Saturday, September 13, 2025

IMPERIALIST ASSAULT ON VENEZUELA

Senators: Pentagon Has Not Given “Any” Justification for Caribbean Boat Strike

“There is no evidence — none — that this strike was conducted in self-defense,” said Sen. Jack Reed.

By Sharon Zhang ,

Truthout

September 12, 2025

Sen. Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island) listens as U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell testifies at a Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.Tom Williams - Pool / Getty Images

The top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee has said that the Pentagon has provided Congress with “no evidence” to back its claims on the legitimacy of the boat strike in the Caribbean that killed 11 people who experts say were civilians.

The Defense Department briefed congressional staff on the strike on Tuesday, CNN reports. The officials did not present any evidence backing the Trump administration’s claims that the people targeted were affiliated with a gang or cartel, according to Sen. Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island).

“They have offered no positive identification that the boat was Venezuelan, nor that its crew were members of Tren de Aragua or any other cartel,” said Reed after the briefing, per CNN.
Nor did the Pentagon officials provide intelligence showing that the strike was done in self-defense, he said, despite Trump’s assertion in a letter to Congress after the strike last week.

“There is no evidence — none — that this strike was conducted in self-defense,” Reed said. “That matters, because under both domestic and international law, the US military simply does not have the authority to use lethal force against a civilian vessel unless acting in self-defense.”

Related Story

Experts Say Trump Administration’s Deadly Boat Attack Amounts to Extrajudicial Killings
“Trump is claiming the right to conduct extra-judicial assassinations,” a civil rights attorney posted on X. By Elizabeth Weill-Greenberg , Truthout September 3, 2025

The Pentagon has denied Reed’s account.

In a letter sent after the briefing, Reed and 19 Democrats also noted that they have been provided with no information to back the legality of the strike.

“The Trump Administration has yet to provide Congress or the American people with any legitimate legal justification for the strike, or any evidence to support its claims regarding the basis for this strike or the future strikes it has openly threatened to launch across the region,” the senators wrote.

Officials reportedly also indicated that the Pentagon did not know where the boat was headed; President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have offered differing narratives on where the boat was going. Trump has said that the boat was “heading to the United States,” while Rubio said the boat “probably headed to Trinidad or some other country in the Caribbean.” However, The New York Times reported on Wednesday that officials say that, in reality, the boat had turned around and was potentially headed back toward shore before the military launched the strike, even further undercutting the administration’s self-defense narrative.

The Venezuelan interior minister said this week that none of the people on the boat were affiliated with the gang, according to their own investigations.

“We have done our investigations here in our country and there are the families of the disappeared people who want their relatives, and when we asked in the towns, none were from Tren de Aragua, none were drug traffickers,” said Diosdado Cabello. “A murder has been committed against a group of citizens using lethal force.”

Legal experts have said that the U.S.’s strike likely violated numerous domestic and international laws.

“I’m not aware of any basis for the extraordinary notion that either the Commander-in-Chief Clause or any implied constitutional ‘foreign relations’ authority affords the President the power to order the military to kill any and all persons around the world who might (in the President’s view) be planning to commit crimes in the United States,” wrote Marty Lederman, Georgetown University Law Center professor and former Office of Legal Counsel Deputy Assistant Attorney General, for Just Security.

“That’s why there’s virtually no historical precedent of any president ordering lethal force in a situation such as this,” Lederman wrote.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) has introduced a war powers resolution to prevent the Trump administration from escalating its aggression against Venezuela or conducting future strikes in relation to the Caribbean strike.

“There was no legal justification for the Trump Administration’s military escalation in the Caribbean,” Omar said, per The Intercept. “That is why I am introducing a resolution to terminate hostilities against Venezuela, and against the transnational criminal organizations that the Administration has designated as terrorists this year.”

