Watching the Sunday morning political shows was an especially pointed example of "One screen, two movies."
Especially when it came to the issue of military response to alleged drug-runners at sea. Such facts as both sides agree on are sketchy at best: a fast, small boat, almost certainly a smuggler and very likely running drugs,* destination unknown, was fired on by U.S, forces are badly damaged. When the smoke cleared, some portion of the vessel remained afloat, either the overturned hull or a large piece of it. On that floating object were two individuals, moving around in a purposeful manner. One of them removed his shirt. After some time had passed, the U.S. forced stuck again, obliterating the people and whatever they were floating on. And there's video if it.
Several members of the United States Congress have seen that video, and their reports disagree significantly. Some (mostly Democrats) saw two survivors, possibly trying to right the vessel or portion of a vessel, possibly trying to signal for help by gesturing. Others (mostly Republicans) saw two individuals, trying to right the vessel, recover the cargo, and radio for assistance from other smugglers.
They all saw the same video, probably on a large screen, probably in as high a resolution as authorized Department of Defense personnel saw it when it was happening in real time. And they took away different narratives.
Stepping back, on the one hand, we have a small, fast, heavily-laden vessel, not as large as a WW II PT boat, with powerful engines and armed with rifles at best. On the other, we have good-sized ships of the U. S. Navy; the outcome of battle between them is not in doubt.
Is it appropriate or legal for a nation's Navy to fire on smuggling vessels in the open sea?
Having done so, is it appropriate or legal for a nation's Navy to fire on any crew of that vessel who survived the initial attack?
It is well established that vessels suspected of unlawful activity can be "pulled over" -- commanded to heave to, with a shot over the bows if they don't comply, illegal freight seized, crew arrested. It is well established that if a small (or large) vessel makes aggressive moves towards a Navy ship -- say, a shipload of Houthi militants with an eye on eternity -- shots across the bow can become shots on target. It is eminently lawful under international agreements to resist and hunt down pirates.
There's no precedent for hunting down dope-runners and blowing them out of the water. There's precedent against killing survivors after an attack. When German and Imperial Japanese naval vessels did so to Allied crews in wartime, they were reviled for it.
DoD may release the video. We're not going to get the same resolution their guys saw. We're not going to get the same image quality elected politicians saw, and there's good reason for that: DoD doesn't want any foe to know just how well they can be seen. But if we get to see it, whatever we get, from fuzzy proxies to 720p, we're going to look at the same screen and see two films.
History will only see one. I wonder which it will be?
_______________________
* The administration keeps saying it's fentanyl. Experts say it's most likely cocaine, and not headed directly to the U.S. It's very likely drugs, though even that is not certain. It is smuggling of some kind.
Update
11 months ago
4 comments:
The people producing, transporting, and selling dangerous drugs have no concerns or regrets for the daughters and sons lying cold and dead from their poison. Most of them never see any punishment. For most, legal deterrent is a very abstract concept.
This is not to say that bombing smugglers is right or wrong. The cartels treat the smugglers as disposable. The smugglers treat themselves as disposable. We get conflicted when we treat the smugglers as disposable.
Yes, we certainly do: we are not a criminal gang; the United States and our government is not a crime cartel (at least generally). We recognize the inherent and inalienable rights of people, even criminals, even largely hapless, low-level criminals, and historically, we have generally tried to arrest them and put them on trial before deciding what to do with them. "Oh, their bosses view them as disposable" isn't a license for our government to do the same, especially when a state of war does not exist and they do not present an imminent threat to the forces sent against them.
This isn't rocket science. It's Jr. High-level civics, at most. Waving a bloody shirt doesn't justify barbarity, and if you don't want your "daughters and sons lying cold and dead from their poison," start by doing a better job of raising those sons and daughters; the dope dealers aren't grabbing them off the street and addicting them by main force.
One can posit that going full Bronco (heave to or go boom) on smugglers crossing our official ADIZ is legal and moral. There's a whole lot of lines that people can't cross without getting a potentially lethal response.
But this seems more like a campaign stunt.
These actions are taking place very far away from our ADIZ, in the Caribbean and off the NE coast of South America.
And again, the normal response to smugglers has been to stop 'em, arrest the crew, seize or destroy the cargo, impound or destroy the vessel. There are a whole series of treaties about the safety of life at sea. These are not capital crimes.
Post a Comment