Should the United States launch military strikes against people suspected of smuggling drugs in international waters?
That has been the subject of fierce debate. To date, the Trump administration has struck more than 20 boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean, killing 87 people.
The administration has not put forward specific evidence to back up its claims that these boats have been smuggling drugs. Democrats and many legal experts have been highly skeptical of the military campaign, arguing that the boat attacks amount to extrajudicial killing or even murder.
But the Trump administration says the strikes are legal because President Trump “determined” that the United States was in a formal armed conflict with drug cartels — even though Congress has not authorized one — and that people suspected of running drugs are “combatants.”
Top military officials briefed Congress on Thursday over a strike that has further inflamed the issue. On Sept. 2, the military ordered a second strike on a boat in the Caribbean Sea, which killed two people who had survived the initial blast.
Military officials have argued that the follow-up strike was lawful because the two survivors could have been trying to communicate with other alleged drug traffickers to rescue them. But legal experts have said that second strike could be a war crime, citing the laws of armed conflict that forbid targeting enemies who have been shipwrecked and are out of the fight.
We asked six Republican voters where they stand on the military strikes.
‘I’m not losing any sleep over the two people clinging to the boat.’
Brian D. Kozlowski, 41, Orlando, Fla.
Brian D. Kozlowski, who is a strong Trump supporter, said the U.S. military should be used “more proactively to keep Americans safe.” He blamed the Biden administration for what he described as not doing enough to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the country.
Mr. Kozlowski said that some people might see the Trump administration’s boat strikes as an “overcorrection.”
But, he said, “I see it as a responsible government taking care of a major issue of crime and drug importation.”
Mr. Kozlowski, a lawyer, said that the United States should follow the Geneva Convention and that he expected the military to have solid intelligence to justify the strikes.
“I don’t want to see any innocent person being harmed,” he said, “but if you’re engaged in terrorist activity, what do you expect the result to be?”
As for the launching of a second strike on Sept. 2, he said, “I’m not losing any sleep over the two people clinging to the boat.”
— Patricia Mazzei
‘I’m not in favor of somebody shooting people who are in a deep wreckage. It looks very inhumane.’
Edward Padron, 67, Brownsville, Texas
For Edward Padron, an Army veteran, one lesson always has stayed with him: Never shoot a wounded opponent who no longer poses a threat.
“I’m not in favor of somebody shooting people who are in a deep wreckage. It looks very inhumane,” he said. “There are rules of engagement.”
Mr. Padron, who is now a locksmith, said he agreed with Mr. Trump’s decision to say the United States was engaged in a formal “armed conflict” with international drug cartels. Mr. Padron hopes that the strikes will deter cartels from trying to transport drugs into America. “It’s a deterrent,” he said.
But, he added, the country’s military must abide by international rules of war.
He’s waiting to learn more details about the second strike in the Caribbean, but something feels off about that, he said.
Soldiers like him, he said, have been trained that if enemy combatants have been wounded and don’t pose an immediate danger, they are to be offered aid and perhaps taken as prisoners of war.
“I don’t agree with the second shot,” Mr. Padron said. “I do agree with them being stopped.”
— Edgar Sandoval
‘If you’re caught up in something that’s very detrimental to society, I think that you should die.’
Naomi Villalba
Naomi Villalba said she was not familiar with the legalities of the Trump administration’s strikes against people suspected of smuggling drugs in the Caribbean, but that doesn’t matter to her. Taking military action against drug smugglers could be an effective way of helping Americans who are struggling with substance abuse, she said.
“Sometimes we get caught up in trying to have every jot and tittle covered from the Constitution,” she said, “but the reality is that we need to be realistic and say we don’t want those drugs here, keep them out.”
Ms. Villalba said the second strike was also justified, and she does not believe the United States is indiscriminately targeting boats.
“They should have done that strike regardless,” she said. “Every human being does have value, but if you’re caught up in something that’s very detrimental to society, I think that you should die.”
She compared these strikes to a story in the Bible, when Jesus healed someone on a Sunday, contradicting religious rules that forbid work on that day. Some laws are worth breaking for the betterment of mankind, she said, just like the biblical story was trying to show.
— Christina Morales
‘From what I understand, this is absolutely a war crime.’
Erwin McKone, 55, Flint, Mich.
Erwin McKone said he had held deep reservations about the war on drugs for a long time.
And he said he found the reports about the second strike particularly chilling.
“There’s people who actually pushed the button to kill those people clinging to that boat,” he said. “Those people will have to live with those decisions forever.”
But the debate over the second strike misses a more fundamental question, Mr. McKone argued: Is the broader tactic justifiable from a legal and humane standard?
“If we were serious about the cartels, we would probably try to cut off the head of the snake,” he said, speculating that many of those who have been killed are “poor Venezuelans that see this as an opportunity to feed their families.”
Mr. McKone, who reluctantly voted for Mr. Trump last year mainly because of border security, said he found it indefensible that Mr. Trump had decided to pardon the former president of Honduras, who was convicted in federal court for his role in smuggling tons of cocaine into the United States.
Mr. McKone also said he was outraged that some administration officials involved in the boat strikes profess to be Christian while violating, in his view, basic tenets of the faith.
“We cannot claim to be Christian,” he said, “and not have a sanctity of life philosophy.”
— Ernesto Londoño
‘I don’t think we should be feeling much sympathy.’
Charles Vaughters, 25, Laramie, Wyo.
Charles Vaughters, a Marine veteran and college student, has a personal reason to want drug traffickers stopped, no matter how the U.S. military chooses to do it. A close friend of his became addicted to fentanyl.
“Drug traffickers are criminals who rape, murder and kill people, and they are dedicated to getting the product to Americans,” Mr. Vaughters said. “They don’t care if it harms Americans. I don’t think we should be feeling much sympathy.”
Mr. Vaughters, who did not see combat while in the Marines, said if the U.S. military continues its aggressive tactics, it could eventually prompt the drug traffickers to stop and think, “Wow, maybe we shouldn’t be doing this. They are not playing around. They don’t even take prisoners.”
It is a bold and brutal way to protect Americans, Mr. Vaughters said, but that should be the country’s priority.
He also supported the second strike on Sept. 2, saying that armed conflict is often “going to look a little bit ugly,” especially to people without military experience.
“At the bottom line of it,” he added, “I think that illegally smuggling fentanyl or whatever drugs into the United States is an inherently violent and hostile action that should be met with a violent and hostile response.”
— Juliet Macur
‘If we take them to the courts, we’re going to have to pay for that and support them in prison.’
Rachel Uecker, 53, Wickenburg, Ariz.
Rachel Uecker was torn about the strikes because she worried that Venezuelan fishermen or other innocent people could be accidentally killed.
But if the U.S. military knew with certainty that its targets were drug smugglers?
“Strike them out and get rid of them,” she said.
Ms. Uecker said she had some sympathy for migrants who risked their lives to get to the United States, recalling how her grandfather, a rancher near the border in southern Arizona, had given water to immigrants when he encountered them.
But she had no qualms if the targets were, in fact, drug smugglers. She said she had seen the toll that drugs had taken on her border state of Arizona, and she said that killing smugglers at sea with a missile strike was safer for American forces than trying to stop their boats and make arrests.
She also said she would rather kill the targets at sea than have American taxpayers foot the bill for arresting, trying and imprisoning any smugglers.
“If we take them to the courts, we’re going to have to pay for that and support them in prison,” she said. “If they’re bringing drugs into our country, I don’t care who gets rid of them.”
— Jack Healy
The post 6 Republican Voters on U.S. Strikes on Boats Suspected of Smuggling Drugs appeared first on New York Times.