There Was a Boat. That Was the Only True Part.

by David Swanson / September 12th, 2025
This was what the President of the United States initially lied:
“Earlier this morning, on my Orders, U.S. Military Forces conducted a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility. TDA is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, operating under the control of Nicolas Maduro, responsible for mass murder, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and acts of violence and terror across the United States and Western Hemisphere. The strike occurred while the terrorists were at sea in International waters transporting illegal narcotics, heading to the United States. The strike resulted in 11 terrorists killed in action. No U.S. Forces were harmed in this strike. Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America. BEWARE! Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!!!!!!!!!”
How was this dishonest? Let me count the ways.
“Kinetic strike” is just a euphemism for murder. The above words accompanied a video of people in a small boat being blown up. You don’t see the blood spurting out of their bodies, as you might in an unacceptable murder objected to by Trump. You see a cool flash of light of the sort you’ve been conditioned by countless movies, television shows, and news broadcasts to ooh and aah at. But it’s just killing people.
There is no legal basis for the U.S. military to circle a giant chunk of the Earth’s surface and declare it the “responsibility” of a portion of that military named “SOUTHCOM.” This was at least 1,000 miles away from the United States, and therefore a job for a department of “defense,” only with the usual hypocrisy, even if there had been some sort of attack on anything — it’s a good thing the department is back to being one of “war.”
Nobody has publicly identified the people or identified them as drug dealers or as members of a particular gang.
Nobody has publicly established that there exists a gang engaged in “narcoterrorism” — that is, in dealing drugs and in terrorism. The most likely scenario for that happening will be city cops busting U.S. National Guard occupiers selling illegal substances to each other.
There is no way to define terrorism so as not to include the act of blowing up a boat and threatening to blow up more. Labeling the victims terrorists, even if true, cannot change that.
There is no public evidence that the president of Venezuela is in charge of the alleged gang.
There is no public evidence that the supposed gang of the president of Venezuela has done “mass murder, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and acts of violence and terror across the United States and Western Hemisphere.”
The boat was not “heading to the United States.” The U.S. Secretary of State said it was headed to Trinidad & Tobago and then “corrected” his statement to agree with Trump’s. His initial statement was more plausible for such a small boat. We later learned that the people on the boat had apparently become aware of the drone or drones above them and reversed course, so that at the time of their murder, they were headed in the opposite direction of wherever they had been headed at first.
It is highly unlikely that “No U.S. Forces were harmed in this strike.” The U.S. Air Force has long made clear that PTSD and moral injury are far more common among “drone pilots” who watch their targets on a screen than among airborne pilots.
Trump’s video did not show what we later learned were multiple strikes on the same little boat, which would have looked less wrath-of-God cool than a single bolt of MAGAnite.
Bragging about something on social media implies that it is legal, acceptable, and admirable. Reuters’ comical straight-faced “analysis” went like this: “Some experts questioned whether the decision to summarily kill people merely on suspicion of smuggling drugs violated international law. Trafficking in an illegal substance is not normally considered a capital offence.” In fact, murdering people violates international and national laws. Past U.S. presidents having done something does not legalize it. Even advocates for worldwide drone murder sprees have always maintained that it is only through the magic of being part of a war that such murders become totally admirable non-murders. If something were a “capital offense,” a president would still not get to be judge, jury, and executioner with no indictment or trial — not legally.
Drug dealing is not warmaking, and immigrating is not militarily invading. When someone like Senator Chris Murphy says that those who were killed on the boat may have been members of a drug cartel or may have been civilians, he is selling snake oil. Drug dealers are civilians.*
Threatening more of the same is a crime under international and national laws as well, starting with the United Nations Charter.
When someone like Senator Chris Murphy says the big damage here is the setback for the war on drugs, he is obscuring our view of the mass murder just committed by Trump.
When the same senator says that blowing up boats would be legal if Congress had authorized it, he is pushing the lie that Congress has the power to overrule international law. It does not. War — and murder apart from war — are both equally illegal with or without the approval of the United States Congress. Yes, I am listing responses to Trump’s dishonesty as part of it, but he could count on just these non-responses.
There is no world in which such a small boat contained enough drugs even for a single Republican National Convention, and there is no boat large enough that blowing it up could distract even Trump’s own followers from their obsession with Epstein.
Sign the petition against war on Venezuela here.
Well, not some of the U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan, for example, but most drug dealers.
Facebook Twitter Reddit Email
David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include War Is A Lie*. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and War Is a Crime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook. Read other articles by David.

Washington Projects Its Drug Problem onto

Latin America: Narco-State Myth Used to

Attack Venezuela

by Roger D. Harris / September 13th, 2025

A big Cadillac limo with Jersey plates was parked down the block. Few locals in East Harlem even owned cars, let alone new ones. Curious, I asked the street kids what’s up. They casually explained that the mafioso comes weekly to collect their drug money. Later, I found a playground, which served as a veritable narcotics flea market each night. If a blanquito from the suburbs and some third graders could uncover the illicit trade, I wondered why the officials – who plastered the city with “keep New York drug free” signs – couldn’t do the same.

