Comment by dragonwriter

3 months ago

> First paragraph sums it up in a nutshell, but putting aside the violence, why would a fishing boat, or some other non-illegal-operations vessel, not comply with an airplane or boat that is clearly attempting to interdict?

For one thing, the US forces aren't even attempting to “interdict”, so the question has a false implicit premise.

Second, consider if it Venezuelan government vessels or aircraft attempting to “interdict” US vessels in US or international waters on the premise that they were suspected of running arms that might be used in Venezuela.

11 comments

dragonwriter

Reply
ahmeneeroe-v2  3 months ago

"What if they did that to us?"

We have a navy precisely because people have tried to do this to us and we decided we'd rather own the water.

  • jacquesm  3 months ago

    You don't. There is such a thing as Maritime Law and this completely flouts it, it is simply extrajudicial killing by an administration on a power trip. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. The USA will pay for this for decades to come.

    Just for a second consider Canada bombing a US vessel that they suspect is running drugs.

  • dragonwriter  3 months ago

    Yes, my point is that there is no principled justification for the behavior, it is simply unprincipled application of power and might makes right.

    • ahmeneeroe-v2  3 months ago

      The principle is that of self-defense. Drugs have killed more Americans in recent years than did all of our 20th century military actions. We are right to use military force (and not judicial force) to meet this threat.

      1 reply →