The DOJ Thinks Cocaine Couriers Are Not Worth Prosecuting. Trump Thinks They Deserve To Die.
Even as the president blows up drug boats, the government routinely declines to pursue charges against smugglers nabbed by the Coast Guard.
On September 2, President Donald Trump gleefully announced that he had ordered a "kinetic strike" on a speedboat "transporting illegal narcotics," killing 11 men he described as "positively identified Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists." That SEAL Team Six operation became newly controversial a few months later because it included a follow-up missile strike that obliterated two defenseless survivors of the initial attack as they clung to the smoldering wreckage. But even before that revelation, it was clear that the attack marked an alarming escalation of the war on drugs.
The September 2 operation inaugurated a deadly military campaign against suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific that so far has killed 115 people in 35 attacks. This new anti-drug strategy treats cocaine couriers as "combatants" who can be killed at will, from a distance and in cold blood, rather than criminal suspects subject to arrest and prosecution. Yet remnants of the latter approach persist, creating contradictions that underline the illogic, immorality, and lawlessness of the murderous methods that Trump prefers.
The U.S. Coast Guard is still intercepting boats suspected of carrying illegal drugs, as it did for decades before Trump deemed that strategy insufficiently violent. Between September 1 and November 30, The New York Times reports, "the Coast Guard interdicted 38 vessels suspected of smuggling drugs." During the same period, the U.S. military blew up 22 suspected drug boats, killing 83 people. The smugglers who were lucky enough to be caught by the Coast Guard met a strikingly different fate: By and large, they were returned to their home countries because the Justice Department declined to prosecute them.
Under U.S. law, the death penalty generally is not available in drug cases. But the Trump administration says cocaine couriers deserve death, delivered without legal authorization or any semblance of due process, because supplying Americans with the drugs they want is tantamount to murder. It also says cocaine couriers are committing crimes so minor that prosecuting them would be a waste of Justice Department resources. That blatant inconsistency exposes the fallacy of conflating drug smuggling with violent aggression.
In an executive order he issued on his first day in office, Trump said "it is the policy of the United States to ensure the total elimination" of drug cartels. Toward that end, Attorney General Pam Bondi instructed federal prosecutors to eschew charges against low-level drug offenders, including smugglers very much like the ones Trump is summarily executing, in favor of higher-value cases involving "leaders and managers" of drug trafficking organizations.
"Under the total-elimination policy," Bondi wrote in a February 5 memo to Justice Department employees, "it will often be prudent to pursue removal from the United States of a low-level investigative target without immigration status, rather than incurring the time and resource costs associated with criminal prosecution. Similarly, because the Department is working toward elimination of these threats from the homeland, it will rarely be consistent with this policy to pursue foreign arrests and extraditions of targets who may be eligible for safety-valve relief or minor role adjustments. This includes foreign arrests of low-level narcotics offenders pursuant to the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act under Chapter 705 of Title 46."
That law authorizes the Coast Guard to intercept and arrest drug smugglers in international waters. But according to Bondi, such cases generally are not worth pursuing. So what happens to "low-level narcotics offenders" nabbed by the Coast Guard?
When the Justice Department "declines prosecution," the Coast Guard told the Times, "the Coast Guard coordinates either the direct repatriation to the detainee's country of nationality or transfer ashore to Department of Homeland Security custody for additional investigation and expedited removal." On November 19, for example, a Coast Guard cutter returned to Port Everglades after seizing 49,010 pounds of cocaine in 15 boat interdictions. "The cutter took custody of 36 smuggling suspects during the mission, repatriated 29 to Ecuador for prosecution and referred the others to the Justice Department," the Times reports. In other words, at least four-fifths of the crew members were deemed unworthy of federal prosecution.
According to Tampa defense attorneys who represent smuggling suspects, the Times says, their clients typically are "men so poor they get their lawyers through court appointment." They "don't own the boats and may not know where they are going until they reach a boat and are handed a GPS device with preprogrammed coordinates." They are "poor fishermen and farmers willing to risk their lives on the drug boats" in exchange for payments that reportedly range from $500 to $10,000 per trip.
It seems likely that many of the "narcoterrorists" whose deaths Trump has ordered fit that profile. We have no way of knowing for sure because the government has provided almost no information about the people killed in these strikes. In most cases, it has not even identified the criminal organizations for which they allegedly worked. But one thing is clear: The same crime cannot be so heinous that it merits the death penalty yet so petty that federal prosecutors can't be bothered to prove it.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
the government routinely declines to pursue charges against smugglers nabbed by the Coast Guard.
