US Outraged by Second Strike, Not First One
Mainstream media, including The Guardian, reports outrage over a second US military strike that killed alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers who survived the initial attack. The Washington Post's exposé highlighted the gruesome 'double tap,' finally igniting a 'firestorm' (their words) missing from the preceding, equally legally shaky campaign. One might wonder: where was this selective morality
when the first, 'legally questionable' strike occurred, or when similar actions are whitewashed using the convenient 'war on terror' or 'war on drugs' umbrella? This isn't about protecting 'drug boats;' it's about the US asserting unilateral extraterritorial enforcement with deadly force, often against sovereign nations it deems adversaries. The 'war on drugs' has long been a convenient pretext
for interventionist foreign policy, destabilizing regions while enriching defense contractors. Yet, the media often only questions the 'legality' when the brutality becomes so undeniable that even their carefully constructed narratives threaten to unravel. It appears 'outrage' is reserved for bad optics, not consistent policy.