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: 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.