Same Trump administration, same week:
November 28: Pardon for the man convicted of facilitating 400 tons of cocaine because he was “treated unfairly”.
Hernández allegedly uttered the phrase that would come to define the prosecution’s case: “We’re going to shove the drugs right up the noses of the gringos.” This statement, corroborated by witnesses who saw Hernández accept bribes in exchange for military protection of the lab, dismantled his defense that he was a loyal U.S. ally. It portrayed a leader who harbored deep cynicism toward the United States, viewing the superpower not as a partner, but as a market to be exploited and a political patron to be manipulated.
December 2: Defend the murder of shipwreck survivors (war crime), saying he “would have made the same call” because… drugs allegedly in their boat.
December 6: Another unfair extrajudicial bombing kills four more people at sea, increasing the dead to 87.
The throughline isn’t drug interdiction because it’s the assertion of unchecked executive power. The Defense Secretary statement that Trump can take military action “as he sees fit” is the operative principle.
The drugs are a dog whistle for the poor and non-white, merely set dressing for a modern day “Birth of a Nation” performance endorsed by the White House.
What’s particularly revealing is the accountability structure. The man pardoned was defined by a “cocaine superhighway” involving the military, state protection, cartel bribes, even a connection to El Chapo, to explicitly harm Americans. Trump grants clemency anyway.
Meanwhile, workers on boats (who may or may not actually be traffickers, what’s the evidentiary standard here?) get killed, including obvious war crimes by murdering survivors. These aren’t judicial proceedings. These aren’t even the theatrical military tribunals of the War on Terror. It’s “suspected cargo on a boat”, then deadly strike, then another strike to kill survivors. What makes any boat “suspected”? Who reviews that designation? What happens when they’re wrong?
An Admiral who “sunk the boat and eliminated the threat” is a lie. People clinging to wreckage after their boat was destroyed aren’t a “threat.” That’s the language of illegal execution, not interdiction.
Nearly 100 people killed on over 20 vessels, with zero proof any of them carried drugs. The evidentiary standard is so low, it’s nonexistent. Talk about unfair treatment.
..the two survivors were waving overhead before the second strike killed them. One of the sources said the action could be interpreted as the survivors either calling for help or trying to wave off another strike.
The drug superhighway guy trial at least had witnesses, evidence, a jury. The facts are plain to see that he was the primary reason drugs flowed into America. The people killed at sea get none of that, and might not even have any drugs.
The asymmetry between who gets pardoned and who gets killed maps precisely onto class and power. This smells a lot like Palantir, which has been assassinating innocent misidentified people around the world for over a decade with zero accountability.
If you doubt Palantir, you’re probably right.
The legal questions Hegseth is dodging are significant. Killing survivors of an initial strike isn’t interdiction; it’s something else entirely. And the “I wasn’t in the room but would have made the same call” framing manages to simultaneously disclaim and claim responsibility while endorsing war crimes.
Honduran president of drug pipeline into America with El Chapo connections? Trump orders freedom.
Poor Latin American workers at sea? AGM-114 Hellfire missiles on their heads, even as they plead and cry for help.
Rich and connected versus poor and anonymous. The drug war of Nixon and Reagan always operated this way, designed to incarcerate and murder poor non-whites, but this week Trump has made it unusually overt and undeniable.
