Why hasn’t the mainstream media pressed the administration on these strikes being illegal and dangerous (and unpopular)?
This image was posted on social media by President Donald Trump and shows a boat that was allegedly transporting cocaine off the coast of Venezuela when it was destroyed by US forces on September 2, 2025.
(Photo: President Donald Trump/Truth Social)
Joseph Bouchard
Sep 16, 2025
Common Dreams
On September 2, the Trump administration shared footage purporting to show a US strike on a Venezuelan fishing boat. Even if we take the incident entirely at face value (and there are a lot of reasons to question the video itself)—the US Navy attacked a fishing boat off Venezuela, killing 11 people. On Monday, another strike was allegedly conducted on a boat, killing three people. The way the media has handled these strikes is an indictment of the state of American neoliberal reporting in a neofascist age.
Why hasn’t the mainstream media pressed the administration on these strikes being illegal and dangerous (and unpopular)? Why has no one in Washington considered the implications of calling a fishing boat carrying civilians a legitimate military target? Why isn’t the media calling the Venezuelan boat strike an abhorrent war crime at every turn?...
On September 2, the Trump administration shared footage purporting to show a US strike on a Venezuelan fishing boat. Even if we take the incident entirely at face value (and there are a lot of reasons to question the video itself)—the US Navy attacked a fishing boat off Venezuela, killing 11 people. On Monday, another strike was allegedly conducted on a boat, killing three people. The way the media has handled these strikes is an indictment of the state of American neoliberal reporting in a neofascist age.
Why hasn’t the mainstream media pressed the administration on these strikes being illegal and dangerous (and unpopular)? Why has no one in Washington considered the implications of calling a fishing boat carrying civilians a legitimate military target? Why isn’t the media calling the Venezuelan boat strike an abhorrent war crime at every turn?...
It’s simple; they don’t care about defending the truth or holding the powerful accountable–they have no principles to stand on besides profit and access.
Within hours of these strikes breaking, major outlets were repeating the Trump administration’s line that this was a strike on a “drug boat.” According to this framing, the attacks were justified, necessary, and part of a broader war on drug trafficking. Virtually none of these outlets even entertained the obvious legal and ethical questions. Instead, they served as stenographers for the administration. This is not what an objective (not neutral) press in an advanced democracy does.
Would the Marines be greeted as liberators in Caracas?
This is reminiscent of the Iraq War era, when corporate media parroted the Bush administration’s ludicrous arguments, paving the way for invasion and occupation that would kill at least 200,000, maim millions, and destroy American democracy further.
Legal experts across the spectrum have already stood up to say the killings were illegal. Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University’s conservative Antonin Scalia Law School, called the strike “unjust and illegal.” Jeremy Wildeman, an adjunct professor of international Affairs at Carleton University and fellow at the Human Rights Research and Education Centre in Ottawa, described it as “part of the dangerous and ongoing erosion of due process and the very basic principles of how we interact with each other in domestic and foreign affairs, regulated by accepted norms, rules, and laws, that the Trump administration has been pointedly hostile toward following and specifically undermining.”
Wildeman added that “this is definitely about regime change and domination.” Even the Atlantic Council hedged, acknowledging that the legality was at best murky and in some cases advancing arguments to justify it. Meanwhile, US Vice President JD Vance bluntly stated that he does not care if the strikes are war crimes at all.
The available evidence does suggest this was an outright criminal massacre. The first boat was, we now know thanks to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), turning back to shore, not threatening US forces when it was fired upon. Those killed would be civilians. Even if they were transporting drugs, drug couriers are not lawful combatants. They are criminals under domestic law, not combatants in an armed conflict.
Due process was ignored. There was no trial, no arrest, no attempt at interdiction—just summary execution. And the strikes occurred in Venezuelan territorial waters, not in an international conflict zone. If another country did this, say Russia bombing a fishing boat in the Baltic, or China attacking smugglers near Taiwan, the Western media would have declared it a war crime the same day. Add this to the list of Western double standards in the international arena—we are seeing the destruction of the “liberal order” in real time.
These strikes are not a one-off. They fit into decades of US policy toward Venezuela, including economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and repeated regime change attempts. For 25 years, Washington has tried to topple the governments of Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro through economic sabotage, coups, and support for far-right opposition. The humanitarian toll of those sanctions has been devastating. They have themselves emboldened the repression brought about by the Maduro government, which has used America as a scapegoat, with reason, for all its faults.
