A new, disturbing detail in the “drug boat” controversy that has enveloped Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over the past week calls the purpose of the entire operation into question.
According to an exclusive report from CNN, the alleged narco-trafficking boat that the U.S. military targeted on September 2 in a “double tap” strike, which killed 11 people, wasn’t even heading to the U.S.
Navy Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, who was in charge of the operation, reported to lawmakers that the boat they struck was actually en route to link up with a larger boat that was heading to Suriname, a country east of Venezuela, two sources with direct knowledge of his remarks said.
Bradley also said that it was still possible that the alleged drug shipment could have eventually ended up in the U.S., the sources told CNN—rather dubious justification for a strike that left several people dead.
This is a bad position to hold. You’re basing your stance on something that most people won’t believe, and is probably wrong, when it doesn’t even matter. It being a drug smuggling boat does not make it legal, so don’t even discuss that.
It does look exactly like what a drug smuggling boat would look like though, and this statement seems to corroborate that. It’s likely it is a drug boat, so you’re just going to be dismissed by everyone. It’s illegal either way. Argue that point.
If only there was some way they could prove it was a drug boat
I don’t know if it was in this particular chain of comments or one of the others, but I did say they should have boarded instead of shooting it at least, but that that is still illegal. The US Navy does not have the authority to do that. The US Coast Guard does have limited authority, but, IIRC, it still would have been illegal for them. There’s really no legal justification for what the US is doing, drug boats or not.
You’re right that even if* they were criminals it would still be murder, but there are a lot of authoritarians out there who are perfectly willing to prescribe death penalties for any alleged crime. Going with your tact and forfeiting any need to prove that the victims actually did anything wrong is a weaker argument. Keep in mind, we don’t actually have any evidence that they are what the regime says they are, them " looking like what a drug smuggling boat would look like" is incredibly tenuous.
It’s a significantly stronger argument because you don’t have to forfeit reason. If your only goal is to remove any ability to justify an attack then you can make up anything you want. For example: “It was aliens driving the boat with secret cloaking technology, and they didn’t even come from Venezuela.” Is that a stronger argument? Obviously not. The stronger argument is the one that’s harder to refute, not the one that’s trivial to.
It’s not very tenuous really. There’s a common design used for this, that isn’t used for any other purpose as far as I’m aware. There’s no comfort built in, so it’s not like a consumer boat. They’re built for speed, but also with a lot of cargo space, so they aren’t like a fishing boat or anything else. We have many instances of them being boarded and drugs seized from the past, and they look almost identical. The boats also were loaded with some kind of cargo (we can’t know what, because it was destroyed, but we know there was stuff in there). Here’s a picture:
It’s much easier to argue the regime is doing something illegal starting from a place of reason. If they wanted to stop them they easily could have boarded them (though also illegal where they are). Slaughtering the is illegal and immoral, no matter the justification. You can also point out that Venezuela has huge oil reserves, which is a trend for nations we invade. It isn’t about drugs. Usually they talk about fentanyl, but that’s not coming through Venezuela, so that’s a big hole in their reasoning.
There’s a lot of ways to approach it that don’t require burying your head in the sand and arguing that there aren’t drugs being smuggled. Theres far too much evidence for that.
It’s reasonable to expect some form of evidence that the victims actually committed a crime.
In a court of law, sure. In the court of public opinion? No.
Anyway, what I’m saying has nothing to do with them committing a crime. It has to do with the US committing a crime. It doesn’t matter if it was drug smuggling or not. The actions were illegal and immoral. They should not have been done. I’m just not going to weaken that argument by couching it on them being drug boats or not, because there’s more than enough evidence to assume that’s reasonable. If you make that your argument then no one is going to listen to you (outside of a few internet communities who refuse to be reasonable because they think that makes them better).
Just watched an SNL skit in which they referred to them as fishing boats. Pretty sure you’re off base with what most people think, it’s not an unreasonable fringe stance. On average people are going to care more about the idea that “we” just killed a several dozen random fishermen off the coast of a country we’re not even at war with than the idea that um well actually narcotraficantes are people too and deserve a trial by jury. I don’t really see them anymore, but I used to regularly see ‘shoot your local heroin dealer’ bumper stickers. Talking with ex military coworkers, though, there plenty of criticism of these murders, and plenty of distrust in the brass. That’s all I’ve got to say, though, you’re just kneecapping your effectiveness by not even bothering to recognize the glaring uncertainty about who these victims were.
Tell me more about what drug smuggling boats look like ya jabroni. Their only shared characteristic is “having drugs aboard” and I’m real curious how your eagle eyes are picking that out
No, there is a specific type of boat that’s used. They are long thin boats usually with multiple motors (sometimes four or five). They will have containers, usually drums, in the middle section. They are built for maximum speed.
Technically a civilian could be using one of these perfectly legally. They are not fishing boats or anything like that though. The fuel would cost far too much to be worth it. They could be speed boats I guess for fun, but you still have to explain the cargo. I don’t know what else it could be, and, again, it doesn’t matter. It’s illegal to destroy them (especially killing the shipwrecked) no matter what.
