Skip to content(if available)orjump to list(if available)

Secret Boat Strike Memo Justifies Kills by Claiming Targeting Drugs, Not People

codyb

Seems like we're bombing a bunch of low level, poverty stricken fisherman who occasionally bring a load of drugs from point A to point B.

I'm sure the complete lack of effectiveness will be worth the condemnation and lost intelligence by our allies, and further erosion of our separation of powers.

strictnein

Not saying this is called for or legal or anything of the sort, but you can find pictures of some of the boats being destroyed. These aren't fishing boats:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9k2w8ell0o

https://abcnews.go.com/International/4-killed-latest-us-stri...

Again, I don't support these actions, just pointing out that at least some of these boats are very obviously being used for one thing and one thing only.

burkaman

> very obviously being used for one thing and one thing only

Can you explain this? I agree they are not fishing boats but I don't understand how anything beyond that is obvious. Is smuggling the only possible use for that boat? Are drugs the only thing that can be smuggled?

standardUser

Great, then track them to their destination and make arrests. I can't conceive of any capital crime they've committed, can you? Plus, then there's a chance to disrupt someone other than the lowest-level operators.

bdangubic

> track them to their destination and make arrests

so we gonna invade countries, US military boots on the ground at ports where the destination might be? :)

Qem

> Seems like we're bombing a bunch of low level, poverty stricken fisherman

There is some precedent: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/cia-faulted-in-shootin...

steveBK123

Reading a GWOT era CIA book and.. you'll never guess where some of the guys responsible for this shootdown ended up next..

loeg

And the bombs are relatively expensive, when bullets are cheap. Even if you don't mind eroding the rights of drug traffickers, it's a wasteful way to do the enforcement action.

richard_todd

If I'm considering becoming a drug runner, and I hear "sometimes they arrest you" I'd say "so what?" If I hear "sometimes you get shot at", I'd take my chances and shoot back. But if I keep hearing about missiles obliterating drug runners with no warning... maybe I just stay home.

throw0101a

> If I hear "sometimes you get shot at", I'd take my chances and shoot back. But if I keep hearing about missiles obliterating drug runners with no warning... maybe I just stay home.

Given some of the things competing cartels do to each other, getting instantaneously killed by a bomb is probably a relief compared to what some of your 'competitors' may do.

kelnos

Decades of the War on Drugs would seem to disagree with your interpretation. Escalating deterrents doesn't work.

davidw

Maybe we should try the same thing with people running red lights.

bilbo0s

Again, I'm just suggesting that maybe cartels make fishermen the proverbial "offer they can't refuse".

I'm just wondering if it would be more effective, and far less expensive, to target the subjects making these offers?

standardUser

All evidence suggests that harsh enforcement can not, does not and will not stop the drug trade from thriving.

hshdhdhj4444

You’re right. I’m sure the drug runner recruitment ad response rate has plummeted /s.

People don’t choose to be drug runners…

bilbo0s

The great tragedy is that bullets are also more accurate.

I don't mean to be "that guy", but how do we even know the sailors on these boats aren't just some fishermen working for the cartels because they have a guy at his shack with a gun on his mother and siblings or kids? Or, even worse, what if they aren't working for cartels at all? Just went out to try to fish.

I'm not sure what our endgame is here, but just eyeballing this from the outside it looks like we're doing surgery with chainsaws instead of scalpels.

And all that assumes that our government is actually trying to help. Our end goal could be something else entirely? It's all just mystifying right now? I'm not sure anyone could give a coherent explanation of the why's, and I'm just about certain that no one could give a rational explanation of the how.

loeg

Sure, unambiguously the actual drug mules are suckers in some way. They’re still mules.

metabagel

At least one of the "why"s is very simple. Trump likes to act in ways which make him look powerful, and which make others respect and fear him.

I think another "why" is ratcheting up the pressure on Venezuela, because Trump has decided or been persuaded to embark on a program of regime change for Venezuela.

I don't actually understand why regime change in Venezuela is important to Trump & MAGA though.

Terr_

> from point A to point B.

Plus neither point is anywhere close to US territory and alleged drug markets, because the little boats the administration has been bombing can't race their way across 1000+ (terrestrial) miles from Aruba to Florida.

OK, Puerto Rico is a bit closer, but yknowwhatimean.

jrs235

I don't think this Administration/Executive Branch recognizes Puerto Rico (populace) to be American or part of the U.S. except only in as much as it can do whatever it wants there.

null

[deleted]

esbranson

> “Fishing doesn’t pay enough to buy a motor like that,” said fisherman Junior González[1]

[1] https://apnews.com/article/1061debe2f983ef7bc9666d3f002b3a0

metabagel

Maybe so, but the administration claims that these people are not just drug smugglers, but narco-terrorists.

