There are no precedents for similar actions where lethal force is used to deliberately kill.
Written by: La Tabla/Data Journalism Platform 15 SEP 2025
The two U.S. military attacks on Venezuelan speedboats in September 2025, which resulted in 14 deaths, do not comply with established protocols in maritime drug enforcement.
A fact-check using official sources confirms that these actions are unprecedented in conventional operations of federal agencies like the Coast Guard or the Air and Marine Operations Office (CBP AMO), which prioritize interception, seizure, and legal prosecution.
馃攳 Violation of International Protocols
According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the Maritime Operational Threat Response (MOTR) protocol, legitimate operations require:
路 Identification and prior warning to suspicious vessels.
路 Proportional use of force, only as a last resort against an imminent threat.
路 Preservation of evidence for judicial processes.
Witnesses and reports indicate that the September attacks did not follow these steps: there was no attempt at interception, clear warnings, nor preservation of evidence; instead, immediate destruction with missiles occurred.
鈿栵笍 Legal and Political Questionings
路 Extrajudicial Killings: Experts from Human Rights Watch and academics argue that these actions could violate international law by bypassing due process.
路 Lack of Transparency: The U.S. government has not provided strong evidence regarding the nationality of the vessels, the identity of the victims, or the presence of drugs. Officials even admitted that the first boat was returning to Venezuela when it was attacked.
路 Insufficient Justification: The labeling of crew members as “narcoterrorists” (linked to Tren de Aragua) was based on political statements, not verifiable evidence.
馃毃 Unusual Pattern in Drug Enforcement
These incidents contrast sharply with typical operations:
路 Between 2024 and 2025, CBP AMO reported 1,009 arrests and 244,781 pounds of cocaine seized without lethal force being used.
路 Destruction of vessels is only justified if they present a direct and imminent threat, which was not demonstrated in these cases.
Experts suggest that the attacks may respond to non-institutional political interests, mimicking “false flag” tactics to escalate tensions with Venezuela.
馃搶 Conclusion
The September attacks do not represent a change in drug policy, but rather a deviation from established protocols. Their exceptional nature and the government’s lack of transparency indicate operations outside of institutional norms, with potential violations of international law and human rights.