Dems More Concerned With Narcos’ Rights Than the Drugs Flooding Our Streets
“I mean it certainly seems like extrajudicial murder to me. … I have to say, this is an enormous scandal that is unfolding right in front of us.”
MSNBC’s Chris Hayes was pretty upset over news that the U.S. military had carried out a strike on a suspected Venezuelan drug boat in the southern Caribbean on Tuesday. Reporting the incident to viewers the next day, Hayes quoted President Donald Trump, who said he had ordered “a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua narco terrorists.” According to Trump, 11 people on board were killed, and the vessel was carrying illegal narcotics bound for the United States.
“As we learn more details of the attack, I have to say, this is an enormous scandal that is unfolding right in front of us,” Hayes said.
First, he questioned why officials thought the boat was headed for the U.S. when it was located off the Venezuelan coast, which is over 1,000 nautical miles away.
Next, he noted that “this civilian, non-military boat was not struck in self-defense, no weapons were evident, whoever struck it … didn’t try to disable the engines or to board the craft. They just summarily killed everybody on board.”
Civilian? Was Hayes expecting to see the Tren de Aragua logo on the ship?
Next, he quoted a Notre Dame law professor who said the strike violated international law. The U.S. is not in armed conflict.
He claimed that if this same scenario occurred in a Tom Clancy novel, the principals would have to cover it up “because they would know it was illegal. I mean it certainly seems like extrajudicial murder to me. … And that’s the case if everything the administration is saying is true.”
Hayes, who by the way is not a lawyer, is demanding answers. “And I’ll talk to Sen. Chris Van Hollen [D-MD] about that next.”
Last we heard from Van Hollen, he was gazing soulfully at “Maryland Man” Kilmar Abrego Garcia over margaritas in an El Salvadoran prison.
Hayes was hardly alone. On Thursday, his colleague Katy Tur interviewed Paul Rieckhoff, the founder of Independent Veterans of America, who called the strike “alarming,” “unprecedented,” and “dangerous.”
And it’s the latest example of how Trump continues to overextend and abuse military power. I think it’s maybe the most important and one of the most underreported stories in America right now. He keeps pushing the boundaries to places we’ve never been before.
Not only did they kill 11 people — allegedly — they put American troops at risk. American troops could have died. Right? And any time you put American troops at risk, you owe the American public an explanation as to why.
There is absolutely no accountability right now. There is no transparency. And there’s the old saying: ‘First send the country to war, then send the troops.’ We keep sending the troops first without getting the country behind them. …
Tur fully agreed with Rieckhoff and said this is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, story out there.
[Rieckhoff’s remarks on the strike begin at 1:55 in the video below.]
A week away from 9/11, a 9/11 conspiracy-pusher is in Trump’s cabinet.
And another one is in the White House and in his ear.
Both pushing very crazy and dangerous shit.
And Trump and Hegseth are striking targets from a new country—without sharing details with the public—and… pic.twitter.com/8HOSfTMAhZ
— Paul Rieckhoff🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@PaulRieckhoff) September 4, 2025
The rest of the legacy media quickly joined MSNBC in questioning the legality of the strike.
ABC News showed where their sympathies lie by devoting a large portion of an article to a condemnation of the attack by Venezuela’s special envoy to the United Nations.
The piece goes on to state, “U.S. officials have long claimed that Venezuelan cocaine shipments contribute to overdose deaths in the U.S. — and they accuse the country’s leader, Nicolas Maduro, of facilitating drug trafficking, which he denies.”
Do they actually believe Maduro’s denial? Please.
On Wednesday, The Washington Post reported that “lawmakers and legal analysts questioned the legality of launching a lethal strike against civilians in international waters outside of an armed conflict.”
Civilians?
In a post on X, a former military officer who worked on counter drug operations claimed the strike was “a complete violation of the international law of the sea and multiple treaties governing navigation, as well as the laws of armed conflict. It was illegal and disproportional. A literal act of piracy.”
Former military officer here who worked on counter drug operations. This is a complete violation of the international law of the sea and multiple treaties governing navigation, as well as the laws of armed conflict. It was illegal and disproportional. A literal act of piracy.
— D. Stamos/Helodriver (@SpacecoastPix) September 2, 2025
The commenter below declared the strike to be illegal and argued that “we can’t execute drug dealers without due process.” He managed to reduce narco terrorist cartel members transporting enough fentanyl into the U.S. to kill tens of thousands of Americans to drug dealers.
And of course, he added the Democrats’ all-purpose accusation: that Trump is simply trying to distract from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. He wrote, “There’s a reason this happened same day the Epstein documents (re-released old docs) were produced by Congress.”