Normally, suspected drug smugglers should be interdicted, boarded, and inspected. The Coast Guard and U.S. Navy train for this. It's standard operating procedure.

It's not normal to destroy boats which don't pose any immediate threat. It would be acceptable to fire on a boat which refuses to permit boarding and inspection, assuming the interdiction itself is legal under maritime law.

Unless there is an imminent threat, you've got to give people a course of action which they can take to avoid their vessel being fired upon: turn back, change course, submit to boarding and inspection, etc.

sfifs

> Normally, suspected drug smugglers should be interdicted, boarded, and inspected.

Wouldn't any smuggler have drugs in a case weighted by stones ready to dump the second they think they're being interdicted? You wouldn't find anything and possible smugglers would have both liberty and equipment try again.

I suspect there's no easier deterence without boots on ground regime change (ie. Police yourself + develop the region economically) other than essentially shooting at suspiciously behaving craft. I also suspect all the various solutions have been game theorized to death in millitary thinktanks and war colleges and have been known for decades - they just decided to bite the bullet now.

Piracy on the east coast of Africa was a huge problem problem until countries sent navies to shoot the boats out of water if they were behaving suspiciously. I believe some countries were ready to bomb ports towns but it thankfully it didn't get that far before local strongmen got the message.

esbranson

If they are indeed accused of being narco-terrorists, then they are enemy combatants, and there are no such requirements in either international or US law.

bad_haircut72

Im not actually in support of killing these people but I have to say, people seem to gloss over that each boatload of these drugs literally destroys multiple American families. People who have lost someone (either through death or just throwing their life away) to drugs will tell you these "poor fishermen" are murderers, who in no way extend the kind of empathy to us that we're expected to show them.

It does get very complicated when you consider they're probably under a lot of "carrot AND stick" from the cartels... but the damage they do is real.

mylifeandtimes

Having lost a fried to drugs, I hear your pain.

I don't see how killing a lot of fishermen and destroying their families alleviates this pain.

There might have been drugs on the boats, but maybe not. No one bothered to check first.

The fishermen might have been part-time drug smugglers, maybe not. How do we know? What investigation was done?

And if we really believe that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

then taking away people's lives without due process is murder. Cold blooded, premeditated murder. That's a worse crime than selling someone a drug that might kill them.

Friend, don't let your pain blind you to causing more pain. Ethics is hard.

ericmcer

I mean it is noble to act like you are some being of infinite sympathy and forgiveness. The reality of being alive though is that many people will 100% hurt you for their personal gain.

> That's a worse crime than selling someone a drug that might kill them

I am pretty sure the 14 people who died weren't smuggling in 14 doses of fentanyl, is killing someone a worse crime than selling 100,000 people a drug that might kill them, and will guaranteed fuck up their lives, their families lives, and their community?

esbranson

The US has literal videos. "Grasping for straws" is what this is called.

burkaman

This is not a useful conversation because there is no way to know that any drugs have been destroyed. The issue at hand is that the government is blowing up unidentified boats full of unidentified people. Talking about the harmful effects of drugs is a complete non-sequitur until there is some convincing reason to believe that drugs are involved.

TriangleEdge

The intelligence used for the strikes are not shared with you. Your assumption here is that these strikes are baseless, but you don't know this.

jancsika

> People who have lost someone (either through death or just throwing their life away) to drugs will tell you these "poor fishermen" are murderers

Just to be clear-- we're talking about a hypothetical family member of a potential future victim of drug overdose who was unwittingly saved based on fully trusting the federal government's claim that their extra-judicial killing stopped the international trade of illicit drugs as opposed to killing innocent fishermen.

Did I correctly label all the global mutable state in your example?

I get and agree with your non-sequitur that there's a clear difference between drug mules and fishermen, I just don't see the relevance of that to the danger of leveraging these post-9/11 counterterrorism laws (and secret interpretations of them) to carry out extra-judicial killings.