Now, with this attack, we see a dangerous escalation from economic to military means. If the precedent is set that the US can strike targets inside Venezuela (this was in Venezuela’s national waters) with impunity, it opens the door to a broader military campaign. That is exactly what think tanks like the Center for Strategic and International Studies have been preparing for. One CSIS report, now deleted, explicitly laid out “options for regime change” in Venezuela, against the “Maduro narco-terrorist regime.”
So why is the media so unwilling to call this what it is? Major outlets fear losing access to government sources if they challenge the official narrative. They also simply don’t want to admit that America is committing crimes, and may not be the moral actors in every major geopolitical event, as they were taught throughout their lives. Going back to Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent 101, corporate interests are also important, with companies like Exxon and Chevron having billions at stake in Venezuela’s oil fields (and a US-backed government running things in Caracas). US military action that destabilizes or topples Maduro could directly benefit those firms.
Many of the analysts quoted in media coverage are from think tanks funded by the defense industry or oil companies. They have an interest in exaggerating Venezuela’s threat and downplaying US abuses, to make the US intervention seem justified and good. And reporters too often repackage leaks from US intelligence agencies as fact, without independently verifying. A lot of the “analysis” on the strikes in mainstream news has been from the intelligence agencies, who have a direct incentive to lie and manipulate information in favor of regime change.
Even respected outlets have contributed to this dynamic. The New York Times and Wall Street Journal have both amplified the claim that Venezuela is a “narco-terrorist state.” That claim has been debunked by organizations like InSight Crime and the International Crisis Group, which show that while drugs transit Venezuela, it is hardly unique; Colombia and Mexico play a much larger role in global cocaine markets, yet they remain US allies.
Meanwhile, outlets like the Christian Science Monitor are pushing a narrative that “more Latin Americans welcome US intervention,” based on flimsy and cherry-picked anecdotes that, once again, helps the Trump administration lay the groundwork for more meddling and war. Would the Marines be greeted as liberators in Caracas? The hope is to expand the “War on Drugs” into the “War on Terror,” giving the US military more tools to intervene in Latin America, and then bringing repression to the home front (also called the Imperial Boomerang theory). In reality, the region is increasingly turning away from Washington’s militaristic and blusterous approach, seeking alternative frameworks to the failed War on Drugs.
'He has it wrong': Former CIA officer slams Trump official over new Venezuela attack
September 16, 2025
ALTERNET
Retired CIA intelligence service officer and MSNBC security and intel analysis Marc Polymeropoulos slammed President Donald Trump's latest use of the military in its alleged war on drugs.
Speaking with Ali Vitale on "Way Too Early," the career CIA officer criticized Trump's announcement that the U.S. military has carried out another strike on an alleged Venezelan drug boat
Trump announced Monday that, while no U.S. personnel were harmed, three people were killed in that operation, posting a video on Truth Social warning, "if you're transporting drugs that can kill Americans, we're hunting you."
This attack, which comes two weeks after the U.S. struck a different Venezuelan boat in the Caribbean sea under the dubious guise it was carrying drugs and gang members, an allegation Venezuela vehemently denied, is dangerous and reckless, Polymeropoulos said
"So, Secretary of . . Defense . . Of War, however you want to call it, Hegseth has talked about the need to have lethality over legality, but I think he has it wrong," he said. "Because when the United States decides to take lives, to kill people, kinetic action, you know, we have authorities that govern this, whether it's in the Department of Defense or the intelligence community. In essence, Americans have to be at risk . . .So, where are the authorities?"
The 26-year career CIA officer added that "we have to be really careful going down this line," comparing what's going on to the 2015 movie "Sicario," starring Emily Blunt, in which she plays an FBI agent who joins a task force combatting the war on drugs.
"All of this looks like a "Sicario" movie," he said, "And so we can kind of beat our chest saying we're doing something in the war on drugs, but what happens when there are civilian casualties?"
Polymeropoulos pointed to an attack in 2001 in which, "the U.S. did end up in the war on drugs, killing an innocent family," he explained. "I think Congress has totally failed in its duty to hold the [Trump] administration accountable. We need authorities on this. Where are they? Nobody seems to know."
The deaths of three individuals in the latest attack is especially concerning, he says.
"We're not being weak on national security. What we're asking [is], 'do we have the authority to take a life?' That's a really big deal."