Yeah, who likes going fast anyways? I would bet everything in my pockets that most of the drugs in this country come in on regular container ships with the rest of the freight, and long skinny ass-haulers with multiple outboards are the default toy of wealthy Floridians since time immemorial. I can extrapolate that to Venezuela a lot easier than I can dream up a scenario where it makes sense to ship fent precursors over from China and run a bunch of pills up the coast on speedboats. Talk to a cop or a junkie, whichever fits your politics. Either one will tell you that’s just not how it works
edited to leave this completely unrelated pic here, no reason
Hey go fast boats are a standard in the movie industry it must be true. Yah I’m with you reality is much more boring they are bringing in containers of drugs there is no way the amount of drugs the US uses are coming in on small ships.
You need the go-fast boat to race the other guys to the drug smuggler’s boat. Haven’t you played GTA Vice City?
If you like going fast you don’t build a vessel like this. You dint need to carry cargo if you’re just going fast. You need to explain what the cargo is if you want to pretend like they aren’t drug boats. They aren’t fishing boats, and other cargo doesn’t need to be transported like this, and it isn’t fuel efficient so it must be something that can’t take other routes.
I’m not making any claim about where most of the drugs come in. How does that have anything to do with the conversation. Even if it is true, it doesn’t mean these aren’t drug boats.
It’s not fentanyl. IIRC, most of that comes in through Mexico, but I might be wrong about that. I believe it’s mostly cocaine coming through Venezuela.
Again, this doesn’t matter. The fact we’re having this discussion proves my point. It’s better to just talk about the legality. It being a drug boat doesn’t make it a legal target. Why even bring that into the discussion. All it’ll ever do is distract from the actual crimes being committed.
Just to be clear, I’m a leftist (anarchist). I’m very against this administration, and I’m also generally pro legalization of any drug. That doesn’t mean I need to be stupid and pretend drugs aren’t being smuggled. There’s a hell of a lot of evidence ships like these, and others, have been used to smuggle drugs. Technically all of that could have been staged, but I doubt it. There are drugs being smuggled through Venezuela and you’d have to be very ignorant to think that isn’t happening. Hell, there are drugs being smuggled through the US. None of that has anything to do with these acts being illegal though, so don’t shoot yourself in the foot by arguing about it.
Edit: On the image you posted, in case this makes you think I’m more reasonable, this is a comment I made a while back: https://lemmy.zip/comment/23085761
I agree with you it’s bad. However, drugs are being smuggled. This isn’t really something that can be denied. It’s happening everywhere all the time. It just isn’t relevant. It’s illegal no matter what, even if these are drug smugglers or not.
Man the only thing us having this discussion proves is that you’re either putting a whole lot of effort into justifying US intervention for a self professed leftist or see this conversation as something to win. The “crime” here is regime change in Venezuela for a shitton of oil and we’re here arguing about the plausibility of some set dressing for the manufacture of consent. Check out this factory fresh drug smuggling boat. Definitely not a rich man’s sportfishing plaything, purpose built by brown commie narcoterrorists to destroy our freedom
That’s not what they looked like. Here’s some of these boats:
Notice it’s not really built for comfort. There’s no cover for the pilot or passengers, and there’s a large cargo area. It’s very different than what a civilian boat looks like.
Anyway, I don’t know how many times I have to say this. It being a drug boat or not doesn’t make it legal to destroy. It doesn’t justify anything whether it’s a drug boat or not. It’s just a lot easier to convince people of the right thing if you don’t start from crazy conspiracies. There are drugs being smuggled. This isn’t a secret. Arguing that there aren’t drugs being smuggled makes you sound equally as reasonable as someone saying that aliens actually blew up those boats. There’s a lot of evidence to the contrary that needs to be explained.
Those are incredibly similar boats to the one I posted, just older shittier and viewed through a gun cam. They get whipped out of Florida by hurricanes and repurposed all over the Caribbean. The bare minimum to call this a conversation is not putting words in my mouth, no shit people smuggle drugs, if you’ve never done it you’re a huge nerd. There is absolutely not some shadowy organization building “drug boats” as an attack on America and absolutely no excuse for us to be down there blowing shit up, legal minutia about rules of engagement aside
Fine, keep arguing these aren’t. Whatever. How they fuck do you explain narco subs? It’s either cartels building them to smuggle drugs, or nations building them and filling them with drugs as some massive conspiracy to manufacture consent against drug cartels, and no one has spoken out yet. It’s much more likely the former.
It’s not an attack on America. It’s just people making money. No shit there’s no excuse. That’s literally what I’ve been saying. Drug boats or not, it isn’t legal or moral.
It isn’t 1982… a drug smuggling ship… is a container ship. With people paid off to let the container through.
There is zero control over drugs entering the United States. It’s a farce. A show. Drugs come in by the container load. 50k to the customs agent, done.
Eh, not exactly. Sometimes, sure. If you don’t think that narco subs or boats exist though then what the hell are those? If you want to say there aren’t boats smuggling drugs then you need to explain a whole lot of shit out there.
Also, again, it doesn’t matter. It’s a lot easier to just not make this claim because it doesn’t change the legality. Youre going to be ignored like a whacko moon landing denier if you claim there aren’t drug smuggling boats, regardless of if these are or not (which they very much resemble them). You’ll seem a lot more reasonable if you just don’t touch that claim, which is a distraction, and argue that it’s illegal whether it’s a drug boat or not.
They never said there where not drug smuggling boats just that they where much bigger. And they’re probably right. Containers full of drugs brought in not little ass boats.
How do you explain the cargo in these boats, and also the pictures from previous interceptions of this kind of boat full of drugs? Is it all manufactured? That’s a hell of a lot of work for a long period of time with no one speaking out.