U.S. military force used against drug traffickers

[KevinB]

Now interestingly enough doing a frame by frame on my desktop - it gives a totally different picture than my iPhone did.

I can see the AOA from the Sensor Bird isn't blurred out (it just looked that way on my phone), and there appears to be two potential objects on the screen that could have gone boom.
1) May come in (caveats for video resolution quality) on a parabolic arc from the top left - and explodes directly over the vessel.
That is what I originally took to be the missile on my phone
2) A small Red Object that emerges from the water on the starboard of the vessel around 2/3 down the hull and moves up and then the picture is obscured by detonation.

 

[Infanteer]

the U.S. are blending their concepts of organized crime and foreign terrorist groups.

While I understand your distinction between law enforcement and military targeting, is there value in strict separation the two concepts with some of these groups? One could argue that the narcos have done the blending with their activities.

 

[QV]

I'm cool with this. Good decision.

 

[brihard]

While I understand your distinction between law enforcement and military targeting, is there value in strict separation the two concepts with some of these groups? One could argue that the narcos have done the blending with their activities.

I’m only speaking from the standpoint of how this shift might potentially disrupt well established conventional criminal intelligence sharing.

You’re absolutely fair to say that the narcos have in some ways and instances gone beyond traditional organized crime in how they’ve challenged state power and monopolies of force and even in some cases control territories. I cannot speak to whether this is the case for Venezuelan narco gangs.

I’m just saying that countries and entities that have freely shared actionable criminal intelligence in the past have always done so under a rule set that may have abruptly changed. In Canada this might have ramifications due to the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act, or, short of that, simple risk aversion. “What if we share int and a bad guy gets splattered by a hellfire?” is a question that will be seen differently by, say, RCMP or FINTRAC versus CAF.

I don’t have any great moral objection to taking out narco trafficker boats. I’m only musing potential legal and policy ramifications.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

If you go frame by frame you can see the delivery system and it’s telemetry data just before it’s detonation. The telemetry is blurred out but the object is visible.

View attachment 95544

Yeah, I’m not seeing it…

 

[KevinB]

I mean there is a reason why they are called Narco-terrorists…

If someone is terrorizing, it shouldn’t matter if the reason is financial gain, or religious zealotry.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I'm trying to figure out what the hell they hit it with.

Honestly, it looks more like a bomb went off.

The only thing that would make an explosion that small would be, that I can think off, a Hellfire or a round from a 5inch gun. The problem with the idea of it being a round from a 5" is how accurate the "hit" would have to be for that explosion to occur where it did, and I'm dubious about that. For a hellfire, I would think that you would see portion of the explosion (and the associated debris) projected past the boat along the same direction that the missile was flying when it hit it. Instead, this explosion seems very symmetrical and "straight up".

So, if it was a Hellfire, it would have to have been dropped (I think) from almost directly above the boat, or else it looks like a bomb was planted and they blew this boat up at this moment with the cameras rolling for propaganda.

Thoughts, anyone?

Also, welcome back, Gunboat Diplomacy.

Gulf of Tonkin 2.0?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Assuming it actually was carrying anything; their approach to designating random people gang members and terrorists for deportation isn't really encouraging.

Also blowing up a ship where you could easily board it with the forces in the area is insane and actually seize the cocaine (if it's there) is insane..

They don't want the legal issues of seizing people in international waters and detaining them for long periods. Taking out the boat without attempting to stop, just sent a very clear message to all the smugglers that the rules of the game have changed. Likely you see a quick drop in smuggling runs and diversion to other methods of moving the drugs, while they wait out the USN deployment and then back to business as usual.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

According to USNI, the US has the following assets in the "Caribbean."

In the Caribbean

The Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group is operating in the Caribbean. Amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) left Naval Station Norfolk, Va., last week.

The Amphibious Ready Group includes USS Fort Lauderdale (LPD-28), USS San Antonio (LPD-17), and the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit based in Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Base New River. The 22nd MEU consists of Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 (Reinforced), Combat Logistics Battalion 26 and the Battalion Landing Team, 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment.

There are two U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers operating in the Caribbean.

• USS Jason Dunham (DDG-109), homeported at Naval Station Mayport, Fla.
• USS Gravely (DDG-107), homeported at Naval Station Norfolk, Va.

Guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG-70) is also operating in the Caribbean. Lake Erie was spotted transiting the Panama Canal northward on Friday and is operating in U.S. Southern Command area of operations. Lake Erie is homeported at Naval Base San Diego, Calif.