ALTERNET
Retired CIA intelligence service officer and MSNBC security and intel analysis Marc Polymeropoulos slammed President Donald Trump's latest use of the military in its alleged war on drugs.
Speaking with Ali Vitale on "Way Too Early," the career CIA officer criticized Trump's announcement that the U.S. military has carried out another strike on an alleged Venezelan drug boat
Trump announced Monday that, while no U.S. personnel were harmed, three people were killed in that operation, posting a video on Truth Social warning, "if you're transporting drugs that can kill Americans, we're hunting you."
This attack, which comes two weeks after the U.S. struck a different Venezuelan boat in the Caribbean sea under the dubious guise it was carrying drugs and gang members, an allegation Venezuela vehemently denied, is dangerous and reckless, Polymeropoulos said
"So, Secretary of . . Defense . . Of War, however you want to call it, Hegseth has talked about the need to have lethality over legality, but I think he has it wrong," he said. "Because when the United States decides to take lives, to kill people, kinetic action, you know, we have authorities that govern this, whether it's in the Department of Defense or the intelligence community. In essence, Americans have to be at risk . . .So, where are the authorities?"
The 26-year career CIA officer added that "we have to be really careful going down this line," comparing what's going on to the 2015 movie "Sicario," starring Emily Blunt, in which she plays an FBI agent who joins a task force combatting the war on drugs.
"All of this looks like a "Sicario" movie," he said, "And so we can kind of beat our chest saying we're doing something in the war on drugs, but what happens when there are civilian casualties?"
Polymeropoulos pointed to an attack in 2001 in which, "the U.S. did end up in the war on drugs, killing an innocent family," he explained. "I think Congress has totally failed in its duty to hold the [Trump] administration accountable. We need authorities on this. Where are they? Nobody seems to know."
The deaths of three individuals in the latest attack is especially concerning, he says.
"We're not being weak on national security. What we're asking [is], 'do we have the authority to take a life?' That's a really big deal."
Ilhan Omar Slams Latest Trump Attack on Venezuelan Boat as ‘Egregious Violation’
“There is NO legal justification,” the progressive congresswoman said. “It risks spiraling into the exact type of endless, pointless conflict that Trump supposedly opposes.”
US Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) speaks during an April 17, 2024 hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty Images)
Brett Wilkins
Sep 16, 2025
COMMON DREAMS
US Congresswoman Ilhan Omar on Tuesday condemned the Trump administration’s attack the previous day on a second boat allegedly transporting drugs off the coast of Venezuela as blatantly illegal, highlighting her introduction last week of a war powers resolution in a bid to stop the aggression.
President Donald Trump announced Monday that the US destroyed what he said was a boat used by Venezuelan drug gangs, killing three people in what one Amnesty International campaigner called “an extrajudicial execution.”
Omar, Ramirez Among First in Congress to Decry ‘Unconstitutional’ Trump Strike on Boat
Senator Says New Details of Venezuela Bombing Reveal ‘Trump’s Growing Lawlessness’
The strike followed a September 2 US attack on another alleged drug-running boat that killed 11 people, which Omar (D-Minn.) called a “lawless and reckless” action.
Responding to Monday’s attack, Omar said on the social media site X that the Trump administration “is once again using the failed War on Drugs to justify their egregious violation of international law.”
“There is NO legal justification,” she said of the attack. “It risks spiraling into the exact type of endless, pointless conflict that Trump supposedly opposes. I have a war powers resolution to fight back.”
Introduced last Thursday, the measure aims to stop the US attacks, which coincide with Trump’s deployment of a small armada of warships off the Caribbean coast of Venezuela, a country that has endured to more than a century of US meddling in its affairs.
“All of us should agree that the separation of powers is crucial to our democracy, and that only Congress has the power to declare war,” Omar said at the time.
The War Powers Act of 1973—enacted during the Nixon administration at the tail end of the US war on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos—empowers Congress to check the president’s war-making authority. The law requires the president to report any military action to Congress within 48 hours and mandates that lawmakers must approve troop deployments after 60 days.
Also last week, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) led a letter signed by two dozen Democratic colleagues and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) asserting that the Trump administration offered “no legitimate justification” for the first boat strike.
Omar’s condemnation of the US attacks followed Monday’s announcement by US Reps. Nancy Mace (R-SC) and Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) of separate resolutions to strip Omar of her committee assignments and, in the case of Mace’s measure, censure the congresswoman after she reportedly shared a video highlighting assassinated far-right firebrand Charlie Kirk’s prolific bigotry.
