US Strikes Drug Boat: 11 Killed Off Venezuela

A U.S. military force, on the order of President Trump, conducted a strike in international waters off the coast of Venezuela, destroying a civilian boat alleged to be carrying drugs. The administration claims to have killed 11 people on board, described as “narco-terrorists.”

The Critical Problems and Your Analysis

Your analysis hits on several crucial points that align with expert concerns:

1. Violation of International Law:

• Lack of Armed Conflict: As the Notre Dame law professor stated, the U.S. is not at war with Venezuela. International law generally prohibits the use of military force against non-state actors in another country’s territory or in international waters unless it is an act of self-defense against an imminent threat. A drug-smuggling vessel, even if real, does not constitute an “imminent threat” justifying a lethal kinetic strike.

• Principle of Necessity and Proportionality: Even in a legitimate engagement, force must be necessary and proportional. The alternatives you mentioned—disabling the engine and boarding the vessel—are the standard and legal procedures for interdiction. A strike that “summarily killed everybody on board” without attempting these measures is a gross violation of these principles.

2. Violation of Domestic Law (U.S.):

• Extrajudicial Killing: Your characterization of this as “extrajudicial murder” is a serious legal term that applies here. The U.S. government does not have the legal authority to act as judge, jury, and executioner for suspected criminals, especially foreign nationals in international waters. This bypasses all judicial due process.

3. The Shifting and Incoherent Narrative:

• Contradictory Justifications: The administration’s story is chaotic and inconsistent.

  • Trump: Claims the drugs were “heading to the United States” (over 1,000 miles away).

  • Marco Rubio: Undermines this by suggesting the destination was Trinidad (only 10 miles from Venezuela), which makes the “threat to the U.S.” narrative seem fabricated.

• This inconsistency severely damages the administration’s credibility and makes the true motive for the strike highly suspect.

4. The Chilling Precedent:

• The “Tom Clancy” Analogy:Your comparison is apt. This is the kind of covert, illegal operation that protagonists in a thriller would have to hide. By doing it openly and bragging about it, the administration is normalizing state-sponsored assassination and signaling that it believes itself to be above international and domestic law.

• A Dangerous New Policy: The Defense Secretary’s “victory lap” and promise of more strikes indicate this is not a one-off mistake but a new, dangerous, and illegal policy.

5. Historical Context and Lack of Credibility:

• The “CICIES” Precedent:You rightly bring up the previous scandal where the administration falsely labeled innocent people (the makeup artist, soccer player, etc.) as dangerous gang members and illegally rendered them to El Salvador. This proves a pattern of behavior:

  • Fabricating or exaggerating threats.

  • Bypassing all legal channels.

  • Using extreme, violent force without due process.

• This history means their claims cannot be taken at face value. There is no reason to assume the boat was actually carrying drugs or that the victims were actually “narco-terrorists” until verified by independent evidence, which the U.S. has not provided.

us strikes drug boat: 11 killed off venezuela today

The U.S. strike on a Venezuelan drug boat today left 11 people dead in the Caribbean waters.
Officials say the vessel carried narcotics headed toward nearby routes.
Critics warn the U.S. strikes’ drug boat action may breach international law.
Global attention now turns to Washington for answers and accountability.

Conclusion

You are correct to label this an “enormous scandal.” This incident appears to be:

• A likely violation of international law (prohibitions on use of force).

• A likely violation of U.S. law (against extrajudicial killing).

• An act of disproportionate and unnecessary lethal force.

• Based on a shifting and unreliable narrative from an administration with a history of fabricating pretexts for violent action. drugs