Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "We blew it up...on Trump's orders." [View all]LetMyPeopleVote
(169,452 posts)64. MaddowBlog-Team Trump faces tough questions following strike on boat in international waters
Youve heard the expression shoot first and ask questions later? This appears to be a rare literal example of the phenomenon.
Team Trump faces tough questions following strike on boat in international waters
— 2kindsjustice (@2kindsjustice.bsky.social) 2025-09-04T15:47:11.570Z
www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddo...
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/team-trump-faces-tough-questions-strike-boat-international-waters-rcna229049
When retired Gen. H.R. McMaster served as Donald Trumps national security adviser during the presidents first term, he didnt exactly enjoy White House meetings. McMaster wrote in his memoir that Trump would routinely become distracted and blurt out outlandish ideas during discussions, including one especially memorable instance in which the president wanted to know, Why dont we just bomb the drugs before they enter the United States?
That anecdote came to mind this week. The Associated Press reported:
.....Were the 11 people on the boat actually members of the Tren de Aragua gang? The president claimed they were, but then again, the president claims lots of things that have no basis in reality, and its not yet clear whether there mightve been innocent people on board.
Were there actual drugs on the boat? Trump insisted there were, but theres no publicly available evidence to support the claim. And even if there were drugs on board, U.S. officials couldve intercepted the boat, seized its cargo, arrested those on board (or at least offered them an opportunity to surrender) and put them on trial without blowing anyone up.......
When JD Vance was asked about the administrations legal authority in this instance, his answer suggested the vice president a Yale Law School graduate was confused by what the phrase legal authority means.
......Around the same time, Ryan Goodman, an NYU law professor and former special counsel at the Pentagon, wrote via Bluesky, I literally cannot imagine lawyers coming up with a legal basis for lethal strike of suspected Venezuelan drug boat. Hard to see how this would not be murder or a war crime under international law that DoD considers applicable.
Looking ahead, there are a handful of angles to this story that are worth keeping in mind. The first is that theres no reason to assume the questions will simply go away. Second, if Trump is still campaigning for a Nobel Peace Prize, he might want to start lowering his expectations, since the committee tends to frown on extrajudicial killings.
Third, Americans who voted for Trump hoping for a restrained foreign policy and a reluctance to use military force now have fresh reason to question their decision.
That anecdote came to mind this week. The Associated Press reported:
President Donald Trump said Tuesday the U.S. has carried out a strike in the southern Caribbean against a drug-carrying vessel that departed from Venezuela and was operated by the Tren de Aragua gang. The president said in a social media posting that 11 people were killed in the rare U.S. military operation in the Americas, a dramatic escalation in the Republican administrations effort to stem the flow of narcotics from Latin America.
.....Were the 11 people on the boat actually members of the Tren de Aragua gang? The president claimed they were, but then again, the president claims lots of things that have no basis in reality, and its not yet clear whether there mightve been innocent people on board.
Were there actual drugs on the boat? Trump insisted there were, but theres no publicly available evidence to support the claim. And even if there were drugs on board, U.S. officials couldve intercepted the boat, seized its cargo, arrested those on board (or at least offered them an opportunity to surrender) and put them on trial without blowing anyone up.......
When JD Vance was asked about the administrations legal authority in this instance, his answer suggested the vice president a Yale Law School graduate was confused by what the phrase legal authority means.
Q: On the Venezuela vessel strike, what legal authority were you guys working under?
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-09-03T20:09:59.147Z
JD VANCE: The legal authority is there are people who are bringing -- literal terrorists -- who are bringing deadly drugs into our country
......Around the same time, Ryan Goodman, an NYU law professor and former special counsel at the Pentagon, wrote via Bluesky, I literally cannot imagine lawyers coming up with a legal basis for lethal strike of suspected Venezuelan drug boat. Hard to see how this would not be murder or a war crime under international law that DoD considers applicable.
Looking ahead, there are a handful of angles to this story that are worth keeping in mind. The first is that theres no reason to assume the questions will simply go away. Second, if Trump is still campaigning for a Nobel Peace Prize, he might want to start lowering his expectations, since the committee tends to frown on extrajudicial killings.
Third, Americans who voted for Trump hoping for a restrained foreign policy and a reluctance to use military force now have fresh reason to question their decision.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
66 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Cmon now, they were going after some of the largest sea bass ever rumored to exist in that big bad bass boat. nt
taxi
Sep 3
#9
My neighbor had a boat with 3 Chrysler V8's in it. Just for fishing on Lake Michigan.
OverBurn
Sep 3
#38
Do the DOD's brownshirts understand that "just following orders" is not a defense
RockRaven
Sep 3
#2
Intercepting (easy) & interrogating is so much less CONVENIENT than extra-judicially killing 11 people. . . . /s . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Sep 3
#6
Bush 2 invaded Iraq because he thought that Sadamn had disrespected his daddy after the first Iraq war of Bush 1
LiberalArkie
Sep 3
#31
Extra judicial killing for an alleged offense that could not be the subject of capital punishment is murder.
TomSlick
Sep 3
#29
I am expecting this will lead to us reading about the U.S. blowing up boats full of refugees. Sorry to express such
ShazamIam
Sep 3
#32
Blow it up, film it, and use that clip of a evidence-less mass murder for political propaganda
Justice matters.
Sep 3
#47
i guess its ok now for venezula to attack a US fishing boat in international waters claiming its a drug boat
moonshinegnomie
Sep 3
#41
Maybe Gulf of Tonkin important ... Turnip is waving his big stick below the Equator, ready to start another
eppur_se_muova
Sep 3
#48
Unfortunately, for the Sailors that pushed the button, "we were just following orders" is a weak defense
maxrandb
Sep 3
#50
I believe Trump would use nuclear missiles if he thought he could personally benefited from it.
Doodley
Sep 3
#52
MaddowBlog-Team Trump faces tough questions following strike on boat in international waters
LetMyPeopleVote
Thursday
#64