That’s why we shifted to blowing them up.
How very fascist of you.
Fuck off commie scum.
China Tony is just mad china isnt "importing" as much fentanyl through Venezuela now.
He’s just mad that Trump tariffed BB (bigger and blacker) dildoes.
How do we know any fentanyl at all is coming from Venezuela? No one ever examined the contents of the sunk boats.
Government sanctioned murder is not an exclusively fascist government characteristic. Ask your commie betters.
Mao is the historically leading murderer of his 'subjects' by orders of magnitude, and yet his mug decorates Tiananmen Square.
And the 混蛋 MG hasn't yet commented, the slimy pile of lying TDS-addled shit.
Bull shit! Pol pot killed mor people per capita! Oh hey both socialists
Trump has subjected orders of magnitude more folks to grief than Maduro's drug trade, and yet his hat decorates millions of mugs.
Fuck off and take your fake web site with you, lying asswipe.
Huh? Lol.
Well, I guess if you count perpetual liberal outrage as “grief”, that ain’t false.
Also a good thing. More, please. Lol.
Not exclusively.
Did your ChiCom handlers tell you to say that?
One characteristic of fascism (and to a certain extent, communism) is foreign aggression. U.S. in Venezuela looks like a bit of foreign aggression.
你好,托尼。你的维吾尔族奴隶们过得怎么样?
What, specifically, is 'fascist' about it?
"Fascist" is a Tony word for whoever he thinks is on another team. He uses it in order to legitimize violence against them. "Punch a classical liberal" doesn't have the same justifiability that "Punch a Nazi" does.
Meanwhile Tony himself supports corporatism, all the policies behind Aktion T4 and Kirchenkampf, and remilitarizing the Rhineland.
But isn't corporatism and all that other shit basically fascism?
So weird . . .
My current understanding of history suggests to me that fascism was/is a melding of the worst features of both capitalism and socialism. Historically, one aspect of that was the joined-at-the-hip relationship of Big Business with the State--not even a pretense of arms-length, impartial partnership. At least they were honest about that.
Hitler's 1920 National Socialist 25-point program has been translated into English since the 80s. There you will find spelled out in Jesus-inspired detail the National Socialist racial collectivism the GOP copies into its platforms. This has gone on since the palmy days of Anthony Comstock rifling the mail and children being shot by immune government agents for moving felony beer. Even before the drug prohibition that elected Hitler, Teedy Rosenfeld's Christianizing of Nietzsche spread like wildfire all over Germany and inspired Archbishops and Arch-jooks alike.
https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/are-major-us-parties-nazi/
The DOJ owes American's "the right to a speedy and public trial". Armed people of unknown origin/nationality in international waters, well outside any US court's jurisdiction are not owed such rights. They may wind up enjoying them, if the defending country recognizes them and chooses to afford them those rights.
Otherwise, it's why Korean SEAL, Malaysian PASKAL, US SEAL, and USCG soldiers are relatively free to neutralize pirates and smugglers as they see fit... not that Reason "TRADE IZ GLOBUL"/"BORDURZ IZ KONSTRUKTZ" Magazine would highlight how other country's armed forces deal with such situations.
These strikes are murder, far as I'm concerned, but the writing is stupid. You don't win converts by this kind of hyperbole. All you do is angrify the ones you want to convert, and satisfy the converted.
Smoldering, eh? An explosion blows apart a boat, and a piece of wet wreckage is smoldering? And someone is clinging to it? My experience with wet wood is that it doesn't burn and can't smolder. My experience with smoldering wood is that even if I were drowning, I couldn't hold on to smoldering wreckage. That shit's hot!
How many other porkies in this article, Jacob Sullum? Any more hyperbole, any more journalistic license that we should know about?
The whole thing is bullshit. Just like Sullum.
"These strikes are murder, far as I'm concerned..."
Thank you for your "opinion". Like assholes, everyone has one and yours is of value to you and those who agree with you.
And no one else:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXxdtq1BmHk
I mean, I was all with you until the corporate media went all in on 'maybe these were fishing boats'. Fishing boats? Please.