Trump also attacked Omar on Monday, calling her a “disgraceful person,” a “loser,” and “disgusting.”
Omar is no stranger to censure efforts, which critics say are largely fueled by Islamophobia—and haven’t just come from Republicans. In 2019, she was falsely accused of antisemitism by leaders of her own party and was the subject of an anti-hate speech resolution passed by House lawmakers after she remarked about the indisputable financial ties the pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and members of Congress.
In February 2023, Omar was ousted from the House Foreign Affairs Committee for years-old comments that allegedly referenced antisemitic tropes.
Last year, Congressman Don Bacon (R-Neb.) introduced a censure resolution after Omar said of Jewish students at Columbia University, “We should not have to tolerate antisemitism or bigotry for all Jewish students, whether they’re pro-genocide or anti-genocide.”
The measure failed to pass, as did another put forth earlier last year by Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) after she mistranslated remarks Omar made in Somali.
“There is NO legal justification,” the progressive congresswoman said. “It risks spiraling into the exact type of endless, pointless conflict that Trump supposedly opposes.”
US Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) speaks during an April 17, 2024 hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty Images)
Brett Wilkins
Sep 16, 2025
COMMON DREAMS
US Congresswoman Ilhan Omar on Tuesday condemned the Trump administration’s attack the previous day on a second boat allegedly transporting drugs off the coast of Venezuela as blatantly illegal, highlighting her introduction last week of a war powers resolution in a bid to stop the aggression.
President Donald Trump announced Monday that the US destroyed what he said was a boat used by Venezuelan drug gangs, killing three people in what one Amnesty International campaigner called “an extrajudicial execution.”
Omar, Ramirez Among First in Congress to Decry ‘Unconstitutional’ Trump Strike on Boat
Senator Says New Details of Venezuela Bombing Reveal ‘Trump’s Growing Lawlessness’
The strike followed a September 2 US attack on another alleged drug-running boat that killed 11 people, which Omar (D-Minn.) called a “lawless and reckless” action.
Responding to Monday’s attack, Omar said on the social media site X that the Trump administration “is once again using the failed War on Drugs to justify their egregious violation of international law.”
“There is NO legal justification,” she said of the attack. “It risks spiraling into the exact type of endless, pointless conflict that Trump supposedly opposes. I have a war powers resolution to fight back.”
Introduced last Thursday, the measure aims to stop the US attacks, which coincide with Trump’s deployment of a small armada of warships off the Caribbean coast of Venezuela, a country that has endured to more than a century of US meddling in its affairs.
“All of us should agree that the separation of powers is crucial to our democracy, and that only Congress has the power to declare war,” Omar said at the time.
The War Powers Act of 1973—enacted during the Nixon administration at the tail end of the US war on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos—empowers Congress to check the president’s war-making authority. The law requires the president to report any military action to Congress within 48 hours and mandates that lawmakers must approve troop deployments after 60 days.
Also last week, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) led a letter signed by two dozen Democratic colleagues and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) asserting that the Trump administration offered “no legitimate justification” for the first boat strike.
Omar’s condemnation of the US attacks followed Monday’s announcement by US Reps. Nancy Mace (R-SC) and Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) of separate resolutions to strip Omar of her committee assignments and, in the case of Mace’s measure, censure the congresswoman after she reportedly shared a video highlighting assassinated far-right firebrand Charlie Kirk’s prolific bigotry.
Trump also attacked Omar on Monday, calling her a “disgraceful person,” a “loser,” and “disgusting.”
Omar is no stranger to censure efforts, which critics say are largely fueled by Islamophobia—and haven’t just come from Republicans. In 2019, she was falsely accused of antisemitism by leaders of her own party and was the subject of an anti-hate speech resolution passed by House lawmakers after she remarked about the indisputable financial ties the pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and members of Congress.
In February 2023, Omar was ousted from the House Foreign Affairs Committee for years-old comments that allegedly referenced antisemitic tropes.
Last year, Congressman Don Bacon (R-Neb.) introduced a censure resolution after Omar said of Jewish students at Columbia University, “We should not have to tolerate antisemitism or bigotry for all Jewish students, whether they’re pro-genocide or anti-genocide.”
The measure failed to pass, as did another put forth earlier last year by Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) after she mistranslated remarks Omar made in Somali.
No comments:
Post a Comment