That was in the late 1960s, and I am still wondering why the US – the world’s largest consumer of narcotics, the biggest money launderer of illicit drug money, and the leading weaponry supplier to the cartels – hasn’t resolved these problems.

One thing is clear: the drug issue is projected onto Latin America. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly warned of “evil narco terrorists [trying] to poison our homeland.” Drug interdiction has been weaponized as an excuse to impose imperial domination, most notably against Venezuela.

Since Hugo Chávez was elected Venezuela’s president in 1998 and initiated the Bolivarian Revolution – a movement that catalyzed the Pink Tide in Latin America and galvanized a counter-hegemonic wave internationally – Washington has tried to crush it. In 2015, then-US President Barack Obama accused Venezuela of being an “extraordinary threat” to US national security when, in fact, the opposite was the case; the US threatened Venezuela.

Obama imposed unilateral coercive measures – euphemistically called “sanctions.” Each subsequent administration renewed and, to varying degrees, intensified the sanctions, which are illegal under international law, in a bipartisan effort. But the imperial objective of regime change was thwarted by the political leadership of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in concert with the country’s people and in firm alliance with their military.

Now that draconian sanctions have “failed” to achieve regime change, President Trump dispatched an armada of warships, F-35 stealth aircraft, and thousands of troops to increase the pressure.

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro responded: “What Washington wants is to control Venezuela’s wealth [including the world’s largest oil reserves]. That is the reason why the US deployed warships, aircraft, missiles, and a nuclear submarine near Venezuelan coasts under the pretext of fighting drug trafficking.”

Maduro maintains his country is free of drug production and processing, citing reports from the United Nations, the European Union, and even the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). The Venezuelan president could have also referenced the findings of Trump’s own security agencies absolving him from the charge of directing the Tren de Aragua drug cartel.

And, speaking of collusion with drug cartels, Maduro could have commented on the DEA itself, which was expelled from Venezuela in 2005 for espionage. Regardless, the DEA has continued to secretly build drug trafficking cases against Venezuela’s leaders in knowing violation of international law, according to an Associated Press report.

Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez highlights that the DEA “has known connections with the drug trafficking world.” For example, an investigation by the US Department of Justice revealed that at least ten DEA agents in Colombia participated in repeated “sex parties” with prostitutes paid for by local drug cartels. In 2022, the DEA quietly removed its Mexico chief for maintaining improper contacts with cartels. This underscores a troubling pattern: DEA presence tends to coincide with major drug activity, but does not eliminate it.

The US “is not interested in addressing the serious public health problem its citizens face due to high drug use,” Maduro reminds us. He points out that drug trafficking profits remain in the US banking system. In fact, illicit narcotics are a major US industry. Research by the US Army-funded RAND Corporation reveals that narcotics rank alongside pharmaceuticals and oil/gas as top US commodities.

The former head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Pino Arlacchi commented: “I was in Colombia, Bolivia, Peru and Brazil but I have never been to Venezuela; there was simply no need.” He added: “The Venezuelan government’s cooperation in the fight against drug trafficking was one of the best in South America; It can be compared only to Cuba’s impeccable record. This fact, in Trump’s delusional narrative of ‘Venezuela as a narco-state’, sounds like geopolitically motivated slander.” The UN 2025 World Drug Report, from the organization he led, tells a story opposite to that spread by the Trump administration.

According to Arlaachi, if any Latin American country should be targeted, it is US-allied Ecuador, now the world’s leading cocaine exporter using banana boats owned by the family of Trump’s buddy, right-wing President Daniel Naboa.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum notes that if any “alliance” exists with cartels, it lies “in the US gun shops,” highlighting how Yankee firearms fuel cartel violence. She urges Washington to look inward at its own drug demand and lax enforcement. If the US truly wanted to curb fentanyl, “they can combat the sale of narcotics on the streets of their main cities… and [stop] the money laundering” tied to the trade – steps “they don’t do.”

The resounding message from Latin America is that blaming them alone for the drug problem is misleading – the US’s own appetite for drugs and history of interventionism are key contributors. Solutions call for shared responsibilities and cooperative relationships.