The strike itself is illegal, regardless of the boat. We can’t execute drug dealers without due process. Carrying drugs isn’t a capitol offense. Also, Trump lied about the justification, saying TDA is controlled by Maduro, which is refuted by his own intel assessment. And you… pic.twitter.com/lr2uxh8S6T
— John Jackson (@hissgoescobra) September 3, 2025
Over 58,000 U.S. service members lost their lives in the Vietnam War, while more than 407,000 were killed in World War II.
Yet in recent years, hundreds of thousands of Americans — most between the ages of 18 and 49 — have died from drug overdoses caused by the flood of lethal substances smuggled into the country by Central and South American cartels.
Can we truly say this is any less of a war than the battles we fought overseas?
A while back, I attended the funeral of my daughter’s 26-year-old friend — a bright, beautiful young life cut short after taking a drug laced with fentanyl. Surrounded by his grieving family and friends, watching his parents bury their child, I felt the weight of the tragedy in every breath. It was a haunting reminder of how merciless and indiscriminate this crisis has become.
And scenes like this are not rare. They have played out hundreds of thousands of times in small towns and cities across America over the past decade — and they continue, every single day.
In February, the Trump administration designated a number of cartels including Tren de Aragua, MS-13, and the Sinaloa Cartel, as foreign terrorist organizations. In August, it was widely reported that Trump had ordered the Pentagon to “prepare options for the possible use of military force” against these FTOs.
At the time, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, “It [the FTO designation] gives us legal authorities to target them in ways you can’t do if they’re just a bunch of criminals. It’s no longer a law enforcement issue. It becomes a national security issue.”
Every presidential administration since Ronald Reagan has considered using the military in America’s war on drugs. Finally, Trump has had the courage to act.
The Left’s newfound empathy for these depraved cartel members who are making billions of dollars by trafficking deadly drugs into America isn’t a good look. Once again, they are defending the indefensible, and the electorate is paying attention.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The left is completely insane as well as anti-American.
The vile Dhimmi-crats are demonic, Satanic and pure evil.
These reprobates gleefully support, whitewash and rationalize the following:
infanticide; Islamofascists’/Muslim terrorists’ genocide and atrocities visited upon Jews, Christians and Druze; domestic and illegal aliens’ criminal predations against American citizens; the predations of narco-terrorists and their poisoning of American citizens.
One of the experts they use, Paul Rieckhoff, pretty much is. Founder of IAVA, he hates all republicans with a passion and is all in on gays in the military so much so that he forced a gay female into the leadership in 2023 then ran around screaming how awesome they were. He is in it for self aggrandizement and money. I met that tool bag in DC and have little use for him.
The only thing that disturbs me about the US blowing up that boat is that I’ve seen no evidence they were smuggling drugs, can’t see any in the boat and no evidence they were TdA members. Not saying they aren’t but we should be able to see some if the US is going to go rolling around international waters blowing up vessels without declaring war on a country.
The Navy didn’t just “Hey, look. There’s a boat. Let’s blow it up.” I’d bet cash money on intelligence sources on the ground including (classified). None of this should reach reporters because it will get people killed, good people who are trying their best to stop the bad guys.
I’m just concerned that these narco-thugs have zero humanity, and will probably kidnap a nun and a pair of orphans for the next boat like the Pallie’s use human shields.
“Last we heard from Van Hollen, he was gazing soulfully at ‘Maryland Man’ Kilmar Abrego Garcia over margaritas in an El Salvadoran prison.”
Rumor has it he has been researching the type of drinks served in Uganda and the best prices on airline tickets.
He’s a senator. Last thing he would care about is the price of airfare. He’ll just use his campaign slush fund saying he’s visiting a constituent.
Fittingly, Tuesday was the sixth anniversary of my 27-year-old son’s death from fentanyl-laced heroin.
Prayers out for you and your family.
I can’t even imagine. My heart goes out to you. I pray He brings you peace.
heartfelt condolences
God bless you. I, too, have lost a child. Your son was murdered. It’s past time that our government rains hellfire on these cartels.
Somebody should show them the surveillance footage of Obongo’s assassination of a US citizen via a drone hit while that piece of garbage was in office and then ask them where the grand jury indictment, trial, and execution warrants were given “due process”.
I don’t get why conservatives get bent out of shape by the death of an unlawful combatant. He was an enemy of all mankind, same as the narco terrorists. He abandoned his rights by going to fight for jihadis.
No one fretted over US citizens who went to fight for the Wehrmacht, or for Imperial Japan. No one worried that a US citizen might have been in Nuremberg, or in Normandy on D-Day, or in Hiroshima.
I am not upset about it at all. I also believe it to be entirely fair to cite that example to point out the hypocrisy of the d/prog wokiestas who ignored or defended it then and continue to skip over it today b/c it is inconvenient to their TDS narrative.
