Posted on 10/27/2025 6:43:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In a speech before the House of Commons on May 13, 1940, referencing the war against Nazi Germany, Winston Churchill stated, “What is our policy? … To wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime.”
The Prussian military theorist Karl von Clausewitz once observed that “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” Various political and moral interpretations exist regarding what constitutes a “just war.” That usually depends on one’s point of view. As the saying goes, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
What if there were a country that had absorbed the loss of over 100,000 of its citizens each year for several years, and which has done little to address the problem? Would that country not be remiss in its primary duty to protect its own citizens? Well, that country does indeed exist; it is called the United States of America.
Last year, over 100,000 Americans died of drug overdoses, mostly young people, the vast majority of them from fentanyl. Fentanyl is a synthetic opiate 50 times more powerful than heroin, the components of which are manufactured in China. The compounds are exported to countries such as Mexico, where the drug cartels then combine them to produce fentanyl. After that, the drug is smuggled across the border by land or sea to the U.S.
Fentanyl is cheap and easy to produce. Also, there is no “growing season,” so the profit margin is high.
Fentanyl has also been observed masquerading as prescription painkillers such as OxyContin. Many buyers who purchased these drugs on the street are totally unaware that they are really purchasing fentanyl. The drug is so powerful that a minuscule amount can prove fatal.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
What I’d like to know is this — What Evidence has been shown by the US Navy that the boats from Venezuela that have been blown up are carrying narcotics other than the testimony of US Intelligence?
It’s China’s Opium Wars in reverse.
Too bad Trump wants the publicity of showing the videos.
Otherwise, it never happened!
An argument could be made that China's culture loss of the Opium Wars led to them being easily defeated years later by a small nation called "Japan" during WW2. If Japan hadn't made the mistake of bombing Pearl Harbor, China today would probably still be Japan's comfort woman. China today is weakening their savior nation, the U.S., in the same way that the Brits weakened China in the past (with drugs).
Because there are lots of Central and South American types cruising around the Caribbean Sea in speedboats with massive triple outboards, out enjoying the scenery?
If our intelligence got it wrong I’m sure there would be names of the fabulously rich that could afford such things as pleasure boats, who had been killed by our military. Got any examples?
What do you suggest? What intelligence would be acceptable?
Would you trust the press to tell you the truth?
Would other countries be a trustworthy source of information?
With this congress, we're doomed...
Nixon declared War On Drugs in 1971.
But we have never been serious about it. Never fought it as if it were a war.
Now Trump is serious about it.
Maybe he’s not precisely fighting it like it were a war (no congressional declaration) but [shrug] that just continues a 50 year old precedent.
RE: Like pirates, drug smugglers are hostis humani generis, and allowed to be killed on sight.
And how do we KNOW that those on the boat are drug smugglers ?
Show us the contents of the boat… oh wait, they’re gone, destroyed at sea.
RE: What do you suggest? What intelligence would be acceptable?
1. I remind you that it was our intelligence that told GW Bush that Saddam Hussein had nukes. Where are they? Hundreds of thousands were killed and maimed for something we haven’t yet proven with concrete evidence.
I’m not saying that our intelligence agencies cannot totally be trusted, but their record is MIXED.
2. What about intercepting the boat at sea, capturing the men on board, and then showing us the narcotics in the boat instead of blowing it up?
And if they’re indeed drug smugglers, try them in court and execute them, but not until.
RE: Would you trust the press to tell you the truth?
I trust EVIDENCE. We cannot show evidence when we shoot, destroy, kill and ask questions later.
Having the Coast Guard arrest drug smugglers may make sense when the number and amount is manageable using law-enforcement techniques. The Biden regime allowed the problem to get beyond law enforcement means and the drug cartels are now a large enough operation to be basically state-sponsored entities. That calls for a military, not a law enforcement response.
Well...you implied in your previous post that you would not trust evidence from the intelligence community. Who would you trust evidence from?
Would you, possibly, trust “evidence” from the Colombian or Venezuelan governments that these were just fishing boats?
Or are you looking for “evidence” that will ultimately render this type of operation ineffective? If we show you satellite images of them loading the boats, won’t that tell the bad guys how we are targeting them and allow them to change tactics?
RE: You are confusing military ops with law enforcement ops. There is no “due process” requirement for military ops: it’s not a judicial procedure.
There is still the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
Although the U.S. is not a formal party to UNCLOS, it has long stated that it considers most of its provisions as customary international law.