Have any of these idiots been on the water at all? Fishing boats look like:
https://duckworthboats.com/
Drug smuggling boats look like:
https://www.bikiniatoll.info/nuclear-testing-at-bikini-atoll/
Big difference.
Irrelevant smoldering. It's still murder. Murder is worse than hyperbole.
Irrelevant opinion from TDS-addled shit.
JS;dr
JS;dr
JS++
JS;dr
JS++
JS:dr
JS++
So ... catch & release is A+++??
Never-mind the repeating TRY/DO again and again and again and again.
Foreign Terrorist Organization.
Congress can still remove the designation at any time sullum.
That's ok, my city's legal system doesn't think anyone is worth prosecuting because equity.
There should be a system where we can lobby Trump to put our democrat run cities under martial law.
No need for martial law; just end the National grift.
Highest-Welfare spending per capita.
D.C. $7,045/per-person DC 68.2[D] partisan (the Highest [D])
New York $4,249/per-person NY 20[D] partisan lean
..... to the Lowest
Wyoming $1,577/per-person WY [R]49.7 partisan lean (the Highest [R])
NY is probably also the highest contributor to welfare per capita, and definitely a net contributor to the budget. DC on the other hand could use some bunker busters.
Cite missing shitforbrains. Fuck off and die.
Probably? Too retarded to even look up your talking points sarc?
Or maybe it really doesn't matter.
National Welfare shouldn't exist period. It's UN-Constitutional.
Then you won't have to worry which [WE] Identify-as gang gets the 'Guns' of theft.
That's kind of like saying the cash register is the most profitable part of a store.
Oh…,, well, I guess that makes it ok then.
Lol. You’re an idiot, fu.
There is no provision under the US Constitution or federal law for the President to impose martial law.
You'd have a point if Trump had done so. Ever hear of 'poisoning the well'?
There is no provision under the US Constitution for any National Grift either.
Easy: He gets the new puppet government of Venezuela to 'annex' them. Then agrees to have them annexed.
Prosecuting criminals is racist unless someone is protesting an abortion clinic or a school board meeting or reporting on Somali fraudsters or something.
Besides, the little girl was probably drunk and they felt bad later.
And?
The deep state has always had its own priorities. That one has different priorities from the other doesn't make either one right or wrong.
"The DOJ Thinks Cocaine Couriers Are Not Worth Prosecuting. Trump Thinks They Deserve To Die"
Why not both?
Seriously. You're part of one of the world's most violent criminal groups invading the strongest country on earth to drop off some incredibly toxic chemicals to poison their citizens. Let's not be retarded and pretend fentanyl is the same sort of thing as weed, acid, and coke.
Shouldn't that contain some element of risk? Shouldn't you be aware you might get shot at by soldiers defending their borders from paramilitary thugs like you? Doesn't the nation have an obligation to its citizens to do exactly that?
Fentanyl barely comes from Venezuela and these boaters weren't even traveling to the US. And the whole reason fentanyl is dealt is prohibition of other drugs, which drives up prices based on volume. But reality doesn't matter to you faggots.
Cites for bullshit claims absent, faggot shitforbrains. Fuck off and die, stain on the TP.
Sarc fell for the media narrative like the retard he is. He didnt notice media say "produce" fentanyl. Venezuela doesnt produce it. They transport it. From china. Which is documented.
Let's not be retarded and pretend fentanyl is the same sort of thing as weed, acid, and coke.
Let's not be retarded and pretend weed, acid, and coke are the same sort of thing. The concept of a "War on Drugs" as we have known it is flawed because the term "drugs" lumps together many substances and behaviors that are very different from each other, and ought to be treated differently under the law.
FIFY
No, they're infiltrating not invading. Invading involves force not just sneaking by.
They're not trying to poison anyone. Why would they want to kill paying customers and make less money?
The boats were likely carrying cocaine not fentanyl.
But even if they were, rat poison is toxic, but rat poison is legal. To actually be "toxic", it has to be harmful at any dose, not just at an overdose. Fentanyl is legitimately used in surgery and for pain Here's from the DEA https://www.dea.gov/resources/facts-about-fentanyl
Also https://www.massgeneral.org/news/press-release/opioids-surgery-postoperative-opioid-use
To use the term "toxic" is toxic political rhetoric.
Which is all the more reason drugs should be legalized. If the drugs are legalized, the users could get pure accurate dosages from pharmacies or specialty drug stores. Or have it injected by trained professionals.
