6 ms·
UK pauses intelligence-sharing with US on suspected drug vessels in Caribbean
- blankx32 1y agohttp://archive.today/9bVKr http://archive.today/9bVKr
- Molitor5901 1y ago[flagged]
- adriand 1y ago> why […] not comply with an airplane or boat that is clearly attempting to interdict? They aren’t trying to interdict! They’re just killing people.
- me_smith 1y agoAre they actually trying to stop them first?
- bestouff 1y agoDo you mean like the Latinos who should let ICE officers do their job peacefully ?
- isr 1y agoJust off the top of my head: - these boats are not in American waters. They are in their own, or neighbouring countries waters, and are being attacked by vessels whose home waters are 1000s of km's away - they are not being interdicted (which is illegal kidnapping anyway, see above). They are just being killed. Plain and simple. To put your argument back to you. Latin American countries who are combating narcotics trading armed paramilitarys, who are mostly getting their arms from US supply chains. So, for example, Mexico is entitled to go into US waters, and "interdict" American-owned boats with US citizens on board? Without any kind of warrant from even the Mexican courts, much less US courts? Or, scratch that. Mexico just sinks them. Should be ok, right?
- HeinzStuckeIt 1y agoIt’s a frequently met claim right now that the USA killing foreigners that its president deems adversaries on their boats is something unprecedented and beyond the pale, lacking necessary authorization like criminal charges and trials or declaration of war. But one of the very first foreign actions the USA did as a nascent country, still very high on all the eighteenth-century concepts of rights that inspired the American Revolution and Constitution, was send a naval force to kill a bunch of Barbary pirates with charges filed, no trial, and no formal declaration of war by Congress.
- isr 1y agoWell, we're all aware that the term "gunboat diplomacy" has been in use for centuries. The Barbary Wars was an interesting case of how multiple naval forces were engaging in piracy etc against each other. Barbary vessels in the Med. British against US shipping (that, and press ganging sailors, was one of the public reason for the 1812 war). And, funnily enough, American privateers doing exactly the same thing to the British colonial shipping in the Caribbean (piracy plus press ganging) In this current scenario, the only real connection would be that the US are the pirates.
- energy123 1y agoYour worldview is built on top of the assumptions of liberalism: international law, sovereignty determined by institutions like the UN, etc. The people who support this are not liberals when it comes to international affairs, even if they might be (but often are not) liberals at home. They know that they're violating international law. But they don't care because they do not value international law as it is currently constructed. They see it as an unjust imposition, made up by a bunch of lawyers and diplomats, that prevents them from securing their own interests.
- isr 1y agoI understand what you're saying. But, I don't have any "liberal assumptions". The Gaza Holocaust has demonstrated that there really is no such thing as international law, because there's no enforcement against certain parties, because they are deemed too powerful to touch (US empire, essentially). Note, that's not the world I like to see. It's just the world we have. But pointing out the outright hypocrisy of certain parties actions, vis a vis international law, natural law, or even "what if we flipped the tables?", is always worthwhile (I hope). Even if it's just shouting into the wind
- dragonwriter 1y ago> First paragraph sums it up in a nutshell, but putting aside the violence, why would a fishing boat, or some other non-illegal-operations vessel, not comply with an airplane or boat that is clearly attempting to interdict? For one thing, the US forces aren't even attempting to “interdict”, so the question has a false implicit premise. Second, consider if it Venezuelan government vessels or aircraft attempting to “interdict” US vessels in US or international waters on the premise that they were suspected of running arms that might be used in Venezuela.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago"What if they did that to us?" We have a navy precisely because people have tried to do this to us and we decided we'd rather own the water.
- throwawayqqq11 1y agoMaybe some day you might decide to just own UK intelligence.
- dragonwriter 1y agoYes, my point is that there is no principled justification for the behavior, it is simply unprincipled application of power and might makes right.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoThe principle is that of self-defense. Drugs have killed more Americans in recent years than did all of our 20th century military actions. We are right to use military force (and not judicial force) to meet this threat.
- pissmeself 1y ago[flagged]
- jacquesm 1y ago
- zoklet-enjoyer 1y agoImagine I'm off the coast of Washington and a Russian plane or ship tries to stop me. Why would I comply?
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoYes! Absolutely yes! Comply and wait for friendlies to come to your aid.
- I_Am_Nous 1y agoIf the threat is the Russian plane or ship will blow you to burning pieces if you don't, why wouldn't you? Proving a point that leaves you dead isn't usually the best course of action.
- zoklet-enjoyer 1y agoDeath might be preferable to a lifetime in a Russian prison.
- _dke7 1y agoOdd that they draw the line here when they Ok doing intelligence sharing to facilitate genocide: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/aug/07/uks-surveillance-flights-over-gaza-raise-questions-on-help-for-israeli-military https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/aug/07/uks-surveil...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- umrashrf 1y agoCertainly a right thing to do and a good step by the UK
- gnfargbl 1y agoI don't think it's being looked at by the UK government through the lens of "right" or "wrong" but simply as a matter of the rule of law. If a course of action is illegal, they have to avoid it.
