US Military: 'Alleged' Crime Justifies Summary Execution at Sea
The Hill dutifully reports the US military's precision strike on an 'alleged drug boat' in the Eastern Pacific, resulting in four deaths, casually labeled 'narco-terrorists.' No mention of arrests, trials, or even positive identification of the cargo. This is the same military that, for decades, has deployed 'alleged' threats as justification for interventions—remember the 'alleged weapons of mass
destruction'? (A convenient pretext for a war that cost trillions and destabilized an entire region.) These 'allegations' seem to carry extraordinary weight when a target needs to be neutralized. One might wonder if the rules of engagement for 'alleged' threats somehow apply differently when the alleged perpetrators are conveniently far from any court of law. 'Narco-terrorist' is a remarkably
malleable term, isn't it? It grants a certain moral impunity to those pulling the triggers, transforming potential criminals into enemy combatants with a linguistic flourish. After all, why bother with the burden of proof when a convenient label allows for a swift, irreversible solution?