"The US Coast Guard on Friday released video of its forces shooting out the engines of a suspected smuggling boat and arresting the crew, a successful interdiction that raises fresh questions about why the Pentagon is carrying out lethal strikes on drug smugglers in the same region.
The footage, reported by Fox News, shows a Coast Guard sniper disabling a “go-fast” vessel during Operation Pacific Viper before officers board and detain those on board. The service said more than 20,000 pounds of cocaine were seized — the largest at-sea haul in over 18 years.
The mission occurred in the eastern Pacific, where a Pentagon strike earlier this week killed four suspected smugglers. The Coast Guard’s ability to stop traffickers without deadly force is fueling scrutiny over the necessity and legality of the Pentagon’s lethal operations." McGill

Another point of view I read. No idea if it’s legally valid.

A boat in international waters that is not running a national flag is categorized in international law the same way a pirate is. Such boats have absolutely no national or international protections, and you cannot commit a war crime against them.
A vessel in international waters is required under UNCLOS to sail under the flag of a specific nation. If it does not, it is legally considered a stateless vessel. A stateless vessel has no right to the protections normally afforded to ships under a national flag, including immunity from interference by other states.
UNCLOS Articles 92, 94, 110, and customary maritime law spell out the consequences clearly:
1. Stateless vessels have no sovereign protection. A flagged ship is an extension of its flag-state’s sovereignty. A stateless vessel is not. This matters because “war crimes” presuppose protected persons or protected property. A stateless vessel is legally unprotected.
2. Any state may stop, board, search, seize, or disable, a stateless vessel. UNCLOS Article 110 explicitly authorizes boarding and seizure. The law does not require states to risk their own personnel or assets while doing so. Disabling a vessel that refuses inspection, including firing on it, is legally permitted under both UNCLOS and long-established state practice.
3. War crimes require an armed conflict. You cannot commit a “war crime” outside an armed conflict. War crimes occur only within the context of international humanitarian law (IHL). Enforcing maritime law against a stateless vessel is a law enforcement action, not an IHL situation.
No armed conflict = no war crime possible.
4. Lethal force may be used when a vessel refuses lawful orders. The International Maritime Organization’s “Use of Force” guidance for maritime interdiction recognizes that disabling fire, even lethal force, is lawful when a vessel refuses lawful boarding, attempts to flee, poses a threat, or engages in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking.
Once again: law enforcement rules apply, not IHL.
5. Sinking a stateless vessel is not prohibited by UNCLOS. UNCLOS permits seizure of a stateless vessel and leaves the means entirely to the enforcing state so long as necessity and proportionality are respected. If the vessel flees, attacks, or refuses lawful commands, sinking it is legally permissible. Many states routinely do this to drug-smuggling vessels (e.g., semi-submersibles) without it ever being treated as a war crime.
6. No flag = no jurisdictional shield. The entire reason international law requires ships to fly a flag is to prevent this exact situation. Flagless vessels are legally vulnerable by design.
Because a stateless vessel has no protected status, because UNCLOS authorizes interdiction of such vessels, because lethal force may be used in maritime law enforcement when necessary, and because war crimes require an armed conflict that is not present here, sinking an unflagged ship in international waters is not a war crime.

Needles wrote on 12/08/25 at 15:08:29:


 GREAT !!!!!!!

Standing on shore of a body of water. Toes in the water, One way (16 miles) can see only the green tops of trees.
The other way, 21 miles, can see ONLY water. No land, No tree tops.

Don't know how high a CG boat is on the water, so, (again guessing), they can see, on the water, what, 40-60 miles ?

A airplane/copter, could see, 100's of miles over the water.

How many more, "Go Fast", boats carrying drugs can be seen from the air ?

US armed 'fast' boats, are ONE Tool.

And law has to do with rights. But what are rights? Do you really have them? Everything has to do with tolerance. So don't overdo it, because if tolerance disappears, just see what happens. And as far as I'm concerned, the boats with drugs are way over what we can tolerate.

We are not dealing whit naughty children here.

There are 340 million total IN the US, so that's a lie, but you, the pseudo lawyer, and the rest of the MAGATs here will defend his dumbass.

 You are so reactive and illogical you can't see I never supported these strikes in any way.  Calling your fuel argument pointless is not defending anything, including Trump.  Your inability to have an adult conversation prohibits you from acknowledging this.  

 The White House is just going to say Trump meant worldwide, not in the US exclusively, or just ignore it.

Before anyone talks about “bombing fishing boats” or “stopping fentanyl from Venezuela,” here are the actual facts:
🔹 Distance:
The closest point between Venezuela and the United States is 1,073 miles.
That’s over a thousand miles of open ocean.
🔹 Fishing boats:
A typical fishing boat would need 6–12 full tanks of fuel to even attempt that trip.
It’s not a realistic trafficking route — it’s not even physically practical.
🔹 How much fentanyl comes from Venezuela?
Virtually none.
Venezuela is not a source country for fentanyl going into the United States.
🔹 Where U.S. fentanyl actually comes from:
• China supplies most of the precursor chemicals
• Mexico manufactures the illicit fentanyl
• Fentanyl enters mostly through ports of entry by land, hidden in vehicles — not fishing boats
So the idea that Venezuelan fishing boats are flooding the U.S. with fentanyl is not just wrong — it’s physically impossible.
If we want to solve the fentanyl crisis, we have to start with facts, not myths.

Ahh, and so, WHERE are these "other boats"?  Do other people see these "other boats"?

And, just out of curiosity, why wouldn't the "smuggler" fishing boats just be watched until they met up with these "other boats" and THEN blown up, or legally stopped, boarded, and all on board both arrested? That would still be illegal, amounting to piracy, but it would at least not be murder.

You MAGATs are entertaining, in a weird, Gary Larsen sort of way...

We, the US, EXECUTED Japanese Generals in WWII for killing shipwrecked sailors. It's a war crime.