Link

I've heard OSINT reports that a submarine is in the area, but that is probably someting the USN doesn't broadcast. Same for SOF.

 

[KevinB]

I've heard OSINT reports that a submarine is in the area, but that is probably someting the USN doesn't broadcast. Same for SOF.

Same for CIA Predators…

 

[Navy_Pete]

They don't want the legal issues of seizing people in international waters and detaining them for long periods. Taking out the boat without attempting to stop, just sent a very clear message to all the smugglers that the rules of the game have changed. Likely you see a quick drop in smuggling runs and diversion to other methods of moving the drugs, while they wait out the USN deployment and then back to business as usual.

Sure, but on the flip side they have zero evidence they didn't just blow a boat of random people out of the water and this particular US gov has burned through all it's international credibility.

It really seems like they are staging for a direct attack on Venezula, in what seems like yet another obvious attempt of 'look, over there!'.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

this particular US gov has burned through all it's international credibility.

Well when your no longer concerned about creditability or being accountable, it opens so many doors. I suspect this will go on till they accidentally take out a boatload of woman and children, either because someone got cocky and careless, or the cartel forced the women and children onto the boat full of drugs to serve as propaganda victims.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

TWZ has the following article on the strike:

Deadly Airstrike On Cartel Boat Signals Major Shift In U.S. Drug Interdiction Strategy (Updated)

The U.S. Secretary of Defense has announced that the U.S. will continue killing drug smugglers who traverse the Caribbean.

www.twz.com

 

[lenaitch]

But I thought all the drugs entering the US came from Canada. Or did Trump have it wrong?

 

[MilEME09]

My only major issue with this all is it really doesnt accomplish much, in the grand scheme the narcos will just send more boats. Unless they start blowing up drug labs in Venezuela, it wouldn't have an effect.

 

[KevinB]

My only major issue with this all is it really doesnt accomplish much, in the grand scheme the narcos will just send more boats. Unless they start blowing up drug labs in Venezuela, it wouldn't have an effect.

That is Step 2…

 

[OldSolduer]

The Hush-A-Boom.

I loved these two. So incompetent but effective.

 

[Halifax Tar]

“What if we share int and a bad guy gets splattered by a hellfire?”

JHC. Who cares ?

 

[brihard]

JHC. Who cares ?

Did you read any of the rest of what I wrote? I do a surface scratch of who might and why, and even mention a specific piece of Canadian law that could come into play. I would also point you to the findings of the Arar inquiry. We’ve been through this already a couple decades ago.

Military intelligence for military purposes and criminal intelligence for law enforcement purposes are not the same legal framework. When the two are entirely separate, great. We’ve already seen military intelligence begin to enter law enforcement investigations. The biggest challenge there is being able to attribute it so it survives in court, but the risk is someone goes to jail based on evidence that’s later thrown out.

Introducing law enforcement intelligence into military targeting for lethal actions is a whole other ball game. it puts Canada and other countries at risk of, down the road, being liable for complicity in essentially a summary execution without due process. I’m not sure what the going rate for that is but we can assume it’ll be north of the $10m for ‘tortured but not killed based on bad intel’.

That doesn’t mean intelligence cannot be shared. It does mean a fast hard look needs to be taken at existing caveats on shared intelligence products. It also means Canada needs to reassess whether the sudden unannounced change in the U.S. rule set changes any of our legal considerations. Canada actively participates in international investigations that IDs networks and contacts in other countries, and shares info with foreign law enforcement partners. The risk profile for that may have changed. Don’t just look at this one hit- if this is new U.S. policy, it will keep happening and eventually something will go wrong and the wrong target will be hit, or a correct target will be hit but with disproportionate collateral damage.

All of this can be disregarded if you’re comfortable with law enforcement acting outside of the law, but I’m not accusing you of that, so I assume ‘doing things right’ remains important.

Sharing intelligence that results in a Coast Guard boarding team shooting out your engine and arresting you differs from sharing intelligence that puts a hellfire onto a civilian speedboat in international waters. Now that that difference is in play, an assessment needs to be made of whether the situation has changed for sharing law enforcement info. Maybe it has, maybe it hasn’t. I lack the expertise to say. I know just enough to realize there may be a problem here and that smarter people have to consider it.

 

[KevinB]

JHC. Who cares ?

Not you or I, nor @brihard personally I suspect -- but he did bring about a legitimate concern.
Same reason InterPol doesn't share info with some people.
Admittedly I suspect that most of the Smugglers are not getting skylighted by FINTRAC, but by CI's/HUMINT, ELINT/SIGINT, and ISR