In Bangladesh there was a terrorist attack in 2016 in a nicer part of Dhaka popular with expatriates: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50570243. I was very worried the country would descend into the situation you see in Pakistan where the state has a questionable level of control over the country. But the military mounted an extreme response against the Islamists, killing hundreds of Islamists. So far, there hasn’t been any significant terrorist attacks in the country since.
This may not be a viable strategy in places like Afghanistan, where you have a radicalized population with a deep well of potential combatants. But it seems to be a viable strategy somewhere that there’s a finite supply of potential combatants who are willing to die for the cause.
The United States isn't the world police. We have both a mixed track record of military engagements with similar non-state targets, and a poor track record of long term disruption of the drug trade. The drug cartels are better funded, better trained, and better connected than terrorist organizations. I wouldn't put money on this turning out well over a twenty year period. Our military budget is extensive, but the resources are still finite. Let's spend them defending ourselves and allies from the type of state actors we are effective against and find another solution to drug trafficking.
And I agree the U.S. isn’t the world police. But the cartels are having negative effects in the U.S., not only in Latin America. And it’s not just drugs. They are involved in human trafficking on the border, and have expanded into other areas like supplying illegal construction labor.
Because that's worked out so well the last time...
Second, there's no reason to trust that using the military will work out better: https://www.democracynow.org/2025/8/14/fort_bragg_cartel_set...
Wars on drugs are basically fighting laws of economics themselves. The only option that actually works is legislation & regulation. Why we think that we can't regulate cocaine the way we regulate alcohol, weed, or cigarettes is beyond me.
Or if you're Trump, just fire missiles at things. For all you know some of the people killed on that boat were victims of trafficking themselves.
It's a simple concept: to the extent that capital is allowed to move freely across borders, so should labor. That doesn't argue for the abolition of nations of borders, but the removal of unecessary friction on natural market flows.
That isn't the whole story, not by a long shot.
Plenty of Latin American countries collaborated on this with the United States and there were DEA personnel in many of those countries, some stationed permanently, others on shorter tours mainly involved in educating local LE. In Colombia for instance your chances of being interviewed by US DEA officer when leaving the country were pretty good. Even today they have plenty of representation outside of the USA:
https://www.dea.gov/foreign-offices/north-and-central-americ...
Worked out great for the Philippines…
Also it's gruesome as fuck & deeply below us for the Secretary of State / National Security Advisor / Archivist of the USA to be posting snuff flicks. It's highly disturbing that Americans would be tuning in to extrajudicial murder by the government, that the administration is sending a message that just killing whomever you want to is fine, not just fine, but evening entertainment & something to cheer about. (So long as your president makes a national emergency declaration to declare whomever you want enemy combatants first. See: Designating Cartels And Other Organizations As Foreign Terrorist Organizations And Specially Designated Global Terrorists https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/desi... ).
This is all a particularly low point, that removes a lot of basic stops in America & cuts the standard for the rest of the world a whole lot for just killing whomever is in power feels like killing. Have some fucking morals & respect. There's no practical limits here, this is all made up. Way way way down the priority list, this is also absurdly ghastly expensive, and wasting our military doing more pointless shit instead of actually preparing for useful defense of the nation.
A bit amusing that you reference the Barbary wars, where an "anti-Christian" (aka anti-organized religion) president Jefferson had the decency to go with John Adams to meet with the ambassad of Tripoli in order to understand what the fuck kind of justification they had for kidnapping American ships and sailors. The ambassador succinctly informed them that it was their right as "it is written in the Koran." [0]
Contrast this with an evangelist boosted admin with a serial adulterer Secretary of Defense (or is he now officially called the Secretary of War?) drunkenly shouting "Kill all Muslims" in a bar [1] or adrenaline tweeting the latest wacko shit from his weird ass pastor.
[0] https://www.city-journal.org/article/jefferson-versus-the-mu...
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/pete-hegseths-secre...
You’re mixing up concepts from two completely different legal domains. It doesn’t matter what the domestic criminal penalty is for drug trafficking, or what due process requires for imposing such a penalty, because those are domestic law concepts that simply do not apply to foreigners in international waters.