US policy under Trump, which confounds terrorism with criminal activity, is a cover for projecting military domination. Claiming the prerogative to unilaterally intervene in the sovereign territories of neighboring states to fight cartels or murdering a boat’s crew in the Caribbean are not solutions. Latin American leaders are turning the spotlight back on Washington. They point to US gun policies, consumer demand, and ulterior motives behind Washington’s renewed “war on drugs,” such as the current regime-change offensive against Venezuela. The drug problem won’t be solved by scapegoating Latin America when the US has yet to address root causes at home.

Roger D. Harris was an international observer for Venezuela’s 2024 presidential election. He is with the US Peace Council and the Task Force on the Americas. Read other articles by Roger.

Taking the Constitution Seriously

by Andrew P. Napolitano | Sep 12, 2025 | 20 Comments

Last week, the President of the United States did not take the Constitution seriously. He ordered the murders of 11 people who were riding in a speedboat in the Caribbean Sea around 1,300 miles from the U.S.

Afterward he said he did so because he believed that they were members of a “narco-terrorist gang” and were delivering illegal drugs to America. He also did so, he said, as a “message” to other drug dealers who should fear a similar fate.

The boat had no ability to reach the U.S. According to the former head of drug interdiction for the Department of Justice, this so-called boat gang is not known for trafficking in illegal drugs. The crimes that the president said these folks committed did not occur in the U.S., and if they had, do not permit the imposition of the death penalty.

He offered no evidence to support his claims and didn’t even suggest that the riders in the boat posed a threat to the American military personnel who killed them. He couldn’t say if anyone in the boat was an American.

When he was asked for the legal authority for these killings, President Donald Trump replied that these folks were waging war on the U.S., and, because he is the president of the United States, he can do as he wishes to them.

These are constitutionally ignorant, morally repugnant, profoundly erroneous responses from a person who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Here is the backstory.

When British monarchs wanted to dispose of inconvenient adversaries, they often accused them of vague crimes because they were able to define the crime however they saw fit. St. Thomas More, Henry VIII’s former Lord Chancellor, was executed for his silence. The monarch’s target was given a quick trial and then often a slow and excruciating public death – to send a message.

Mindful of the tyrannical impulses of monarchs and familiar with British history, even personally aware of folks in the colonies charged with crimes in London — where they had never been — and transported there for prosecution, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the Founding Fathers most responsible for crystallizing the American ethos of natural rights and due process, crafted founding documents that articulated condemnations and prohibitions of tyranny and tyrannical behavior here.

Thus, Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence characterize human rights as the gift of the Creator, which cannot be taken away by executive decree or legislative enactment – ut only by a jury verdict.

And Madison’s words in the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment declare that “no person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The use of the word “person” makes it obvious that due process applies to all human beings.

Due process requires a fair jury trial, with counsel and the opportunity for confrontation of witnesses and evidence produced by the government. It also requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty to a neutral jury, not to the accuser. And it requires conviction prior to the imposition of a legislatively prescribed penalty.

This was novel and radical in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, but it is neither novel nor radical today. Today, due process is the foundation of American law. It is what lawyers call black-letter law: Those in government are expected to know it and understand it and abide by it.

Until now.

Now, the president says he can declare war on any person or group and summarily kill them. Wrong. Under the Constitution, only Congress can declare war.

Now, the president says he can use federal assets however he sees fit as long as he can argue that their use is for the greater good. Wrong. Under the Constitution, he is limited to enforcing the laws that Congress has enacted and fighting the wars that Congress has declared.

Now, the president says some folks are so known to be evil that they can be executed before they commit crimes. Wrong. Because of the sweeping language in the Fifth Amendment, all human beings are entitled to the presumption of innocence, the right to a jury trial and the attendant protections of due process whenever the government pursues them.

What’s going on here?

American history is replete with instances of presidential behavior unserious about the Constitution. John Adams prosecuted folks for their speech. Abraham Lincoln arrested his critics without trial. Woodrow Wilson prosecuted students for reading the Declaration of Independence outside draft offices. Franklin Roosevelt incarcerated Americans based on race. George W. Bush began mass warrantless surveillance. Barack Obama murdered non-violent uncharged Americans in Yemen.

