I guess I should weigh into this being somewhat an expert on maritime interdiction operations. I’ve been on visit, boarding, search and seizure teams, led them, and led counter terrorism, anti-piracy, etc, operations.
I do not agree with our current posture. We should be attempting interdiction and seizure before going to deadly force. We have a plethora of means to stop these boats, once engaged. We should be attempting seizure before escalating to deadly force.
Our laws do not support capital punishment for narcotics trafficking. Now, if the smugglers use force, show hostile intent/action, or put our service members in harms way, that’s an escalation where deadly force is warranted.
We have been seizing, and sinking drug boats for years, under many Presidents. We’ve always attempted search and seizure first. I understand the shock and awe aspect with this extreme posture to stop drug smuggling, but I do not agree we should be violating our laws, international law, or our values because it’s somehow justified to stop this evil.
The difference between this and drone strikes on Terrorists is AUMF authorization versus U.S.C. for handling drug trafficking as law enforcement. When engaged in wartime operations, you have to use whatever force means limits your casualties while meeting the intended mission goal. In my experience, smugglers generally do not engage with Navy ships. That’s not to say always, but they usually give up. If not, you have helicopter overhead. And by definition it’s law enforcement and not war.
I think we are on a slippery slope if the ends always justifies the means and we will compromise anything in pursuit of that.
Bob Smith stated "I think we are on a slippery slope if the ends always justifies the means and we will compromise anything in pursuit of that." As you know we, as a Country, have been on the Slippery Slope with the use of our Military "As The World Cops" for some time. Bring our troops home and let them become the Leaders we do not have here in the US of in California or in Santa Barbara. What we have is systemic Corruption in Santa Barbara and in the State of California.
What right do we have to stop & board a boat in international waters? We ‘suspect’ they’re carrying drugs destined for the U.S.? If drugs are found, then what? Do we arrest the crew? By what authority? Do the Venzuelan drug cartels care if some of their boats are interdicted - of course not - they’ll just keep sending more.
'History forgives the victors' . . blow ‘em out of the water!
We conduct maritime interdiction operations in international waters worldwide all the time. Our Navy and Coast Guard do compliant and uncompliant boardings. We have UN international law that supports this, as well as the Maritime Drug Enforcement Law Act (MDLEA). This isn't a question of having authority to interdict; we have laws in place for that. It's a question under "law enforcement," whether we have the authority to be judge, jury, and executioner on the spot. I won't get into also having evidence, because I'm sure we have the solid intel, so that's a hollow argument to me.
Having firsthand seen smugglers and pirates up close and personal. Many of them are teenagers trafficked into it. They don't have a choice. They aren't the organizers; they're not making the money; they are just trying to survive. Heck, there could even be trafficked people hidden in the below-deck compartment. We haven't looked. As an American, I'm a better person than the easy button. And again, I've actually been on the front line of this stuff.
This is a two-way street. If we want the international community to keep supporting our interdiction efforts worldwide under international law, which has undoubtedly saved lives by stopping terrorist weapon smuggling, then we also can't violate international law by indiscriminately killing people. What's the difference between that and a police officer here catching someone dealing fentanyl and then just shooting them and leaving the scene?
These boats can be disabled without loss of life - the easy button is a choice, not a necessity.
I’d blow the fuckers out of the water! If in the end we wind up, freeing the Venezuelan people from a tyrant and getting a better deal on their vast amounts of oil then so much the better.
I would have no fear of prosecution whatsoever. Those senators are bloviating.
Is oil the real motive behind the Trump administration’s hostility towards Venezuela? Of course it is! Why is that a bad thing? Trump, is the incredible pragmatist and has seemed to of developed a strategy in dealing with Maduro by ending the ability to produce drugs, securing the vast oil reserves and putting an end to a Communist regime, all in the same process. Brilliant!
Not since Jefferson used the US Navy in defeat of the Barbary pirates in 1801 has American naval power been used so effectively.
And why not? Under the Monroe Doctrine we have legal authority to take military action in the western hemisphere to protect American interests, and have done so on multiple occasions, ie Mexico, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Panama, and Chile.
Yes, the concept of “Manifest Destiny” should certainly apply to American influence and power around the world and if that requires that we use our Naval power to topple a narco terrorist, drug kingpin, so be it!
BTW: Six local sea birds were rescued, covered with oil. But there were no known oil production leaks. Conclusion, they were victims of natural oil seeps in our area.