In general, non-state combatants are entitled to very few rights under the law of war compared to actual soldiers. https://www.clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/an-uncivil-war-g... (“In relation to the ‘bushwhacker’ Dr. Lieber concluded airily that ‘the importance of writing on this subject is much diminished by the fact that the soldier generally decides these cases for himself. The most disciplined soldiers will execute on the spot an armed and murderous prowler found where he could have no business as a peaceful citizen.’”).
Everyone involved in this will eventually need pardons. But this abuse will get much worse before that. The same arguments they use today can be used for extrajudicial murder on land, foreign and domestic. It's just a matter of degree and time.
https://www.justsecurity.org/119982/legal-issues-military-at...
If you keep doing it, we are going to end up banning you. Please fix this.
I for one think this is an insult to life itself, to summarily execute whomever you vaguely suspect, while they are out in international waters.
Calling these people non-state combatants maybe legally entitles you to just fucking blowing them away with incredibly super fantastically expensive military equipment & ammunition. But you're already accepting hook line & sinker every bit of the administration's long chain of self-granted rights: that Designating Cartels and Other Organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists is a legit emergency tantamount to war, the classification of folks as combatants, and the verdict that these particular people are all indeed in this clasificstion & deserving of death, for the base essential security of this nation. Not a single one of those steps in any way seems essential and every link there deeply denigrates in my view the law & majesty of the US, seems a preposterous assertion beyond the pale & massive weak baby no-backbone loser move, showing all the bravery of people afraid to ride the NYC metro, and insulting to the essence of law.
Maybe the law allows this, maybe the executive grants it. But the disproportionality is insane and insulting. These acts lower this nation, and it feels like there are so many more direct ways to take on global terrorism and cartels, that don't resort to morally if not legally lawless murder in international waters.
If the US had only a vague suspicion about the boat, I would be very critical of this strike, but the Secretary of Defense said that "We knew exactly who was in that boat. We know exactly what they were doing, and we knew exactly who they represented," and none of the half dozen articles critical of the strike I skimmed tried to suggest that that assertion is wrong or exaggerated or that the US didn't have reliable information about who was on the boat or what they were doing.
Right out of the gate, it's been a petty attempt to puff up and enemy. Claiming Aurora Colorado was taken over by Tren de Aragua started basically a year ago, and was absurd nonsense, edging closely on pure fiction. https://coloradonewsline.com/2024/10/11/false-claims-gang-ta...
What's happened with Kilmar Armando Ábrego García shows the commitment and dedication to gross injustice at all costs, purely to press a point, no matter how fabricated. This random father & sheet metal union apprentice is some big time crime dude, because you said so? Get real.
This administration enjoys lying, enjoys making big bold grandiose claims that it seemingly has not a lick of evidence to support. The whole claim about Tren de Aragua being some awful terrible threat seem fantastical & absurd. Maybe there are a couple small problems here in the homeland that they cause, but the administration has invented a Boogeyman, has created as much Fear Uncertainty and Doubt as it can, over the most marginal tiniest problem of the most marginal significance, with which this giant justifies throwing its weight around against the fly. It's pathetic, akin to being afraid of the subway or a city. They breed cowardice & terror for their sick political ability to string up their base in suspense & terror mongering & so it seems here. Pathetic pathetic pathetic losers of no caliber not just disproportionally responding in extremely wasteful ways, but doing so in direct insult to the American citizenry with its falsified fake terror-mongering. Absolutely infernal & dementedly sick lowness.
Zero respect for anything the admin says right now about this whole made up fake news fake war. Vance saying that this ignormaneous bullshit of no consequence is the highest purpose of the US military shows how incredibly zero standards they set, to denigrate the troops with this pointless small irrelevant police action as opposed to doing real things in the world. The admin also hasn't told Congress anything, cancelling the meeting over it. It's all made up phantasms. https://www.axios.com/2025/09/05/trump-drug-boat-strike-vene...
They also don't drone strike illegal border crossers (yet).
