[kellyhound]

The vessel was known by the U.S. intelligence to be involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, was transiting along a known narco-trafficking transit route, and carrying narcotics.

There were two narco-terrorists aboard the vessel during the strike, which was conducted in international waters. Both terrorists were killed and no U.S. forces were harmed in this strike.

Narco-terrorists intending to bring poison to our shores, will find no safe harbor anywhere in our hemisphere.

Just as Al Qaeda waged war on our homeland, these cartels are waging war on our border and our people. There will be no refuge or forgiveness—only justice.

[Mr.NoCredit]

Hurray for swift justice.

[SmokeyNite]

How about some evidence before we start killing people?

[Spiffyfable]

Like they say in 'The Fifth Element'

Big Bada Boom

[Hunter1031]

Originally Posted by SmokeyNite ↗

How about some evidence before we start killing people?

Are you stupid?

[Banshee]

Originally Posted by Hunter1031 ↗

Are you stupid?

Uhmm... she or he is simply pointing out the legal standard: states cannot act without evidence. That is a reasonable point, not an emotional one.

They are raising a completely valid legal and ethical concern. Any use of military force, especially against civilian vessels, is tightly restricted under both domestic and international law.

[kellyhound]

Bipartisan lawmakers, including those on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, are demanding the full video. A provision in the $901 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2026—passed by the House on December 9—would cap Hegseth's office travel budget at 75% of funds until the video is provided to Congress.

Trump shifted from his earlier pledge to release the video ("no problem") to deferring to Hegseth: "Whatever Pete Hegseth wants to do is OK with me." Hegseth stated the Department of Defense is reviewing the unedited footage for potential public release but emphasized national security concerns, noting ongoing operations.

[snakedoc]

That boat was filled with packages/bales it definitely wasn’t Amazon prime… also hauling ass like that you’re just screaming guilt ������ especially when you know daddy has the navy hanging out in open international waters… if you want to live, well…don’t be a drug smuggler..

[Mr.NoCredit]

A boat in international waters that is not running a national flag is categorized in international law the same way a pirate is. Such boats have absolutely no national or international protections, and you cannot commit a war crime against them.
A vessel in international waters is required under UNCLOS to sail under the flag of a specific nation. If it does not, it is legally considered a stateless vessel. A stateless vessel has no right to the protections normally afforded to ships under a national flag, including immunity from interference by other states.
UNCLOS Articles 92, 94, 110, and customary maritime law spell out the consequences clearly:
1. Stateless vessels have no sovereign protection. A flagged ship is an extension of its flag-state’s sovereignty. A stateless vessel is not. This matters because “war crimes” presuppose protected persons or protected property. A stateless vessel is legally unprotected.
2. Any state may stop, board, search, seize, or disable, a stateless vessel. UNCLOS Article 110 explicitly authorizes boarding and seizure. The law does not require states to risk their own personnel or assets while doing so. Disabling a vessel that refuses inspection, including firing on it, is legally permitted under both UNCLOS and long-established state practice.
3. War crimes require an armed conflict. You cannot commit a “war crime” outside an armed conflict. War crimes occur only within the context of international humanitarian law (IHL). Enforcing maritime law against a stateless vessel is a law enforcement action, not an IHL situation.
No armed conflict = no war crime possible.
4. Lethal force may be used when a vessel refuses lawful orders. The International Maritime Organization’s “Use of Force” guidance for maritime interdiction recognizes that disabling fire, even lethal force, is lawful when a vessel refuses lawful boarding, attempts to flee, poses a threat, or engages in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking.
Once again: law enforcement rules apply, not IHL.
5. Sinking a stateless vessel is not prohibited by UNCLOS. UNCLOS permits seizure of a stateless vessel and leaves the means entirely to the enforcing state so long as necessity and proportionality are respected. If the vessel flees, attacks, or refuses lawful commands, sinking it is legally permissible. Many states routinely do this to drug-smuggling vessels (e.g., semi-submersibles) without it ever being treated as a war crime.
6. No flag = no jurisdictional shield. The entire reason international law requires ships to fly a flag is to prevent this exact situation. Flagless vessels are legally vulnerable by design.
Because a stateless vessel has no protected status, because UNCLOS authorizes interdiction of such vessels, because lethal force may be used in maritime law enforcement when necessary, and because war crimes require an armed conflict that is not present here, sinking an unflagged ship in international waters is not a war crime.

[Muertaluna]

Originally Posted by snakedoc ↗

That boat was filled with packages/bales it definitely wasn’t Amazon prime… also hauling ass like that you’re just screaming guilt ������ especially when you know daddy has the navy hanging out in open international waters… if you want to live, well…don’t be a drug smuggler..

Who the fuck is "daddy"? Sounds perverse. My father passed away, I don't call anyone "daddy" especially that orange twat you are referring to.

Via Dolores Peers :”Before anyone talks about “bombing fishing boats” or “stopping fentanyl from Venezuela,” here are the actual facts:
Distance:
The closest point between Venezuela and the United States is 1,073 miles.
That’s over a thousand miles of open ocean.
Fishing boats:
A typical fishing boat would need 6–12 full tanks of fuel to even attempt that trip.
It’s not a realistic trafficking route — it’s not even physically practical.
How much fentanyl comes from Venezuela?
Virtually none.
Venezuela is not a source country for fentanyl going into the United States.
Where U.S. fentanyl actually comes from:
• China supplies most of the precursor chemicals
• Mexico manufactures the illicit fentanyl
• Fentanyl enters mostly through ports of entry by land, hidden in vehicles — not fishing boats
So the idea that Venezuelan fishing boats are flooding the U.S. with fentanyl is not just wrong — it’s physically impossible.
If we want to solve the fentanyl crisis, we have to start with facts, not myths.”

IT'S ABOUT OIL