One more eco-terrorists poster child busted. Along with the polar bear standing on a melting ice-berg, in the middle of August a few yards from shore.
No mention in this article of the LOCAL connection. The Channel Islands and the Gaviota coast, particularly Refugio State Beach, have been used by smugglers for as long as there have been people with pirate intentions in this area. The news reports of "abandoned" boats on the shoreline, sometimes with a few floating bales of marijuana, are red herrings for the human smuggling of very evil people who need to get into the United States around any border. Terrorists with agendas contrary to our continued existence as a beacon to the free world are coming in, stepping onshore and whisked off in waiting getaway vehicles to then melt into the welcoming gullible hinterland. One jihadi captain is the equivalent of a ton of death powder, one gang jefe to keep the cartel slaves operating with impunity generates the money to fund their agendas. Santa Barbara is the Western Gate, we play a strategic role in the Great Game.
Of course, that makes sense, they were just following trumps orders. What’s the reasoning of pardoning all those people that helped spread the lies about the 2020 election being stolen, At the top of the list, Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, and it was quite a lengthy list. The long list consisted of everyone who helped him spread his lie.
The U.S is so benevolent - giving everyone a break, welcoming and supporting the world’s trash etc. We need to be a lot more prickly, like most other countries. I like Trump’s expression - “Enough with the nice.”
a) Life isn’t fair, it’s a filter for people stupid enough to take these drugs.
b) Unfortunately we can’t send ‘operatives’ to Venezuela to have a little ’talk’ with the thugs producing & sending drugs to the U.S. “This is a warning. Unless you stop sending drugs to the U.S. we’ll be back with a different result.”
Bombing boats on the high seas without proof they’re carrying drugs destined for the U.S. sounds illegal to me, but worse than that - it doesn’t seem to be working. The drugs and the boats are cheap to produce and the mules driving them are expendable, so let’s keep bombing them and take out as many as possible!.
Great survey question: I think the best way to disrupt supply chain is to create a barrier of fear. Best way to do this is destroy the final link of the operations order process. Buyer place orders and supplier who can't fill the order quickly go out of business. Blowing the processed shipment up before they reach final hand off destination is the most efficient way to interrupt the chain.
Too hard to destroy the crops, too hard to track the drugs once they reach port and beyond, and too hard to reach a political solution so therefore the risk determent of blowing up their boats and crew and product seems to be the best course of action.
If I was a drug runner I would think twice about my options before jumping in a cigarette boat with a ton of COKE
Dose anybody notice that while this dilemma is posed for a ship captain, the videos we've seen of boats being destroyed are all from the air? Not to mention that at least some of those killed appear to have been innocent.
The analysis must distinguish between actions taken on Venezuelan sovereign land and waters, international waters, and U.S. sovereign land and waters. To date, all attacks have been conducted in international waters. If we assume that the boats are carrying drugs to the U.S. market what would be your conclusion?
And what would be your analysis and conclusion if we knew the boats carried pirates who intended to attack cargo ships leaving U.S. waters? The world has experienced Houthi pirates in the Persian Gulf and has responded strongly.
And, on a related note, I have long wondered why the U.S., and especially the Left, has tolerated ( or looked the other way) when drugs (fentanyl) were pouring over the border. My conclusion was that if the Left showed a concern about drugs, it would force it to deal with the border (which it did not want to do). Berney
I read this Naval Article titled "Dilemma On The High Seas
By Brent E. Zepke, Esq." and I have a new title "Mission Statement
of the US Navy" I quote from Mr. Zepke below>
"Suppose you, as the captain of a U.S. Navy Destroyer stationed in the Caribbean Sea, receive a report of a small boat that is reportedly carrying drugs—-aka a “drug boat”—-racing on a known drug route from Venezuela to the United States. AND What would you do?"
I do not think that US Naval Surface Ships, are in general, much different than the Ohio Class Submarine Mission to protect the US against Major Threats found here>
Since I spent alot of time aboard the SSBN 726 (Ohio) SSBN 727 (Michigan) and SSBN 728 (Florida) where their sole Mission is the silently patrol to retaliate with their Trident II ballistic missiles. US Naval Surface ships provide support for the Carrier Strike groups that also
includes the fast Attack Submarines. Diverting these expensive Naval Ships and Submarines detracts from their Main Mission and carries risks. There is a better way to deal with the
Drug Cartel methods of transportation so what is really going down we would all want to ask?
