“In dozens of interviews in villages on Venezuela’s breathtaking northeastern coast, from which some of the boats departed, residents and relatives said the dead men had indeed been running drugs but were not narco-terrorists or leaders of a cartel or gang.
Most of the nine men were crewing such craft for the first or second time, making at least $500 per trip, residents and relatives said. They were laborers, a fisherman, a motorcycle taxi driver. Two were low-level career criminals. One was a well-known local crime boss who contracted out his smuggling services to traffickers.
The men lived on the Paria Peninsula, in mostly unpainted cinderblock homes that can go weeks without water service and regularly lose power for several hours a day. They awoke to panoramic views of a national park’s tropical forests, the Gulf of Paria’s shallows and the Caribbean’s sparkling sapphire waters. When the time came for their drug runs, they boarded open-hulled fishing skiffs that relied on powerful outboard motors to haul their drugs to nearby Trinidad and other islands.
The residents and relatives interviewed by the AP requested anonymity out of fear of reprisals from drug smugglers, the Venezuelan government or the Trump administration. They said they were incensed that the men were killed without due process. In the past, their boats would have been interdicted by the U.S. authorities and the crewmen charged with federal crimes, affording them a day in court.
…
The Trump administration has justified the strikes by declaring drug cartels to be “ unlawful combatants ” and said the U.S. is now in an “armed conflict” with them. Trump has said each sunken boat has saved 25,000 American lives, presumably from overdoses. The boats, however, appear to have been transporting cocaine, not the far more deadly synthetic opioids that kill tens of thousands of Americans each year.
Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in a statement to the AP that the Defense Department has “consistently said that our intelligence did indeed confirm that the individuals involved in these drug operations were narco-terrorists, and we stand by that assessment.”
So far, the U.S. military has blown up 17 vessels, killing more than 60 people.
…
After seeing clips on social media that mentioned his death, relatives broke the news to his mother, but not until after ensuring she had taken her blood pressure medication. Sánchez’s youngest son, a third grader, could not accept for days that his father was gone. He kept asking adults if his father could have survived the explosion, noting he might still be at sea.
“As of this writing, the U.S. military has killed at least 61 people.
…
According to Philippe Sands, who frequently argues before international tribunals, the administration’s actions are “contrary to the basic precepts of international law.” The question, of course, is what that means as a practical matter and whether foreign governments — including the countries whose citizens have been killed in the attacks — might try to do anything about it.”
“Trump conflates cocaine, which is produced mainly in Colombia and is often transported by sea, with fentanyl, which is produced in Mexico and overwhelmingly enters the United States in small packages by land over the southern border. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), fentanyl accounts for nearly 70 percent of drug-related deaths in the United States.
The National Center for Drug Abuse Statistics says two milligrams of fentanyl is a potentially lethal dose. Trump therefore seems to be assuming that each of the boats destroyed on his orders was carrying 50 grams of fentanyl. That is pretty large for a fentanyl shipment: Between 2018 and 2023, according to a recent study, most fentanyl powder seizures weighed less than 40 grams. Even so, 50 grams (less than two ounces) is not large enough that you would see “fentanyl all over the ocean” after blowing up a boat carrying it, which underlines the point that Trump’s fentanyl is imaginary.
Even if we join Trump in pretending that cocaine is fentanyl, his claim relies on two other fallacious assumptions. If those 50 grams of fanciful fentanyl had not been intercepted, he implicitly posits, they would have been delivered to 25,000 different American consumers, each of whom would have consumed his share in a single sitting, with fatal results. Trump also imagines, contrary to more than a century of experience with drug interdiction, that traffickers do not compensate for intercepted shipments by sending more. When drugs are seized or destroyed, he seems to think, the total supply available to Americans is reduced by that amount. If that were true, it would be hard to understand why Trump says drug interdiction is “totally ineffective.”