Did any of this enhance personal liberty or public safety? Of course not. But it enhanced public fear of a tyrant in the White House.

The underlying constitutional value – attacked by Trump and his predecessors — is that individuals are sovereign and government is limited. That is the Founders’ unanimous presumption at the creation of the American Republic. Individuals are free to exercise natural rights, and government is limited by the consent of the governed and the Constitution that defined it and, channeling Jefferson, chained it down.

But chaining the government down requires taking the Constitution seriously. And that requires those in whose hands we have reposed the Constitution for safekeeping to read it and understand it and comply with it – and to comply with their oaths to preserve, protect and defend it.

Do we have such folks in power today? The answer is obvious.

Until we do, this will likely get worse. Some have argued that pre-conviction, extrajudicial killings in peacetime of nameless, faceless, foreign bad guys not engaged in violence at the time of their deaths and never even charged with any crimes is a cause for rejoicing. They may rejoice today, but they will weep when the president or a successor brings killing the legally innocent home.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the US Constitution. The most recent is Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty. To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.

Lloyd’s Register Approves SHI Next-Gen SnapWind Float Offshore Wind Design

[By: Lloyd's Register]

Lloyd’s Register (LR) has granted Approval in Principle (AiP) to Samsung Heavy Industries (SHI) for its new Floating Offshore Wind Turbine (FOWT) design, SnapWind Float.

Announced this week at Gastech 2025 in Milan, SnapWind Float has been developed to deliver floating wind solutions that can unlock deeper water sites and higher-capacity renewable energy sites worldwide.

In addition, the SnapWind Float design is optimised for the development of floating offshore wind farms in regions where skilled workforce, heavy lifting equipment and sufficient workspace are limited.

SHI’s engineering team completed the concept and basic design, while LR carried out a comprehensive review, in accordance with its rules and international standards, to verify the feasibility and safety of the design and clears the way for its progression towards commercial deployment.

Sean van der Post, LR’s Global Offshore Business Director, said: “As the offshore wind industry seeks new solutions to unlock deeper waters and higher capacity sites, the SnapWind Float demonstrates significant progress toward establishing floating wind as a commercially sustainable solution at scale.”

Hae-Ki Jang, Chief Technology Officer at Samsung Heavy Industries, said: “The SnapWind Float is designed to meet the challenges of offshore wind developers who require efficient and commercially viable solutions. Receiving AiP from Lloyd’s Register is an important milestone that validates our technology and supports the next stage of offshore wind development worldwide.”

The products and services herein described in this press release are not endorsed by The Maritime Executive.

Human Element Is Key As Information Overload Emerges As New Risk

[By: Inmarsat Maritime]

The 2025 edition of the Future of Maritime Safety Report from Inmarsat Maritime, a Viasat (NASDAQ: VSAT) company, reveals that distress calls at sea remain high, underlining the vital role of human factors in safe shipping.

According to the report, the number of Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) distress calls registered on the Inmarsat Maritime network increased from 788 in 2023 to 801 in 2024, broadly in line with the 2018-2023 annual average of around 800 calls.

The report points to a turbulent year for international shipping, with geopolitical instability, conflict, severe weather events, piracy, and cyber-attacks all adding pressure on operators and crews. Alongside these risks, seafarers are facing welfare challenges linked to the pace and volume of new technologies. While digitalisation and decarbonisation are essential for the industry’s future, the rapid implementation of new systems and reporting requirements has created an information ‘overload challenge’ for seafarers, highlighting the need for new technologies to support, rather than strain, crew welfare.

The Future of Maritime Safety Report 2025 calls for the industry to acknowledge the fundamental role seafarer welfare plays in minimising the number of preventable incidents at sea. It recommends a ‘human factors’ approach to data that streamlines information, reduces duplication, and eliminates contradictory outputs.

Peter Broadhurst, Senior Vice President, Safety and Regulatory, Inmarsat Maritime, said: “Accurate data holds immense potential to transform shipping safety – from predictive maintenance to casualty and near-miss reporting and human-factor analysis. But data must empower crews, not overwhelm them. We need smarter systems to capture, evaluate, and utilise data more effectively without placing an extra burden on already overworked seafarers.”

