If you were to ask me if I was a moral person, I’d probably have to pause and think about it. After what would probably be a short pause, I’d answer, “yes, I like to think I am.” I don’t attend church, nor do I think of myself as particularly religious or spiritual, but I like to think I know the difference between right and wrong, even if I don’t always make the right decision.
To aid in understanding complex issues, I have, over the last couple of years, attempted to bring the long history of moral debates into consideration when examining such topics as Moral Decline, the War in Gaza (here and here), and Human Rights. These can be complicated issues, which explain why they have been debated for centuries. However, some issues are black and white, which is why the latest scandal, for lack of a better word, involving the US Navy strikes on alleged drug boats puzzles me.
For those of you who have not been following this particular story, in September of this year, the US began launching missile strikes on vessels the government says were involved in drug smuggling in the Caribbean Sea. President Trump has stated that this is “to thwart cartels he blames for the flow of fentanyl and other illicit drugs into American communities and for perpetuating violence in some US cities.”
As of 15 November 2025, at least 83 people have been killed in 21 strikes on 22 vessels, and Congress is currently conducting an “investigation into a September 2 operation in which the US military destroyed a suspected drug vessel in the Caribbean.” The attack included a follow-up strike once it was determined that there were survivors of the initial attack. Video now shows that “survivors clung to boat wreckage for an hour before the second deadly attack.”
The existence and conduct of the operation raise complex legal issues that should concern everyone. By what legal basis have the cartels been classified as terrorists? What statute authorizes military force against the drug traffickers? I won’t bore you with the details, which are readily available, but the answers to both questions are, “there aren’t any.”
Trump is simply taking a page from a now common presidential playbook: declare something an emergency or throw around the words “terrorism” and “terrorist,” then do what you want. Once the courts rule against you, it’ll be too late. This is not an anti-Trump position, as I understand Biden did the same thing. “Whataboutism” is not a game I engage in or an argument I entertain.
As the drug cartels are not parties to an armed conflict with the US and no statute authorizing military force against drug traffickers is in place, the drug smugglers are civilians, and the worst allegation that can be made against these individuals is that they are breaking the law. That does not mean that nothing should be done, but it does mean that this should be treated as a police action, not a military one, and in the civilized world, we do not kill the accused without provocation. We arrest, try, and convict them.
In the course of arresting suspects, the police are permitted to defend themselves, but only up to an accepted limit. If Americans discovered that after a shoot-out with the police, survivors were executed, they would be appalled. And rightly so. The fact that the military is performing what should be police duties – for legitimate reasons - does not change this. International maritime law expects interdiction, arrest, and seizure, not military bombardment and extrajudicial killing, for criminal activity on the high seas.
There are plenty of practical reasons to oppose this operation. It alienates Western allies, it permits the creation of a martyr narrative for leaders of narco-states, and it destroys intelligence – you can’t interrogate a corpse; however, this is above all else an issue of morality and ethics.
The fact of the matter is that even if this were a legally authorized military action, follow-up strikes against wounded survivors are not only illegal but immoral by all commonly held Western standards. Once upon a time, we all knew this. Once upon a time, we knew the difference between right and wrong. Today I fear I’m starting to think that the only difference Americans truly care about is right and left.
Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and anything else that catches his fancy.
As you may have picked up from this article he’s now trying his hand at humor. You can find some of what he finds funny here.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments, subscribing, or even buying him a coffee if you’re feeling generous and felt that this was a particularly enjoyable article. Your attention, participation, and support really make a difference to us.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.
 | A guest post by
|
I no longer think Trump weighs right & wrong when making decisions, and apparently his team is following his lead. Unless there are factors we are unaware of (possible) this was morally wrong. And the suggestion that sometimes we must throw out the rule book (think waterboarding) because the problem/risk is so great is also morally repugnant. You can justify any behavior if you twist logic, reason and scruples hard enough, but wrong is wrong. I once argued absolute right & wrong with my brother. I asked if it was ever ok to throw a child into a fire (odd, but we were camping and there were a fire and kids at hand). He responded "Well, in some cultures.....) No, even if the law allows, some behaviors are just wrong.
What if being moral guarantees your annihilation, while being immoral gives you a good shot at survival? What do you choose?
I like to think that I take the high road when confronted with moral choices, but I do see that there are situations where doing so would be what Gad Saad calls "empathetic suicide."
I'm fairly certain that when push comes to shove, my will to live will be stronger than my desire to do what's right. But even then, I would have limits. If you told me to kill my cat so that I might live, I may choose to die -- because I wouldn't want to live, knowing what I'd done.