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
|
Ron Paul did a drop on this. Quite honestly, I don't know what to think, but it all looks very murky. We invaded Iraq under bullshit, helped orchestrate the overthrow of Gaddafi, with one writer stating it was recommended by a Clinton staffer for her presidential bid. Then, when it went south, the broken vessel was left, and women paid the price. On the other hand, I know how a war looks has changed. I caught a clip of Bertrand Russell (the famous analytical philosopher) stating, in so many words, that Bismarck started WWI because he had new war toys he wanted to use. Considering that resulted in unsuspecting troops that hadn't gotten the memo that the look of war had changed, being mowed down. I do think a flow of drugs into the country is an act of war of some sort, used to destabilize society, just like the Opium Wars in China were used to destabilize a fragile monarchy.
As it looks like SCOTUS looks to further disembowel the unelected administrative state, I hope Congress crawls back its power.
This topic will get full review of right and left. I hope it gets full unbiased review of not only right and wrong but legal and illegal. I know little about maritime law but I have read that ships that are not sailing under a flag, in international waters, is not protected by any country. Do a scenario, if this were a truck hauling arms across the desert (or even a wedding where terrorists were) and a certain President (not this one) called for drone strikes only to have secondary drone strikes hit as rescue has started, would their be a fuss? This case and the case about drug cartel boats, declared terrorists, double taps, etc. need to be done. I should not be done in front of the public and public opinion. Wartime law, International law, Maritime law, rules of engagement, declarations of terrorists, etc, is all too much for be tried in the court of public opinion…including mine…in which I find this action to protect the USA from the onslaught of cartels and drugs worthy…IMHO.