Peter Broadhurst also emphasised the need for greater collaboration: “By sharing anonymised safety data, the industry can create a trusted ecosystem that strengthens standardisation and regulations, improves operations, and safeguards seafarer welfare. Together, we can create one of the most powerful maritime safety initiatives to navigate us through the pressures and changes impacting international shipping in the years to come.”

Inmarsat invites maritime professionals, policymakers, and stakeholders to explore the findings of the Future of Maritime Safety Report 2025 report and to support collective action in safeguarding life at sea.

Download the full report here.

The products and services herein described in this press release are not endorsed by The Maritime Executive.

U.S. Launches Largest Sanction Action Against Houthis

In its continuing efforts to pressure the militants in Yemen, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control launched the largest sanction action to date targeting the Houthis. The effort included 32 individuals and entities, as well as four tankers, all of which the U.S. contends are part of a global network involved in fundraising, smuggling, and weapons procurement operations.

The U.S. has previously targeted leaders in the Houthi movement as well as its financial network. The new action the U.S. reports targeted finance and those who facilitate the Houthis’ acquisition of advanced military-grade materials. They said the network is involved in helping to supply ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drone components.

“The Houthis continue to threaten U.S. personnel and assets in the Red Sea, attack our allies in the region, and undermine international maritime security in coordination with the Iranian regime,” said Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence John K. Hurley. “We will continue applying maximum pressure against those who threaten the security of the United States and the region.”

The U.S. says the Houthis generate substantial revenue by importing oil and other commodities through ports under their control, overseeing complex smuggling operations, and laundering vast sums of money. The proceeds from these illicit activities, the U.S. said, finance the Houthis’ global weapons supply chain, which relies on procurement operatives, front companies, shipping facilitators, and various suppliers.

United Arab Emirates-based Tyba Ship Management DMCC, owned by a Houthi-linked businessman, Muhammad Al-Sunaydar, is among the targets of the new actions. Tyba, they report, operates the Barbados-flagged Star MM and Antigua and Barbuda-flagged Nobel M oil tankers, which discharged oil at Houthi-controlled port Ras Isa. Tyba also operates the Panama-flagged Black Rock and Antigua and Barbuda-flagged Shria oil tankers and was linked to companies in the Marshall Islands, which are the registered owners of the Nobel M, Star MM, and Shria.

The sanctions also targeted a series of China-based companies, which the U.S. said are fronts for the Houthis and are organizing shipments. One, they said, was involved with shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of chemical precursors used to manufacture motors for ballistic missiles and explosives. Another they said was coordinating large-scale procurement and shipment of UAV components and other items from China used in weapons manufacturing.

The actions come as the Houthis have escalated their threats and increased the attacks on Israel. The Israeli military responded with attacks on Wednesday that it said targeted military sites in Sanaa and al-Jawf province. Among its targets, the Israelis said, was "the Houthis' military public relations headquarters." The Houthis claimed to have mounted a defense, which they said caused some of the Israeli jets to turn back.

Attacks against shipping, however, appear to be in another lull. They launched attacks in August, including sinking two bulkers, but since then have only made a few failed attempts at targeting ships. They, however, assert they are maintaining a blockade against all shipping associated with Israeli ports.

China's First Catapult-Equipped Carrier is Nearly Ready for Service

On Thursday, Japanese forces made their first sighting of China's third and newest aircraft carrier, the Fujian, operating in the East China Sea. It transited southbound through the Taiwan Strait and into the South China Sea, prompting speculation about whether it is about to formally enter service.

China's first two carriers were adapted Soviet-era designs with ski jump ramps at the bow. Fujian is much different: the ship has electromagnetic catapults, a technology previously found only aboard the U.S. Navy's Ford-class carriers. China's military says that Fujian is the largest conventionally-powered warship afloat.

Fujian is to undergo testing and training exercises in the South China Sea, accompanied by the destroyers Hangzhou and Jinan, according to Chinese state media. "The cross-regional tests and training are a routine mission of the carrier’s construction process," a spokesperson said. Commissioning is expected within about one month after, according to state media, based on the test-and-delivery timeline for previous carrier Shandong.

"Only those with ill intentions would feel nervous" about the carrier's presence, Chinese military commentator Fu Qianshao told state outlet Global Times.

