“…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?”
Answer that question and you will likely give clues to the enemy of what surveillance methods are being used. Do you believe our armed forces people are just blowing stuff up for fun?
When a vessel is destroyed by airstrike or naval gunfire, there’s:
- No boarding
- No forensic collection
- No chain of custody
- That means no recovered narcotics, no photos of cargo, no crew interrogation — just pre-strike intelligence.
You can’t show what you didn’t seize. Destruction precludes documentation.
Which means they’re telling, TRUST US, WE KNOW WHAT WE’RE DOING.
The problem “Trust us” is not a doctrine; it’s a placeholder for missing legitimacy. When lethal force is used without transparency, we’re not just risking moral erosion — we’re undermining the very systems we claim to defend.
Assuming that the military rules out interdicting the boat ( which I disagree with ), we need Classified briefings to Congress: Even if public disclosure risks operational exposure, elected representatives must be looped in. A bipartisan panel or inspector general could validate the intelligence without compromising sources. After operations, sanitized summaries can be released — showing patterns, affiliations, and rationale.
“Trust us” is not a strategy. It’s a stall. If the record of our intelligence is anything, it does not show us that blind trust is warranted.