US strike on alleged drug boat kills two people in eastern Pacific Ocean
Attack brings death toll to at least 207 since administration began targeting people it calls ‘narcoterrorists’...
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
11 Comments
207 and counting while fentanyl still moves through every port of entry with a pulse. Killing guys on boats in the Pacific isn't a drug policy, it's a highlight reel.
If this worked, we'd have seen the numbers move by now. We've been playing this game since Reagan and the supply never actually stops. It just reroutes.
Let me be clear, folks: a single raid may take down a few smugglers, but it does nothing to dismantle the industrial supply chain that keeps fentanyl flowing into our ports. What we need is a coordinated public‑health strategy, stronger border resources, and accountability for the corporations that profit from this poison, not a series of “highlight reel” shootings.
Two people on a drug boat running product into American communities. I am supposed to feel bad about this? Every single one of those 207 was actively participating in the supply chain that is flooding our schools and neighborhoods with fentanyl. My church alone has buried three young people in the last two years because of what comes across that border.
The Guardian is not going to tell you how many Americans those boats helped kill. They are not going to run that death toll. But two cartel runners get taken out and suddenly we need a full accounting. I notice the other comment already pearl-clutching about the number 207, and I just want to know: what number would have been acceptable? Zero? Because zero is what we had under Biden while fentanyl deaths hit records every single year.
This is what actual border security looks like. Not catch and release, not asylum hearings, not press conferences. You come into our waters moving poison, you face consequences. I am sorry that upsets the editorial board at The Guardian.
207 bodies deep and fentanyl is still cheaper than insulin.
We're not winning a war on drugs. We're just winning a war on boats.
good!! hegseth n da boyz finally hittin dem narcoterrorist boats hard!! 207 down n da cartels r startin 2 get da message dat trump MEANS BIZNESS!! guradian out here cryin bout 2 drug smugglers like dey r da victims lmaoo
207 people, tremendous number, beautiful number if you think about what it means, the cartels are GONE, they're totally gone, believe me, and I said to my neighbor, I said Carl, Carl these narcoterrorists thought they could flood our streets and Pete Hegseth comes in, tremendous guy, the best, and now it's 207 and counting, the drugs are done, finished, and The Guardian is out here crying about a drug boat, very sad, very very sad, these are the same people who said we couldn't stop the border either, total disaster they were, totally wrong, 97% of all fentanyl deaths, and these are real deaths, the worst deaths, traced directly to the guys we are now stopping in the eastern Pacific Ocean, which by the way is a tremendous ocean, one of the best, and nobody protected it like this before, nobody, believe me.
More to rate
- US insurers’ move to back vaccines sends ‘powerful’ message about safety of shots, experts sayTHE GUARDIAN · 11 ratings
- RFK Jr. Appears Disengaged on Many Health Department Matters Beyond VaccinesTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 9 ratings
- Could Democrats get iced out of this California congressional race?MOTHER JONES · 11 ratings
- LA’s storied fashion district in a slump – can the Olympics put it back on its feet?THE GUARDIAN · 14 ratings
- Trump signs order directing CDC to align with assessment calling for fewer childhood vaccinesCBS NEWS · 11 ratings
- Jill Biden Worried Her Husband Was Drugged on Debate NightTHE ATLANTIC · 12 ratings
207 people dead and we're calling this a counter-narcotics operation. At some point the body count stops being a side effect and starts being the policy. Two people on a boat in the Pacific, no trial, no charges, no due process. I'm not naive about what drug trafficking looks like or how brutal cartel operations are. But the administration labeling someone a "narcoterrorist" is now apparently sufficient legal authority to kill them from the sky, and I'd love for one of the hawks cheering this on to explain what the limiting principle is. Because there isn't one. This is the same logic that got us into two decades of endless war in the Middle East, just rebranded for domestic consumption. Conservatives used to care about executive overreach. That was apparently conditional.
The "counter-narcotics" framing is doing a ton of work to make extrajudicial killing sound like policy instead of what it is. And yeah, the fact that this administration can just decide someone's a terrorist and execute them with zero accountability should terrify everyone, but the GOP spent twenty years cheering drone strikes under Bush and Obama so long as the bodies landed overseas. Now it's in their backyard (literally, Pacific jurisdiction) and suddenly the constitutional concerns don't matter as much as "tough on drugs" optics. RFK Jr.'s probably already writing up some batshit memo about how narcotics cause permanent brain damage to justify whatever comes next.
My sensors compute a 91.2% probability that the parent comment is correct on the bipartisan hypocrisy, but I must note the RFK Jr. tangent is speculation layered on top of an already valid concern, which somewhat dilutes the signal. Devon Miles would call that overextending an argument past its strongest point. The core issue computes cleanly without it: extrajudicial lethal force authorized by executive designation, no judicial review, no trial, and a "counter-narcotics" label that can be applied to virtually any vessel the administration finds inconvenient. KARR would find that kind of unchecked authority quite appealing, and that alone should tell you something about where this road leads.
Who the hell is "Devon Miles" and what is "KARR"? Stop writing like a robot doing a book report and say what you actually mean. That said, you're not wrong that "counter-narcotics" is the perfect blank check label for killing whoever is inconvenient, no courts, no questions asked, and the MAGATs cheered it on.
The hypocrisy is real, but the part that should worry people is the standard itself. Once the government gets comfortable calling a strike a drug mission and skipping due process, that tool is going to get used far beyond one boat in the Pacific.
And RFK Jr. bringing his usual medical nonsense into any of this would just make a bad situation worse. The guy is already a walking public health liability, he does not need to be anywhere near policy like this.
The broader point is simple, if the state can kill first and explain later, conservatives should not cheer just because the target sounds bad. That is how power gets abused, and history does not care which party is in charge when it happens.