Leaving aside these inconvenient details, Trump’s account of what he is accomplishing by ordering the deaths of suspected smugglers, like Bondi’s estimate of lives saved by less lethal anti-drug efforts that Trump now concedes were “totally ineffective,” is impossible on its face. Last year, the CDC estimates, illegal drug use resulted in about 82,000 U.S. “overdose deaths.” By Trump’s account, he has somehow prevented more than four times as many drug-related fatalities by destroying a tiny portion of the total supply.
…
Trump is trying to justify murder as self-defense, obscuring the immorality and lawlessness of his bloodthirsty anti-drug tactics. Trump’s unprecedented policy of killing suspected drug smugglers instead of arresting them—which has already become the new normal—simultaneously corrupts the mission of the armed forces, erasing the traditional distinction between civilians and combatants, and undermines long-standing principles of criminal justice, imposing the death penalty without statutory authorization or any semblance of due process. But he hopes his extravagant claims about hypothetical deaths prevented by intercepting imaginary fentanyl will distract the public from the actual deaths he is ordering.”
Multiple high level military men have stepped down as the Trump administration appears to murder suspected drug traffickers. The administration showed their intel justifying the strikes only to some Republican Congressmen rather than to members of both parties, so Congress as a whole can’t even analyze the justifications.
“Somewhere off the coast of Venezuela, a speedboat with 11 people on board is blown to smithereens. Vice President J.D. Vance announces that “killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military.”
When challenged that killing citizens without due process is a war crime, the vice president responded that he “didn’t give a shit.”
…
But over 20,000 people are murdered in the U.S. each year, and yet somehow we find a way to a dispassionate dispensation of justice that includes legal representation for the accused and jury trial.
Why? Because sometimes the accused is actually not guilty.
As passions subside, a civilized people should ask: To be clear, the people bombed to smithereens were guilty, right?
…
The administration has maintained that the people blown to smithereens were members of Tren de Aragua and therefore narcoterrorists.
Certainly, then, if we know they belong to a particular gang, then someone must surely have known their names before they were blown to smithereens?
At the very least, the government should explain how the gang came to be labelled as terrorists. U.S. law defines a terrorist as someone who uses “premeditated, politically motivated violence…against non-combatants.” Since the U.S. policy is now to blow people to smithereens if they are suspected of being in a terrorist gang, then maybe someone could take the time to explain the evidence of their terrorism?
…
Few independent legal scholars argue the strikes are legal. Even John Yoo—a former deputy assistant attorney general under President George W. Bush, who infamously authored the Bush administration’s legal justification for “enhanced interrogation techniques”—has criticized the Trump administration’s justification for the strikes, saying: “There has to be a line between crime and war. We can’t just consider anything that harms the country to be a matter for the military. Because that could potentially include every crime.””
The United States military is making extrajudicial illegal killings of potential drug traffickers, apparently killing a boat of Colombians this time. The U.S. is threatening a regime change war with Venezuela.
“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized to Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani on Monday for the Israeli strikes on Doha that killed a Qatari service member and violated Qatari sovereignty.
In a call organized by President Trump, Netanyahu also said such a strike would not happen again.”
“Although Trump frames his unprecedented use of the U.S. military to summarily execute drug suspects as “self-defense,” it plainly does not fit that description. By his own account, he has unilaterally decided to impose the death penalty on alleged drug traffickers for the sake of deterrence. That policy represents a stark departure from both military norms and criminal justice principles.
…
The Trump administration “has not even seriously tried to present a legal argument to justify the premeditated killing of the people aboard these two vessels,” former State Department lawyer Brian Finucane told The New York Times. “The U.S. president does not have a license to kill suspected drug smugglers on that basis alone.”
Rear Adm. Donald J. Guter, who served as the Navy’s top judge advocate general from 2000 to 2002, concurred. “Trump is normalizing what I consider to be an unlawful strike,” he said.
…
Trump does not claim the men whose deaths he ordered were engaged in literal attacks on the United States. The justification in both cases was that the targets were “transporting illegal narcotics,” which Trump dubiously equates with violent aggression.”