admin
The White House has stood by the controversial September 2 strike on a suspected Venezuelan drug-smuggling boat, asserting that a follow-on attack was directed by an admiral and carried out within the bounds of self-defense as part of a broader campaign to choke off narco-terrorists threatening American communities. Administration spokespeople insist the action was lawful and necessary, framing it as hard-edged countermeasures against an organized criminal enterprise that has been treated as an armed adversary. This is about disrupting death-dealing flows of fentanyl and cartel terror before they hit our streets, not some casual use of force.
That said, reports alleging an order to “kill everybody” and questions about a second strike on survivors have rightly triggered outrage and demands for answers, because the rules of engagement and basic humanity matter—even in a fight this ugly. Leading outlets and legal scholars have raised the alarm that killing shipwrecked or incapacitated people without a clear and imminent threat could cross legal lines, and those claims cannot be waved away. Conservatives who believe in the rule of law should be the first to insist on accountability when tactics stray from legal authority.
No one sane defends narco-cartels or the Maduro regime that shelters them, and the administration’s decision to designate certain cartels as terrorist organizations and to treat these operations as part of an armed campaign reflects the harsh reality on the ground. When our border and our citizens are being poisoned by industry-scale trafficking, policymakers have a duty to use every lawful tool to stop it—and that includes kinetic measures when interdiction and diplomacy fail. But decisive action must be matched by ironclad legal cover and clear rules so our troops and commanders aren’t left exposed to politicized prosecutions.
Legal voices on the right, including commentators on cable news, have pointed out that “finishing shots” happen in naval warfare when a vessel remains a threat or is not fully disabled, and those realities should figure into any legal review of battlefield decisions. Still, loud claims of unlawful conduct fuel a media frenzy that too often treats complex battlefield judgments as black-and-white crimes before evidence is examined. The conservative position should be twofold: defend robust measures against enemies of the state, and demand a sober, thorough investigation so facts—not narratives—determine culpability.
Congress must do its job: secure classified briefings, review the chain of command, and ensure that commanders had lawful authority while protecting service members who acted under those orders. Americans can support strong action against narco-terrorism while insisting on transparency and accountability; that balance keeps our military effective and our republic principled. The fight against drugs is existential for many communities, and we should not allow opportunistic politics to hobble the mission or to erase the facts that justify forceful measures when properly authorized.