Why is there Fentanyl? Because it's strength makes it compact, easy & compact to manufacture, easy to conceal, transport, smuggle and sell. If the drugs were legal, the users would prefer heroin or morphine, only fentanyl if it was cheaper.
Drug dealers and smugglers are not necessarily paramilitary not necessarily thugs. It's because the drugs are illegal and disputes cannot be solved in courts of law that violence occurs and drug organizations have to do their own security. It may look paramilitary but it is not. Paramilitaries try to control and rule territory, generally. Drug organizations protect and sell their product and protect their cash, maybe keep out competitors, but not rule the population like a paramilitary.
No. The nation has an obligation to respect individual rights. One has an obligation to oneself, not to society, to resist drugs for one's own benefit and by one's own effort and not expect the government to remove all temptation. One does not have any more of a right to a drug-free society than one has a right to a gun-free society.
No one is being forced to use drugs. The addicts knew the drugs were addictive before they ever used them, but they used them, anyway. No one forced them. There's plenty of free rehab. If the drugs were legalized, the addicts could support their habits on their paychecks just as functional alcoholics do.
The homicide rate was cut in half after the end of alcohol prohibition. The end of drug prohibition would likely have similar results. It's prohibition that gives the gangs their sources of revenue.
If a person wants to do drugs, it's not my business, it's not yours, not the government's.
"...If a person wants to do drugs, it's not my business, it's not yours, not the government's..."
Bruce D is not quite with it, is he?
So long as the taxpayer has to provide services to help the junkies get sober enough to shoot up again, it is MY business.
Do you want a pony too? How about a second brain cell?
^Right; It is quite amazing how that played out.....
"There's plenty of ?free? rehab."
"functional alcoholics"
"the addicts could support their habits on their paychecks"
So... Why is the nation going bankrupt on ?free? sh*t again Mr. Bruce?
The taxpayer has to pay for drug busts and drug enforcement, too. From a rational perspective, it would be overall cheaper and less damaging to shift enforcement funds to providing rehab and save billions by abolishing the DEA and various narcotics enforcement agencies - state, local and federal.
If the drugs were legalized, they could be taxed to pay for rehab services so that the rehab is paid for by the users via a specific drug tax and not paid for by the general public taxpayers.
Even without rehab, under legalization, the drugs would be cheap enough, if not excessively taxed, that the addicts could support their habits on their paychecks and still be functional just the same as functional alcoholics.
No. I don't need to insult you to make my point.
How are druggies going to pay taxes? From their welfare checks?
There isn't a lot of 'points' in pretending/saying....
"the addicts could support their habits on their paychecks"
"There's plenty of ?free? rehab."
"There's plenty of ?free? healthcare."
Drug-Addicts aren't known to be the most competent bunch ya know.
But a lot of what you said I agree with; perhaps it could work if people were rehab-ed in prison.
That kind-of blew up when people started believing the 'poor' was *entitled* not to pay bills w/o prison. Today the 'poor' is just an excuse to TAKE endlessly from those 'icky' people.
That's how it would work. Concentrate resources on prosecuting and imprisoning where actual damage or infringement has been done to others. If a drug user commits an infringement of individual rights, then prosecute and imprison to the fullest extent of the law. Detox and rehab the person in jail or prison. The people who can't handle drugs and commit infringements of individual rights will end up in jail or prison, without society having to waste resources on prosecuting and imprisoning the majority of drug users who can handle drugs. In the long term, people who fail to respect individual rights - assaults, thefts, battery, or worse - will be filtered out of society, without wasting resources prosecuting those who have not proven to be a criminal threat to the individual rights of others.
I'd say you need to start with "wasting resources" on the 'poor' before you get to where you're going. Which is entirely likely the very reason the drug-use has become the crime.
I'd say start with AFDC - Aid to Families with Dependent Children, which basically subsidizes the having of children by those least prepared emotionally and financially. If anything is going to be subsidized, subsidize adoption by mature parents.
Let's not be retarded and pretend fentanyl is the same sort of thing as weed, acid, and coke.
Even at that, the drugs are more of just a touchstone. Like saying The Battle of Blair Mountain was about the war on coal or the war on poverty or the Civil War was *just* about slavery. Banana Republics aren't just about bananas, land/cattle barons weren't just about land/cattle... the issue is systemic oppression and corruption. Saying the extrajudicial killing of drug dealers isn't less oppressive is both a bit of a lie and doesn't in any way address or resolve the systemic issue(s) of the cartels/mafia/union thugs/land barons/etc.