Therefore this falls into operations presidents have the power to do. Was it democratic when the US bombed ISIS? I don't know what you mean by democratic. Should there be a vote before every bombing? Should a (un-elected, mind you) judge sign off on targeted strikes before they happen?
1) That Venezuela looks like it's just about an active enemy at this point and Maduro and his admin are closely tied to a couple cartels. (Also side note, Venezuela still has not claimed those 11 were innocents but denied anything happened and said the video was AI generated which kind of confirms to me those were cartels). So now the war on terror has expanded once more to the drug industry. Shucks, looks like another never ending war this guy promised to end.
2) That in the modern video sharing era, propaganda is key and if they use videos to recruit I guess we use videos to dissuade now. I guess that means snuff vids made by the USA are probably going to be a thing now. Sure, we lose decorum but I guess it has a logic to it although I would not want to be the person responsible for our propaganda PR campaigns.
Latin America is almost completely dominated by violent drug trafficking borderline terrorist organized crime gangs.
Over 26% of my country's territory is directly ruled by these gangs. They have infiltrated and corrupted every part of society. It's become impossible to so much as pump gas into our cars without contributing to their finances and continued success.
My country is a narcostate pretending to be a democracy and I have no doubt many if not all of my neighbours are just as bad if not worse. Trump should refuse to even recognize the legitimacy of these nations. Especially that of "democracies" ruled by drug cartel-backed communist dictators such as Venezuela.
Blow up a fucking boat? You really should see what these people do to each other and to the people subjected to their rule on a daily basis. Trump was actually quite humane.
The best that can come out of this is that Maduro is removed. Otherwise you are just creating more and more hate towards the USA.
You are one small step away from "gangs in US cities strike me as similar to..." and the US military just murdering US citizens on US soil based on unreviewed designations and classified intelligence.
Second, can the U.S. constitutionally pursue military tactics against cartels? The answer is “sometimes.” The U.S. can pursue military responses against non-citizens in international water or foreign territory, as was the case here. Contrary to your assertion, it’s not a “small step away” from pursuing military action against “US citizens on U.S. soil.” It’s a very bright line, that’s been pretty easy to enforce for the 200+ years since Jefferson sent the U.S. navy to blow up the Barbary Pirates.
You’re talking about putative “bright line rules” in a made up version of the constitution that has four branches of government and with “independent” civil servants running the show. I’m talking about the real constitution here, as it was understood by the people who wrote it.
> Especially when the president is already illegally deploying US troops within our own borders.
Judge Breyer’s recent order in the LA case upheld that the President can deploy the National Guard to protect federal property: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/PCA%2... (“Finally, the Court’s injunctive relief in this case is narrowly tailored to address Defendants’ statutory violations. The injunction applies only to Defendants’ use of the National Guard in California, not nationally. Defendants are not required to withdraw the 300 National Guard troops currently stationed in Los Angeles, nor are they barred from using troops consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act. In fact, the Court essentially just orders Defendants to follow the (unedited) training materials that they introduced in this trial. See Task Force 51 Training Slides at 6. Thus, for example, federal troops can continue to protect federal property in a manner consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act.”).
The judge found that the troops had acted outside the scope of that authority. Much of that will certainly be overturned. For example, the judge found that the authority to protect federal property didn’t extend to “setting up protective perimeters, traffic blockades, crowd control, and the like.” (P. 42). It’s unlikely Congress intended to authorize the President to deploy the National Guard to protect federal property, but that doesn’t extend to routine measures that would be used to achieve such protection.
At best, we’ve got 300 national guard troops in Los Angeles and we’re quibbling about exactly what they can and cannot do.
Much of that will certainly be overturned. For example, the judge found that the authority to protect federal property didn’t extend to “setting up protective perimeters, traffic blockades, crowd control, and the like.” (P. 42). It’s unlikely Congress intended to authorize the President to deploy the National Guard to protect federal property, but that doesn’t extend to routine measures that would be used to achieve such protection.
Ah, 'OK so we shouldn't have done that but now that we have you shouldn't criticize how we go about it.'