That is different because there was a declared war and he was a soldier in the enemy’s armed forces. He was no different from US citizens who fought for the enemy in most if not all of the wars we have fought, from the Revolution through WW2 or later.
There was also this lovely article, which even some here support, but it’s just another facet of TDS:
“Trump’s deadly strike on a boat from Venezuela was an act of war”
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-boat-strike-caribbean-venezuela-drug-war-rcna229113
who called the strike … “unprecedented,”
So, he’s never heard of Pershing, Tripoli and the Barbary pirates, Somalia, the Gulf of Aden, etc.?
Also, I don’t put much stock in anyone saying “it violates international law!” All most international law is, is Progressive attempts to make the world safe by taking away the methods we have of keeping it safe. It’s like UN peacekeepers – they’ll never actually shoot anyone for breaking the peace, but dang don’t they look good in their blue helmets while counting out their per diem to buy some time with the refugee girl.
International law is whatever the United States says it is. Who’s going to stop us?
“Unprecedented”. Someone had to be the first. “Dangerous”. Yes, that’s the whole point of the US Armed Forces. To be dangerous to anyone who would bring harm to US citizens and land. Keep it up, Rubio and Hegseth. Keep playing the the media into supporting narcoterrorists.
International law is what anyone announces and no one challenges. It is amended when someone does something different than the previous “law”. It is only enforceable by a country willing to Object and then do something about it either by some military action or trade embargoes or something economic.
To the question of is what Trump doing worthwhile considering the cost (not dollars and cents of the bombs dropped but the effects with other countries etcetera) I say absolutely yes. And to the question of is it an act of war? The drugs sold into the United States are an act of war. And if Venezuela wants a more open war Then bring it.
Well I would really like to know how it can be “murder” because they were unarmed civilians but at the same time was putting our troops in danger. If they were unarmed civilians the only danger our troops could be in would be falling into the water in full combat gear., and I really doubt any of them were in full combat gear. They were on a ship flying a drone with a missile.
Indeed. If you don’t have gun boats you have little voice when those who do have them choose to use them. Kinda like a high stakes poker game, the folks who can’t afford the buy in or the ante don’t get dealt in, they gotta watch while those who can play the game.
As Professor Eugene Kontorovich explains in several videos (on YouTube), “international law” is composed of customs and agreements that have zero legal effect. There is, in fact, no such thing as “international law.”
It will seem more legal after a half dozen more cases establish the right feeling.
From every angle Democrats identify and sympathize with criminals.
Here’s one weird trick to avoid being transmogrified into chum by American forces:
Don’t run drugs.
“Many decades on this planet and it’s worked great for me!”
– Donte from Detroit.
Good thing this was done without warning, otherwise some district judge somewhere would have slapped a TRO on it.
The absence of shrapnel makes it less likely that a conventional Navy missile or cannon destroyed the boat. Maybe the Navy was field testing one of their direct energy weapons?
come on hollywood
you blmplo loving leeches
even some dems voted for trump
and they might not like you standing up for their competitors
Drug running terror gangs in international waters = Pirates.
Piracy gets deletion.
I’d like to see the evidence they were TdA members and running drugs. Did they have pictures of the drugs? Did they have pictures of the men in the boat and positively ID them as gang members? Did the US try to stop the boat first and they refused? The only thing I’ve seen is a boat with 4 motors running through international waters getting blown up. If they were either running drugs or TdA members then fine but imho, the US shouldn’t go around blowing boats up.
About half of what you’re asking would endanger intelligence sources on the ground or provide information to the TdA gangsters that would enable them to avoid being stopped next time. The Navy doesn’t just blow up random boats, and doesn’t have to reveal all of its intelligence sources to internet randos so the men risking their lives can be killed by the terrorists they’re trying to stop.
Why do I suspect that their F-16 pilots all called in sick yesterday?
Terrorists, like pirates, are hostis humani generis, permanently at war with all people.
In addition, the Secretary of State has designated TdA as a foreign terrorist organization, and the President has controversially designated it an “enemy” that is invading the USA. He may be wrong about that, but for now the designation stands, and he is entitled to take military action against it.
I don’t see how. But let it slide.
Not really. Politically, if it’s likely to be controversial then it’s a good idea to explain yourself, but you don’t have to.
This is true — if they are US citizens, US legal residents, or in the USA. The moment they set foot in the USA (or sail into US territorial waters), legally or illegally, they are under US jurisdiction, and thus protected by the constitution. But it’s long-established that the US constitution doesn’t protect foreigners who are not under US jurisdiction.
The only “capitol offense” I’m familiar with is Congress. If you don’t know the difference between “capital” and “Capitol” you probably shouldn’t use either word.
The President isn’t bound by one memo expressing the opinion of the “intelligence community”, or of some members thereof.