Japanese Team Conducts World's First Railgun Test Shot at a Vessel

ATLA railgun target — The target vessel (courtesy ATLA)

Japan's navy has persisted in the pursuit of a usable, durable electromagnetic railgun, continuing a hunt that the U.S. Navy has (for public purposes) abandoned. Its Acquisition Technology & Logistics Agency (ATLA) has recently conducted what it believes to be the first successful test firing of a railgun at a target vessel in the world, and has released images of the trial shots.

The weapon is mounted on the bow of the test vessel JS Asuka, operating out of Yokosuka. Tests appear to have been conducted against targets on a small workboat at a position off the coast. ATLA did not provide further details of the results.

Conceptually, railguns offer tantalizing benefits for the warfighter. Compared to a conventional cannon, the rounds are smaller, cheaper, and are made of inert pieces of metal. This means that the ship's magazines can fit in more rounds per cubic foot, and they are impossible to detonate in the event of a casualty.

Unlike lasers and microwave systems - which get lumped together with railguns as "directed energy weapons" - railgun rounds are physical objects with a ballistic trajectory, unaffected by smoke or rain. Since they go up and come down again, they can be fired at warships or shore targets out of sight, beyond the curvature of the horizon - which lasers by definition cannot do. Technologists hope that these rounds could also be swift and accurate enough to counter hypersonic missile threats in an air-defense role.

In practice, getting a railgun to work aboard a vessel has proven to be a difficult assignment. Ejecting a piece of tungsten from the gun at 4,500 knots generates tremendous heat and force, which tends to burn out the barrel at a rapid pace. The guns also take a huge amount of power to operated - hence the prioritization of use on ships, where it is easier to arrange for the sheer mass of the power supply.

Testimony Completed in Eagle S Sabotage Trial in Finland

tanker Eagle S — Eagle S was detained for three months after the cable incident (Finnish Coast Guard)

Prosecutors and defense lawyers made their final statements on Friday, September 12, in Helsinki District Court in the trial of the captain and two officers from the product tanker Eagle S on charges that their negligence caused the damage on December 25, 2024, of five subsea cables running between Finland and Estonia. After broad speculation that it was a case of sabotage, the prosecution centered on the command responsibilities, citing negligence and not pursuing charges of intentional damage to the cables.

The captain, first, and second officers of the product tanker were charged with aggravated sabotage and aggravated interference with telecommunications as a result of the anchor-dragging incident. The trial began on August 25, and the court is now scheduled to issue its ruling on October 3.

The three officers of the vessel have been subjected to a travel ban since January 2025 that did not permit them to leave Finland. Others from the crew that had initially been under investigation were removed from the travel ban. The court, however, today, also ruled to lift the travel ban on the captain and two officers. Prosecutors had argued it should remain in place until the verdict.

The case centered on whether the captain and officers should have realized that the anchor dropped and was being dragged. Investigators concluded it dropped because of poor maintenance and a broken safety pin on the chain stopper. The defense lawyers countered that the anchor windless had been serviced and tested, and further, it had withstood violent storms before the ship entered the Gulf of Finland.

The prosecution contended that they should have realized there was a problem because the vessel’s speed dropped when the anchor began dragging. The defense was that they believed it was an engine problem that caused the speed drop. In their closing remarks, the prosecution contended to the court that no evidence was presented of engine problems.

The captain, they said, is responsible for the management and condition of the ship while the two officers were on navigation watch during the time the anchor dragged 90 kilometers (55 miles) along the seabed and broke five cables. Defense said it was the chief engineer, who was not on trial, who was responsible for the condition of the machinery, including the anchor. Further, they questioned why the Finnish authorities had not informed the vessel sooner when they suspected it was dragging the anchor.

There also remains an issue of jurisdiction, and whether the vessel voluntarily entered Finnish waters. The defense argues that Finland lacked the authority because the damage occurred in international waters and the ship only entered Finnish waters when it was commanded by the police.

Prosecutors are still asking the court to sentence each of the three officers to a minimum of two and a half years in prison. The Finnish news outlet Yle says the leniency of the proposed sentences is because the cables were not intentionally broken and the overall damage was “quite minor.” The companies reported it took a few months to complete repairs at a cost of approximately €55 million ($65 million).

The incident, however, raised concerns over the safety of key infrastructure. It was followed by several other suspicious events, which led to allegations that it was part of an orchestrated plot by Russia. NATO and the Scandinavian countries increased monitoring of key assets as a result of the suspicions regarding the actions of the Eagle S.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment