When Military Strikes Replace Due Process at Sea

The US military killed two more people in the Pacific Ocean this week, claiming they were drug traffickers. No trial. No evidence presented. Just a 10-second video of a boat exploding in military crosshairs.

The Evidence-Free Execution

US Southern Command announced Monday's "lethal kinetic strike" against what it alleged was a drug trafficking vessel in the eastern Pacific. Two "narco-terrorists" died, one survived. The military immediately notified the Coast Guard for search and rescue—a curious juxtaposition of destroying and saving lives within minutes.

But here's what's missing: any evidence these people were actually drug traffickers. The military's own statement offers no proof, just allegations. The released footage shows a small motorboat in crosshairs, then an explosion. The vessel slows but doesn't fully sink, raising questions about the survivor's fate in open ocean.

This marks the third attack since US forces abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January—a operation that seems to have opened floodgates for increasingly aggressive maritime operations.

A Pattern of Lethal Assumptions

Media tallies now count 37 attacks against 39 vessels in the eastern Pacific and Caribbean, killing at least 130 people. The September 2025 strike reportedly included a follow-up attack on survivors clinging to wreckage—what legal experts called an unambiguous war crime.

The pattern is troubling: suspect, strike, kill, then search for survivors. It's judge, jury, and executioner rolled into one military operation. International waters have become a zone where allegations equal death sentences.

SOUTHCOM provides no details on the survivor's condition or rescue prospects. In vast Pacific waters, survival odds plummet rapidly. Was this person a trafficker, a fisherman, or someone in the wrong place at the wrong time? We may never know.

The Silence of International Law

Legal scholars and human rights groups have condemned these operations as extrajudicial killings. Yet international response remains muted. Regional leaders protest, but major powers stay quiet. Would the reaction differ if China or Russia conducted similar strikes?

The Trump administration appears undeterred by criticism. The drug war narrative provides convenient cover for operations that would be called state terrorism if conducted by other nations. Congressional oversight seems absent, and public debate minimal.

What's particularly striking is how these strikes normalize violence as policy. Each attack makes the next more acceptable, creating precedent for maritime law enforcement that bypasses courts entirely.

The Broader Implications

These operations raise fundamental questions about sovereignty and justice. If the US can kill suspected traffickers without trial, what stops other nations from adopting similar tactics? The international legal order depends on consistent application of rules—even for superpowers.

The human cost extends beyond immediate casualties. Fishing communities and legitimate maritime commerce face increased risks. Every small boat becomes potentially suspect, every voyage potentially fatal.