Edit: to be extra clear-- the whole point of meaningful democratic oversight in this case is to be able to meaningfully care, measure and review the difference between drug mules and fishermen. The entire modern history of secret interpretations of counterterrorism laws tells us that without this basic oversight, the government will always claim they only target the murderers. Worse, they'll use the veil of national security to hide the fact that innocent victims are jailed, tortured, and killed through the same counterterrorism programs.

victorbjorklund

Would you accept other countries blowing up Americans because some Americans bring drugs and other things into other countries?

ericmcer

Yeah... If you are smuggling large amounts of fentanyl or weapons into another country and they shoot you that seems pretty ok.

bad_haircut72

Singapore has given many foreigners the death penalty for drug smuggling and I couldnt care less actually

If youre implying the people being killed are innocent countrymen of the real criminals then of course I object. Everything I have said applies to people actually comitting crimes

halfmatthalfcat

How do you know that already doesn’t happen? Not necessarily blowing up but I’m sure there’s a gulf of dead people with US citizenship who have been killed by various states for participating in drug activities and illegal activity at large.

hellcow

I'd argue a missing social safety net combined with grossly inadequate public education, no job opportunities, unaffordable healthcare and housing, and a prison system designed to punish all drive people to take drugs. Drug addiction is just the symptom. Let's focus on giving people real hope and value and meaning in their lives, from birth to death, instead of killing people, without trial, a world away.

throw0101a

> Im not actually in support of killing these people but I have to say, people seem to gloss over that each boatload of these drugs literally destroys multiple American families.

So does alcohol. (And a whole bunch of other domestically-produced stuff.)

How much effort is being put into the demand-side of the equation?

metabagel

These boats aren't even headed to the United States.

rufus_foreman

Not anymore they're not.

Hizonner

If you kill yourself with drugs, nobody murdered you. That's a stupid way to approach things.

christkv

Why are you making the assumption that they are poverty stricken fishermen. That kind of boat and engines is not something a poor fisherman would use or own.

metabagel

What makes you assume they own the boat?

Doesn't seem like this survivor has much money.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/22/americas/caribbean-strike-sur...

scuff3d

I wonder if they're trying to setup a precedent to start deploying the military in force on US soil to fight "narco-terrorists"... "We'll we can't kill them all in the boats, so obviously we need military strike forces deployed in all major American cities and tanks on the boarder with Mexico"

christkv

They did it in Panama against Noriega in 1989.

Qem

One wonders what kinds of domestic abuse such legal hacking enables as side-effect as well: "Sorry Ma'am, your husband was killed in that traffic stop, but you know, the officers were not actually targeting him, just his car..."

viraptor

The US already has the "confiscate and sue the money" legal loophole process for robbing people at random, without heaving to charge the people with anything. Yay civil forfeiture.

esbranson

As here, saying the Islamic State was a criminal organization may have been true, but once they were declared to be organized armed groups participating in an non-international armed conflict, they were subject to lawful killing. Should they give clear indication that they have placed themselves hors de combat (surrendered), they are subject to life imprisonment. Though it'd probably be safer to set their own boat on fire and jump off before heading out to sea.

jrs235

Civil forfeiture taken to a new level?

"We're suing the money and confiscating it, we're not suing you." -> "We're bombing drugs, not people."

Collateral damage be damned!

siliconc0w

Due to the sheer number of outright lies and bad faith arguments the courts really ought to order an independent council to review all administration opinions and briefs.

gigatexal

Here’s hoping Congress wakes up and passes laws that curbs presidential power.

jrmg

There already are laws! They’re not being enforced (enforcement is an Executive Branch function...).

The remedy for the Executive Branch breaking and/or not enforcing laws made by the Legislative Branch is supposed to be impeachment by congress.

gigatexal

true and teh Supreme Court having been packed by trump admin #1 and an incompetent democratic leadership or rather Sith-lord 5D chess playing Mitch mcconell blocking appointments to the court ... isn't helping protect the rule of law much at all.

Terr_

That was my wishful hope in 2016, today I can't imagine it happening without a very different Congress.

amanaplanacanal

Midterms are next year. Think about who you want in Congress and vote appropriately.

kelnos

That will only work if Democrats can obtain a veto-proof supermajority in both houses. Good luck with that.

The problem right now is that the Executive Branch is refusing to carry out the existing will of Congress. Passing more bills (that will be vetoed) to tell the executive to do its job isn't all that helpful.

At this point I think only the courts can save us, but I don't think we can rely on SCOTUS to do the right thing. And even if they did, they have no real teeth to force Trump to do anything.

I carefully think we are better off with Democrats controlling both (or at least one) houses of Congress, but that won't magically fix things.

standardUser

Congress has all the power they need, they simply refuse to use it.

leobg

You’re welcome to move to the EU. Everything is a committee. Nobody is ever responsible. Nothing ever gets done.

ethin

Am I the only one who thinks that this will effectively enable vigilantism? What is stopping this from trickling downwards to lower levels of government and law enforcement? And then, of course, it trickles down to the citizenry because of the actions of that government.