Sen. Rand Paul gets to the moral heart of the Venezuela pressure campaign.
In September, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized an attack on a vessel believed to be transporting drugs from Venezuela.
After this strike left two men holding onto an overturned boat, a follow-up attack was launched—one that Hegseth claims was not his directive, and that President Trump states he would not have ordered—which resulted in the deaths of the survivors.
The legality of these operations remains fiercely contested. The second strike in September has intensified scrutiny around potential war crimes allegations.
Numerous figures within Washington, including some Republicans, have expressed concern.
On Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) raised pointed questions: “If they’re armed, show us how they’re armed. If they’re not armed, explain to us why we kill people who are not armed.”
No reports available to this author indicate the men were armed. The Wall Street Journal reported that Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, who allegedly authorized the strike, believed other “enemy” vessels were nearby and suspected survivors of communication attempts. However, during a briefing with legislators on Thursday, Bradley reportedly stated the survivors appeared to lack radios or communication devices.
Even if communication tools were present, could their primary focus have been distress signals and calls for help rather than hostile contact? This is a crucial consideration.
What exactly qualifies this as a “war”?
Paul expressed similar doubts: “We typically associate war with those who take up arms and threaten soldiers, prompting pre-emptive action. Yet we have not been told whether these individuals were armed. Two victims were killed in the water, while two others were rescued, yet instead of being arrested for drug offenses or having weapons confiscated, they were simply freed and sent back—though their actual countries were Colombia and Ecuador, not Venezuela.”
If U.S. forces had not killed these two people, it’s plausible they would still be free today.
Is it permissible for this administration—or any other—to arbitrarily label foreign individuals as drug dealers, terrorists, or the blended term “narcoterrorists”—and then strike without discrimination?
The Obama administration certainly held this view. Is President Trump now following the same pattern?
Paul highlighted the issue: “This entire situation is troubling. As a nation, we should not accept mere accusations as justification. Even within our own legal system, errors occur. The DNA Innocence Project has uncovered wrongful imprisonments that lasted decades despite due process.”
“Do we honestly believe it’s acceptable to destroy boats without any legal procedure?” the senator questioned. “We obtained Coast Guard records showing that before this recent policy, interdictions off Venezuela were routine—likely spanning a century—carried out by the Coast Guard. Their data indicates that 21 percent of intercepted boats had no drugs aboard.”
This suggests that almost one-quarter of suspected drug vessels identified by the Coast Guard are innocent—a substantial figure.
Paul was puzzled by the rationale offered by others: “It’s astounding to hear some justify this by saying, well, 79 percent of the time the boats are guilty, so that’s good enough.”
“That implies killing 21 percent of innocent people is acceptable because the majority supposedly are drug traffickers,” he said. “That’s not just reckless; it’s a profoundly unethical stance.”
The divide between Paul’s message and how some of his MAGA critics interpret his stance became evident in an exchange on X over the weekend.
A self-proclaimed “MAGA 100%” user named “Chicago1Ray” posted footage of agents boarding a vessel that appeared to be involved in drug trafficking. “What do you think (Rand Paul) is gonna say when he sees this.. he’s tagged… there’s only one way to find out…so you know what to do,” he wrote, encouraging his nearly half a million followers to share the video.
The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf responded sharply: “I suspect Rand Paul would argue that this video demonstrates lawful, non-lethal drug interdiction is feasible, making extrajudicial killings not just illegal and immoral but also unnecessary for achieving the goal.”
This controversial September strike was one of over 20 similar operations by the Trump administration, collectively resulting in more than 80 deaths, according to reports. While many Republicans and the administration defend these attacks, most Democrats and some Republicans have raised questions about their legality and ethics.
Congress has not been involved in authorizing these actions. Moreover, they may not even fit under the nearly 20-year-old AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) intended for post-9/11 counterterrorism efforts. As Republican Congressman Thomas Massie told The American Conservative recently, “Congress hasn’t even declared a Global War on Narco Terrorism, yet, right? That doesn’t exist.”
Ideally, America should hold itself to higher standards.
In late October, TAC’s George O’Neill, Jr. highlighted the clear moral failing on display: “The laws of man aren’t the only constraints against killing suspected narco-traffickers who, often, may just be innocent fishermen.”
“Beyond legal restrictions, killing people without due process fundamentally contradicts the principles of Christianity and the values of the nation we were raised in,” he argued. “These actions must stop entirely and immediately.”
Is the United States now openly executing foreign nationals who seem unarmed and aren’t at war with us?
It’s a pressing and essential question.
Original article: www.theamericanconservative.com
About the Author