UNCLOS prohibits the use of force against foreign-flagged vessels on the high seas unless:
The vessel is stateless.
There is clear evidence of piracy, slave trading, or unauthorized broadcasting.
The vessel poses an imminent threat and self-defense is justified under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
We have also agreed to abide by International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. Destruction of vessels and killing of occupants without judicial process may violate human rights norms, especially if the individuals are not combatants.
Extrajudicial killings are prohibited under international human rights law unless justified by immediate threat or armed conflict — neither of which typically applies to suspected drug boats.
Labeling drug cartels as terrorist organizations does not automatically justify military force under international law. Even terrorism conventions emphasize judicial cooperation over unilateral destruction.
You don’t execute a boat’s occupants simply out of suspicion, especially when they are not attacking you. The military can still exercise restraint and use all tools necessary at its disposal— including intercepting the boat, capturing the occupants as POWS and giving them a military trial.
Blowing them up should be a last resort. Think of the horror of making a possible mistake and killing innocent people instead.
RE: Well...you implied in your previous post that you would not trust evidence from the intelligence community. Who would you trust evidence from?
Would you, possibly, trust “evidence” from the Colombian or Venezuelan governments that these were just fishing boats?
I trust HARD EVIDENCE. Arrest first and shoot later.
If the intelligence community is right, then they’re right. But HOW would we know that if we destroy all evidence?
We can only know WHO to trust if we have evidence to prove that they are or are not trustworthy. With this policy of blowing them up to kingdom come, we won’t know.
So, the right policy should be — INTERCEPT, ARREST, GATHER EVIDENCE and IF PROVEN GUILTY, THEN EXECUTE, but not until.
RE: Or are you looking for “evidence” that will ultimately render this type of operation ineffective?
And why is intercepting a suspected boat as opposed to blowing it up ultimately ineffective? I am not saying that we discard satellite images, that is but ONE EVIDENCE. We need absolute proof that the cargo being loaded IS narcotics.
The absolute, sure way to know that is to intercept it, not blow it up.
And if you’re saying there are satellite images, we’ll why not show the images taken publicly ?
Satellite imagery showing suspected narcotics loading can be a useful piece of intelligence — but on its own, it’s generally inadequate as legal justification for destroying a vessel under international law. Here’s Why:
What Satellite Images Can Suggest:
Suspicious activity: Repeated visits to known trafficking hubs, rendezvous with other vessels, or loading/unloading in isolated areas.
Cargo movement: Containers being transferred, people boarding or disembarking.
Patterns: Routes consistent with known smuggling operations.
I AGREE THAT THESE ARE EVIDENCE WE CAN USE, BUT IS IT ENOUGH TO BLOW THE VESSEL UP?
Satellite images cannot directly verify that the CONTENTS of the cargo is narcotics.
They don’t show whether the vessel poses an imminent danger.
They don’t establish whether the vessel is stateless, flagged, or operating illegally.
I will be more comfortable if we can have these:
Clear evidence of criminal activity.
Proportionality: The response must match the threat.
Necessity: There must be no reasonable alternative (e.g., interdiction, arrest).
Due process: Especially if the vessel is flagged and crew are not military combatants.
What we’re doing sets a very troubling precedent. If the U.S. simply uses satellite imagery as the sole basis for destruction, it risks possibly killing innocent civilians who we simply suspect of drug dealing, Undermining maritime norm and Setting a precedent for extrajudicial action.
Not good, especially when there are better and surer alternatives.
We’ve been doing it that way for years with little long term results.
It is relatively easy to avoid the Coast Guard. Their boats can outrun ours. In the meantime they are dumping the drugs overboard so a conviction is unlikely. They just get released to try again another day.
What solution do you propose?
It's the same with the ICC at the Hague: the US has wisely refused to sign onto that treaty as well and in fact, the Congress has authorized the use of force against the ICC should it try to grab or succeed in grabbing any US official or past or present member of the US armed forces.
A big part of Trump's electoral appeal was to reject the steady entanglement of US power by vague, leftist, international "human rights norms" that have almost always been used to protect enemies of the United States.
As far killing the innocent goes, just about any law enforcement exercise also carries with it the prospect of killing the innocent. The point here, as with any military operation, is to apply force until the opponent stops doing what you are trying to stop or gives in to your demands. In this case, that would be Maduro stopping the cartels and probably also ceasing military cooperation with China and Russia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.