from. It was very similar to what you described above except the boat took off at high speeds and was then destroyed rather than hitting the engine block.
This is a good article explaining the various scenarios. In general, my view is that what Trump is doing is most likely illegal both domestically and more certainly internationally. I don't see the value of it, as these boats were most likely not headed to the US, as practically all drug trafficing comes through Mexico and other routes, not through boats from Venezuala. And lastly, speed boats over a thousand miles away do not pose an imminent threat to the United States that justifies execution on the high seas. Trump is trying to project power, but I don't think it really projects power that the largest Navy in existence can blow up a speed boat. At most these are doing about 100 mph, but probably 70 mph. How do I know? Because I have jet skis that can go over 80mph and I have had them in the ocean and it is not a fun experience. I have been on offshore boats that go 100mph and that is about the limit in terms of being able to control them unless you are on very smooth ocean water that only appears at certain times over short distances.
One comparison that comes to mind is how the Royal Navy did a lot to intercept slave ships after the slave trade was banned in 1833. They didn't particularly worry about whether those ships were in their territorial waters, but rather knew where the slave ports were, and patrolled those to shut the trade down. They also obviously had a reason or two to not simply blow them up, caring at least a little about the people on board--the ones in chains a bit more than those manning the rudder and sails, of course.
In the same way, I can see an effort to intercept drug boats in international waters, especially if doing so gives a good hint as to what ports they were visiting on the way. Intercept the drugs at the source, and quite frankly, a "cigarette" type boat on the open seas is a good bet to be running drugs; they're really not intended for weathering bigger waves safely. It's all about speed and evading detection, which ironically makes it easier to detect them.
Also worth noting is that the U.S. is the biggest drug market, so it is indeed a good bet that the ultimate destination for the drugs is largely our country. Plus, I'm not aware of any countries where fentanyl, crack, and the like are legal. So again, the Royal Navy example is probably a good one.
That is, again, precisely why you want to capture the boats, not just destroy them. The boats are very mobile, so destroying them is simply playing whack-a-mole. The labs where the drugs are being made and packaged, however, are much harder to relocate, and the people that do the lab work are a lot more skilled. When you take them out, the whole process becomes far more expensive.
Again, it's another case of Trump getting impatient and working against himself.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Article IV section 4 of the US Constitution authorizes the president to protect our states from threats of incursion. These actions are not outside of what the president has been authorized to do.
There is complexity here. The Constitution assumes we haven’t made commitments to behave differently. There is also interpretation of “threats of incursion.” I’ll admit to having not researched it, but in a couple of centuries, we have customs and protocols by now. But, to put it diplomatically, for Trump, respecting custom, precedent, any law that is inconvenient—or just being a good neighbor and maintaining good relationships with friends, allies, and co-belligerents—are not priorities.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion