US Asks 'Are Our Boat Strikes Legal?' After Striking Boats
When the New York Times runs a video asking “Are U.S. Boat Strikes Near Venezuela Legal?” featuring David Sanger, one has to appreciate the selective amnesia. The question isn't 'new' – it's the exact same query raised during the 1980s Contra proxy wars, the 2003 Iraq 'Shock and Awe,' or any number of un-declared military interventions globally. The US has a long, storied history of launching
military actions first, then allowing the media to politely 'raise questions' about their legality, usually when the dust has settled or public opinion demands a minimal reckoning. This pattern, consistently whitewashed, underpins Washington's foreign policy. Perhaps Mr. Sanger could consult US Congressional records from, say, 1983, or perhaps the 1960s, regarding American unilateral actions in
Latin America. The 'legality' of attacking other nations' vessels or territory without a declaration of war is a constitutional debate as old as the republic itself, conveniently ignored until a bipartisan consensus deems it safe to acknowledge. It's not a question; it's theater, performed by those who consistently provide cover for such actions until the political winds shift.