This is a point I keep making; even if every drug were legalized tomorrow and the illegal drug market collapsed, the armed cartels aren't going to simply put down their guns and decide open up honest Venezuelan food enterprises any more than the American mafia did in the decades after prohibition. They, like the Mafia, will simply move to similarly lucrative quasi-legal means of operation like gambling, welfare fraud, racketeering, etc.
And this may sound like "You have to have a plan." argument against legalization, but it's fundamentally very different from other "You have to have a plan." arguments in that, unlike healthcare or welfare schemes, the organizations and power structures outside government/social control are largely self-supporting and demonstrably predatory.
Again, for the hundreds of thousands dead from The Civil War and the millions of dead slaves after the war, Europe had already eradicated slavery within several empires without similar upheavel or bloodshed and, for better or worse, didn't go through the similar "Jim Crow"/"Civil Rights" eras that we did.
Even the idea that we just gradually legalize everything and it will gradually reduce the cartels to nothing is a bit naive.
Thank God's Own Prohibitionists for marketing gin, cigarettes and the initiation of deadly force to drive up the price of something non-habit-forming and not so different from coffee.
Every time you vote for the entrenched looter Kleptocracy, your vote says "kill freedom of production and trade. Bring another WAR instead."
Elephant galaxy waterfall quantum umbrella mountain tree island jacket queen.
So the Dems finally taught the other looters how to feign incomprehension of the initiation of force? Well done!
Willful ignorance at its best (worst?).
Do you think Trump who de-classified hemp is a prohibitionist?
Do you think [D]emon-rats aren't? They literally started the whole mess.
Harrison Narcotics Tax Act "The Opium & Coca Leaves Trade Restrictions"
Introduced by: [D-NY] Francis Harrison
Passed by [D] House & [D] Senate 63rd US Congress.
Signed by: [D] Woodrow Wilson
I'm just not buying that the only threat Venezuala presents is Drugs.
If only those boaters had been former presidents of Honduras, they would have all gotten pardons.
If only the asswipe Fu Manchu had more than one brain cell, shitforbrains might post something worth reading.
Fuck off and die.
Sevo, stop embarrassing yourself with your Tourette's Determined Scatology - TDS.
TDS-addled asshole Bruce D, stop embarrassing yourself by posting at all. Fuck off and die, asswipe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourette_syndrome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprolalia
I could be wrong of course, but I believe that Pete, the god of war, could shed light on the smoldering question by releasing the unedited video of the killing. Some in Congress have seen a version of it, I think, and have offered mixed commentary. For my own edification I think I'll see what I can find out about it, but I suspect it's a rabbit hole.
Imagine OUR looter kleptocracy stooping to tampering with evidence of murder... The very IDEA would make Arlen Specter spin in his grave!
Well we now once again need to have to have a discussion as to what constitutes "National defense." The expansive definition that actions like today represent is certainly not my favorite.
But can we at least hash out this discussion for once. If Maduro was intentionally committing what amount to "acts of war" against the United States, that's different than him simply turning a blind eye to the drug trade. So which is it?
He absolutely was not "turning a blind eye". He was deeply involved.
And if he was directly funneling his efforts into the United States with both drugs and illegal immigration, and was doing it to destabilize and inflict punishment on the United States, then that certainly could be argued to be an act of war.
Sure wish we had the war powers delegated to Congress, but of course that particular battle was lost a long long time ago. Most people only support that when their preferred party is out of power.
A more simple, direct and likely explanation is to make money off of the United States.
Now we get to run another country...hopeful this time we're actually treated as liberators.
The TDS-addled steaming pile of lying shit Sullum thinks someone cares about his opinion.
Yawn. We have freedom problems. This isn’t in the top 10. Maybe top 100.
You idiots saying illegal immigrants are needed and we should be playing some kind of children’s fair game with foreign countries, are in denial of the lack of rules in the game. We need immigrant energy as long as we don’t have a welfare society. GUESS WHAT dumb ass?!?! China is all over the biggest oil reserves in the world, seeking access to the west and helping to oppress its people, but you idiots think the solution is international non-aggression.
I’d like to play chess with any of you, denying you to move any pieces to my side of the board. Idiots!