“Emanations from penumbras” are “weasel words.” I’m just talking about what the document means. If there’s contrary Supreme Court precedent, the only way to get it overturned is to take action based on an aggressive legal position and wait to get sued. That’s just how the executive (and impact litigation generally) works.
> to quoting Breyer's allowing deployed troops to stay put as if that wasn't to provide time for the administration to appeal
The portion I quoted was not describing some temporary situation pending the appeal. It first sentence says: “ Finally, the Court’s injunctive relief in this case is narrowly tailored to address Defendants’ statutory violations.” The following portions are describing what the court views as inside the scope of the statute.
And you can criticize the conduct as much as you want, but it’s wrong to say the National Guard was “illegally deployed.” The deployment was legal and the purpose of deploying to protect federal property was legal, according to Judge Breyer. The ruling was that the troops were engaged in conduct outside the scope of the legal deployment. Even if that ruling holds up, which is unlikely, that doesn’t support the assertion that the deployment itself was illegal.
The mid-20th century precedent was an erroneous deviation, driven in large part not by legal analysis, but FDR's threat to pack the Supreme Court unless it ruled the way he wanted.
In my country, the drug gangs have grown to the point they dominate over 26% of our continental territory. They have infiltrated and corrupted every part of society, and they are showing signs of having subverted the government itself. They have a massive army of people. They are much better equipped than police. Cops cannot operate freely in their territory because they are executed on sight. As a result, our laws do not really apply to their territories.
So are they really just common criminals operating in our territories? I don't think so. They pulled off a stealth secession. The government needs to recognize this fact, grow some balls and declare war on them. Just like they declared war on and crushed last century's secessionists.
They have their own army, their own laws, even their own tribunals. They even collect taxes from their subjects and execute anyone who fails to pay them. They are a parallel government, a narcostate dictatorship made up of borderline terrorists.
You don't "police" these people. You openly declare war on them. They are enemy combatants trying to literally take over the country. Anything short of this means total defeat.
It's easy to not be radicalized if you live in a civilized nation. It's impossible when you wake up and take in the news that barbaric crime gangs dominate over a quarter of your country's territory. The thought of being at the mercy of these drug gangs is absolutely terrifying. I'm trying to raise a family here.
I wonder if there are any practical law enforcement benefits with the new “kill first, ask questions later” policy.
The article doesn’t say much about this. Like were US Coast Guard getting injured in raids, or overwhelmed by the time it took to search the boats? How many suspected boats were innocent? How many that were turned loose showed up full of coke later?
It's so resilient that even with all the disruptions caused by the War On Drugs drug prices are mostly stable over decades, some are even deflationary.
I feel there are quite a few types lower than drug pushers, rapists being one of those. You probably disagree.
I don't think you understand how vast and resilient the network of drug logistics is. Killing people with missiles is the least efficient usage of your tax money to actually fight drug abuse due to despair.
But you do you, it's just sad to see even people who are supposedly more well-educated (as most HN users are) not understanding very basic principles, I recommend you learning about systems thinking.
Do you believe, even with all its might and firepower, the USA has enough ships, helicopters, surveillance planes, satellites, to cover all of this area? Do you believe that cartels with very deep pockets won't be looking for ways around whatever the USA can throw at them, finding new routes, new modes of transportation, etc.? Do you think they are stupid?
No matter how much firepower the USA wastes shooting speedboats there will be other routes for drugs to get into the USA.
Again, you do you, but you don't understand at all the amount of effort it'd take to completely shutdown all trafficking routes, all transportation of drugs, into the USA, lol.
Definitely one way to squeeze Maduro
Maybe stop creating situations where people need the drugs in the first place?
Was this an intentional moderation decision? Most things with ICE in the title seem to remain flagged. Are the mods afraid? Or is this policy actually political?
To even the score, I'm flagging this post. We can have all politics or no politics. Having only politics that are liked by the flag-bot network is a bad compromise.
clipsy•5mo ago
drweevil•5mo ago
hedora•5mo ago
seattle_spring•5mo ago