If I were the captain of that boat, I would call the admiral for clarification and I would proceed to interdict and seize the vessel under suspicion. I would demand clarification on the situation when the vessel was not underway and dead in the water. Maybe the vessel is out of fuel and communications? The Law of the Sea dictates a vessel in need of assistance if in danger in international waters, the vessel on scene must provide assistance...no? When the first reports on these hits came out, they stated the boats were full of fentanyl. But ingredients for fentanyl origin in China and processed/manufactured in Mexico. Not too much figuring to know it was cocaine they were after. So, the administration succeeded in raising the price of cocaine. Did they end the USA from using cocaine? I don't think so. If the oil or getting rid of Madero is the objective ...then go for it. I disagree with the present operations, and I find myself again agreeing with Paul Rand....which is surprising to me..
I forgot to mention the biggest problem with drugs coming into the United States is supply and demand. Americans have a high demand. So trump needs to stop the demand and he won’t have to kill anyone.
Murder is murder, whether it’s accidental or intentional, this is not only intentional, but premeditated. Why can’t the Coast Guard be given the same capabilities for finding these “drug boats” as the bombers do? Then the Coast Guard can board them and do their job.
Also Reagan and Bush invaded Grenada and Panama for democracy. They didn’t go in bombing everything and everyone. I don’t remember reading or hearing of any casualties in these instances. In fact, In 250 years I don’t remember any previous president going in anywhere and just start blasting away.
Also l’m a little confused, I know we have a North and South Pacific Ocean, but an Eastern Pacific? Did trump rename the Gulf of Mexico again?
I guess I should weigh into this being somewhat an expert on maritime interdiction operations. I’ve been on visit, boarding, search and seizure teams, led them, and led counter terrorism, anti-piracy, etc, operations.
I do not agree with our current posture. We should be attempting interdiction and seizure before going to deadly force. We have a plethora of means to stop these boats, once engaged. We should be attempting seizure before escalating to deadly force.
Our laws do not support capital punishment for narcotics trafficking. Now, if the smugglers use force, show hostile intent/action, or put our service members in harms way, that’s an escalation where deadly force is warranted.
We have been seizing, and sinking drug boats for years, under many Presidents. We’ve always attempted search and seizure first. I understand the shock and awe aspect with this extreme posture to stop drug smuggling, but I do not agree we should be violating our laws, international law, or our values because it’s somehow justified to stop this evil.
The difference between this and drone strikes on Terrorists is AUMF authorization versus U.S.C. for handling drug trafficking as law enforcement. When engaged in wartime operations, you have to use whatever force means limits your casualties while meeting the intended mission goal. In my experience, smugglers generally do not engage with Navy ships. That’s not to say always, but they usually give up. If not, you have helicopter overhead. And by definition it’s law enforcement and not war.
I think we are on a slippery slope if the ends always justifies the means and we will compromise anything in pursuit of that.
It is my understanding that when our ships are not fast enough to force an intervention the question becomes whether to let them go or sink them?
We have a menu of options to disable a single small boat
Huh? ".. force an intervention.." You mean catch them? No problem -bomber drones are faster.
Military technology to track anything on earth (and eliminate all doubt) is a game changer.
Bob Smith stated "I think we are on a slippery slope if the ends always justifies the means and we will compromise anything in pursuit of that." As you know we, as a Country, have been on the Slippery Slope with the use of our Military "As The World Cops" for some time. Bring our troops home and let them become the Leaders we do not have here in the US of in California or in Santa Barbara. What we have is systemic Corruption in Santa Barbara and in the State of California.
What right do we have to stop & board a boat in international waters? We ‘suspect’ they’re carrying drugs destined for the U.S.? If drugs are found, then what? Do we arrest the crew? By what authority? Do the Venzuelan drug cartels care if some of their boats are interdicted - of course not - they’ll just keep sending more.
'History forgives the victors' . . blow ‘em out of the water!
We conduct maritime interdiction operations in international waters worldwide all the time. Our Navy and Coast Guard do compliant and uncompliant boardings. We have UN international law that supports this, as well as the Maritime Drug Enforcement Law Act (MDLEA). This isn't a question of having authority to interdict; we have laws in place for that. It's a question under "law enforcement," whether we have the authority to be judge, jury, and executioner on the spot. I won't get into also having evidence, because I'm sure we have the solid intel, so that's a hollow argument to me.
