A Bombing
A Bombing
The recent bombing of a boat off the coast of Venezuela is probably the worst atrocity committed by the Trump administration so far. It was suspected of being a drug-smuggling boat and summarily blown up, killing all on board. No interception, no search, no due process—just destroyed under suspicion of illegality. The US coast guard routinely intercepts such vessels and apprehends anyone caught smuggling drugs, putting them in jail if found guilty; so, the bombing was not necessary in any sense. Then why do it? To “send a message”, i.e., tell anyone thinking of smuggling drugs that they are at risk of summary execution. That is, the intention was to instill fear in potential criminals (people who transport drugs to the US) by killing people. This is precisely what terrorists do: kill some people to instill fear in others. So, the United States has aligned itself with state terrorism—it has made itself a terrorist organization. It has murdered with the intent to instill fear. What if turns out it was not a drug boat? What if other innocent boats are targeted? Even if it were laden with drugs, was it a good idea to bomb it this way? Don’t you think innocent boating enthusiasts might be deterred from boating off the coast of Venezuela? Wasn’t this outright murderous terrorism? And apparently Venezuela is not a big player in illegal drug trafficking anyway, so this was mainly a performative act—an act designed to generate publicity. You murder people for show, not worrying too much about guilt or innocence, or the rule of law. It is theatrical terrorism. And we haven’t even gone into the complicity of Americans in enabling and encouraging the flow of drugs (supply and demand). The main point is the lawless murderous terrorism perpetrated by the American government.
You are overly generous to state that the boat was suspected of smuggling drugs. We cannot take anything Trump or his toadies say at their word. They might have blown up the boat because Trump wanted to exhibit his manliness, or to demonstrate yet again that he is above the law (so that we’re used to it when he cancels the 2026 elections), or as another distraction from the Epstein files. Who knows?
I quite agree, but I wanted to point out the evil of the act even under their description of it.
Abby Phillip covered the story last night to good effect. It is now being described as a war crime. The excellent point was made that we don’t even know if the boat was headed for the USA, let alone who was on it and why. It was a performative murder. No evidence has yet been presented to show the boat was carrying drugs. Anything can be “suspected” of anything.
A New York Times headline reads, “Trump Claims the Power to Summarily Kill Suspected Drug Smugglers.” Of course he is going to say that, because he is incapable of admitting fault or even doubt about anything. And of course he is going to say it with no basis; it is not as if he can, or would care to, cite a law or court decision to support his position. I wonder whether the media should report such statements, because they go without saying; it would be like reporting that Trump inhaled and exhaled today. Yet I suppose that they must.
The Times, as always, tries to make Trump seem normal. The article states, “President Trump used the military in a way that had no clear legal precedent or basis, according to specialists in the laws of war and executive power.” Was there a less-than-clear precedent or basis? The Times could have quoted someone who called it what it was: murder and a war crime. But was it a war crime in light of the fact that it did not occur during a war and was not aimed at another country? It may have simply been murder.
I don’t think it was a war crime, just a coldblooded murder designed to intimidate others. I’m surprised he hasn’t done some torture (that we know of).
I strongly disapproved of the Time’s reporting on me 12 years.
He sent people to the El Salvador prison knowing that they would be tortured, and they were.
I’m sure he’s all in favor of torture, but too squeamish to do it himself–same for execution. It remains to be seen whether the US will engage in it under Trump, but there will certainly be apologists.