Having firsthand seen smugglers and pirates up close and personal. Many of them are teenagers trafficked into it. They don't have a choice. They aren't the organizers; they're not making the money; they are just trying to survive. Heck, there could even be trafficked people hidden in the below-deck compartment. We haven't looked. As an American, I'm a better person than the easy button. And again, I've actually been on the front line of this stuff.
This is a two-way street. If we want the international community to keep supporting our interdiction efforts worldwide under international law, which has undoubtedly saved lives by stopping terrorist weapon smuggling, then we also can't violate international law by indiscriminately killing people. What's the difference between that and a police officer here catching someone dealing fentanyl and then just shooting them and leaving the scene?
These boats can be disabled without loss of life - the easy button is a choice, not a necessity.
Very enlightening response Bob - thanks!
I’d blow the fuckers out of the water! If in the end we wind up, freeing the Venezuelan people from a tyrant and getting a better deal on their vast amounts of oil then so much the better.
I would have no fear of prosecution whatsoever. Those senators are bloviating.
Is oil the real motive behind the Trump administration’s hostility towards Venezuela? Of course it is! Why is that a bad thing? Trump, is the incredible pragmatist and has seemed to of developed a strategy in dealing with Maduro by ending the ability to produce drugs, securing the vast oil reserves and putting an end to a Communist regime, all in the same process. Brilliant!
Not since Jefferson used the US Navy in defeat of the Barbary pirates in 1801 has American naval power been used so effectively.
And why not? Under the Monroe Doctrine we have legal authority to take military action in the western hemisphere to protect American interests, and have done so on multiple occasions, ie Mexico, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Panama, and Chile.
Yes, the concept of “Manifest Destiny” should certainly apply to American influence and power around the world and if that requires that we use our Naval power to topple a narco terrorist, drug kingpin, so be it!
Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli!
To your list I would add that President Kennedy used the U.S. Navy to block Russian ships from bringing military materials to Cuba.
BTW: Six local sea birds were rescued, covered with oil. But there were no known oil production leaks. Conclusion, they were victims of natural oil seeps in our area.
One more eco-terrorists poster child busted. Along with the polar bear standing on a melting ice-berg, in the middle of August a few yards from shore.
LT - I'm with you!
No mention in this article of the LOCAL connection. The Channel Islands and the Gaviota coast, particularly Refugio State Beach, have been used by smugglers for as long as there have been people with pirate intentions in this area. The news reports of "abandoned" boats on the shoreline, sometimes with a few floating bales of marijuana, are red herrings for the human smuggling of very evil people who need to get into the United States around any border. Terrorists with agendas contrary to our continued existence as a beacon to the free world are coming in, stepping onshore and whisked off in waiting getaway vehicles to then melt into the welcoming gullible hinterland. One jihadi captain is the equivalent of a ton of death powder, one gang jefe to keep the cartel slaves operating with impunity generates the money to fund their agendas. Santa Barbara is the Western Gate, we play a strategic role in the Great Game.
This article doesn't even mention the over 2,300 times Obama used drone missiles to kill his designated terrorists.
I believe these were known terrorists, not designated, and a threat to our entire nation.
Trump must pardon the captain and crew of the Navy destroyer. If Biden can do it for family and friends that had no convictions …
Of course, that makes sense, they were just following trumps orders. What’s the reasoning of pardoning all those people that helped spread the lies about the 2020 election being stolen, At the top of the list, Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, and it was quite a lengthy list. The long list consisted of everyone who helped him spread his lie.
The U.S is so benevolent - giving everyone a break, welcoming and supporting the world’s trash etc. We need to be a lot more prickly, like most other countries. I like Trump’s expression - “Enough with the nice.”
a) Life isn’t fair, it’s a filter for people stupid enough to take these drugs.
b) Unfortunately we can’t send ‘operatives’ to Venezuela to have a little ’talk’ with the thugs producing & sending drugs to the U.S. “This is a warning. Unless you stop sending drugs to the U.S. we’ll be back with a different result.”
Bombing boats on the high seas without proof they’re carrying drugs destined for the U.S. sounds illegal to me, but worse than that - it doesn’t seem to be working. The drugs and the boats are cheap to produce and the mules driving them are expendable, so let’s keep bombing them and take out as many as possible!.
Great survey question: I think the best way to disrupt supply chain is to create a barrier of fear. Best way to do this is destroy the final link of the operations order process. Buyer place orders and supplier who can't fill the order quickly go out of business. Blowing the processed shipment up before they reach final hand off destination is the most efficient way to interrupt the chain.
Too hard to destroy the crops, too hard to track the drugs once they reach port and beyond, and too hard to reach a political solution so therefore the risk determent of blowing up their boats and crew and product seems to be the best course of action.
If I was a drug runner I would think twice about my options before jumping in a cigarette boat with a ton of COKE
Dose anybody notice that while this dilemma is posed for a ship captain, the videos we've seen of boats being destroyed are all from the air? Not to mention that at least some of those killed appear to have been innocent.
".. appear to be innocent . ." S u u u r e - just out for a little boat ride.
The analysis must distinguish between actions taken on Venezuelan sovereign land and waters, international waters, and U.S. sovereign land and waters. To date, all attacks have been conducted in international waters. If we assume that the boats are carrying drugs to the U.S. market what would be your conclusion?
And what would be your analysis and conclusion if we knew the boats carried pirates who intended to attack cargo ships leaving U.S. waters? The world has experienced Houthi pirates in the Persian Gulf and has responded strongly.
And, on a related note, I have long wondered why the U.S., and especially the Left, has tolerated ( or looked the other way) when drugs (fentanyl) were pouring over the border. My conclusion was that if the Left showed a concern about drugs, it would force it to deal with the border (which it did not want to do). Berney
I read this Naval Article titled "Dilemma On The High Seas
By Brent E. Zepke, Esq." and I have a new title "Mission Statement
of the US Navy" I quote from Mr. Zepke below>
"Suppose you, as the captain of a U.S. Navy Destroyer stationed in the Caribbean Sea, receive a report of a small boat that is reportedly carrying drugs—-aka a “drug boat”—-racing on a known drug route from Venezuela to the United States. AND What would you do?"
I do not think that US Naval Surface Ships, are in general, much different than the Ohio Class Submarine Mission to protect the US against Major Threats found here>
https://gdmissionsystems.com/submarine-systems/ohio-class
Since I spent alot of time aboard the SSBN 726 (Ohio) SSBN 727 (Michigan) and SSBN 728 (Florida) where their sole Mission is the silently patrol to retaliate with their Trident II ballistic missiles. US Naval Surface ships provide support for the Carrier Strike groups that also
includes the fast Attack Submarines. Diverting these expensive Naval Ships and Submarines detracts from their Main Mission and carries risks. There is a better way to deal with the
Drug Cartel methods of transportation so what is really going down we would all want to ask?
https://www.winterwatch.net/2025/09/cia-drug-smuggling-and-dealing-the-birth-of-the-dark-alliance/ >>> "CIA Drug Smuggling and Dealing: Birth of the Dark Alliance"
SO WHO is really involved with WHAT? Is it about DRUGS or more about OIL?
Howard Walther, Member of a Military Family
I vote it's about oil.
Double that Vote John.
If I were the captain of that boat, I would call the admiral for clarification and I would proceed to interdict and seize the vessel under suspicion. I would demand clarification on the situation when the vessel was not underway and dead in the water. Maybe the vessel is out of fuel and communications? The Law of the Sea dictates a vessel in need of assistance if in danger in international waters, the vessel on scene must provide assistance...no? When the first reports on these hits came out, they stated the boats were full of fentanyl. But ingredients for fentanyl origin in China and processed/manufactured in Mexico. Not too much figuring to know it was cocaine they were after. So, the administration succeeded in raising the price of cocaine. Did they end the USA from using cocaine? I don't think so. If the oil or getting rid of Madero is the objective ...then go for it. I disagree with the present operations, and I find myself again agreeing with Paul Rand....which is surprising to me..
If Senator Mark Kelly allows them to enter the US with their deadly cargo, will Mark Kelly be charged with felony murder?
I'll go with what Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski have said.
I forgot to mention the biggest problem with drugs coming into the United States is supply and demand. Americans have a high demand. So trump needs to stop the demand and he won’t have to kill anyone.
Murder is murder, whether it’s accidental or intentional, this is not only intentional, but premeditated. Why can’t the Coast Guard be given the same capabilities for finding these “drug boats” as the bombers do? Then the Coast Guard can board them and do their job.
Also Reagan and Bush invaded Grenada and Panama for democracy. They didn’t go in bombing everything and everyone. I don’t remember reading or hearing of any casualties in these instances. In fact, In 250 years I don’t remember any previous president going in anywhere and just start blasting away.
Also l’m a little confused, I know we have a North and South Pacific Ocean, but an Eastern Pacific? Did trump rename the Gulf of Mexico again?