- anonymousiam 1y agoThe concept of "law" becomes foggy when you're dealing with state-backed criminals. I'm confident that the US intelligence apparatus has properly identified the perps, what they were transporting, and the cooperation they got from their "government."
- deadbolt 1y agoWould you like to buy a bridge?
- anonymousiam 1y agoHaving spent over 40 years working with the US IC, I'm very much aware of the extent of their capabilities.
- onlypassingthru 1y agoSo then you're undoubtedly aware the executed are just lowly mules and nobody of any significance was/is turned into fish food.
- anonymousiam 1y agoIf they have the cooperation/encouragement of their government, how is this any different from a military attack? How should we respond to a military attack? Should we try to arrest and prosecute the attackers? If we adopt that attitude, we may just as well eliminate our entire military. What do you suppose would happen then?
- zkmon 1y agoUK is a confused country now on many fronts. They did Brexit, and having second thoughts about it. Prisoners keep getting released by mistake. Excel sheets are shared by mistake and the coverup results in a mess.
- bamboozled 1y agoAmerica feels very confused too, so there’s that…
- watwut 1y agoAmerica is not confused. It is super confident and its party in power is doing exactly what they worked for hard for decades.
- mcswell 1y agoI'll agree, up to the last word: s/decade/year/. The Republican party of a couple decades ago was an entirely different thing. I'd even go so far as to call the current Trumplican Party "RINO"s, because they bear little or no resemblance to the GOP.
- antonvs 1y agoMuch of what we're dealing with now has been in the works since at least around 1950. The Southern Strategy is well-documented, for example. The party's position on restricting voting has been consistent over the years. Reagan's opposition to social programs (demonizing "welfare queens") and outright racism was a big part of why he was elected. (Reagan quote from the Nixon recordings: "To see those monkeys from those African countries. Damn them. They're still uncomfortable wearing shoes.") It wasn't a coincidence that Reagan began his presidential campaign where civil rights workers were murdered by the Ku Klux Klan, with the cooperation of local law enforcement. That is what is at the heart of the Republican Party, and has been for at least 75 years. There are many other examples of this kind of thing. What you're describing from a couple of decades ago was essentially a facade, a mask. What's changed in recent years is that the mask has come off - as members of the party feel increasingly threatened by people who they see as unlike themselves, they can no longer afford the pretense of respectability.
- cluckindan 1y ago[flagged]
- eastbound 1y agoLet’s not blame people when we have no proof and when the result is aligned with the rule of law. That discourages honest people from doing good things, which is particularly needed in the current times. As much as I align with USA on war with Venezuela for political reasons, pretending it’s for drugs and using the army for it remains a …new behavior? 1. Either an illegal course of action, 2. Or a legal course of action if we interpret international agreements (that USA didn’t sign) a certain way, but which stretch current definitions, and therefore gives an excuse for China to act the same in Asian seas. In either cases, humanity loses. The UK is defending the right side here, or at least tries not to dip in USA’s sauce. For once.
- antonvs 1y ago> As much as I align with USA on war with Venezuela for political reasons Following that logic, would you also align on war with USA for political reasons, given the clear anti-democratic goals of the current administration?
- eastbound 1y agoRhetorical question. But to answer it: The antidemocratic thing I’ve seen is creating 20 million votes out of thin air, that disappeared in the following elections when we knew what kind of cheating to monitor for. That you don’t agree with one side doesn’t make it antidemocratic. And certainly doesn’t justify rigging an election.
- antonvs 1y agoYou didn't answer the question. You wrote that you "align with USA on war with Venezuela for political reasons." You think it's justified to declare war on another country because of internal corruption? There has absolutely been enough well-documented corruption in the current US administration for someone with that mindset to say that a forcible "regime change" in the US is justified. Your position is purely a "might makes right" one with no moral basis. Edit: you should watch the movie "Team America: World Police". It might help you understand exactly how ridiculous this idea of a country appointing itself as a global enforcer of its own ideals[*] is. [*] Ideals that are invariably corrupt and/or hypocritical in the first place.
- klipklop 1y agoThe UK historically is no stranger to supporting (and benefiting from) opium wars. They have a history of preferring drugs to flow when it benefits them. It's a sad state of affairs on both sides if you ask me.
- watwut 1y agoUK just dont want to help murders aka extrajudicial executions of another country. That is healthy position to take, even if UK is not a country with history of sainthood.
- klipklop 1y agoIt's easy to be seated on a moral high horse when it's politically convenient for them. The UK had no problems just a few years ago blowing up ISIS arms dealers in Syria that had nothing to do with their country. At least in this case the drugs are en route to the US to directly harm it. The harm those drugs cause to the US is massive. I know that saying "well they did crime X" is not a good argument, I am just pointing out how silly it all is.
- whycome 1y agoI think the UK is still the highest court for a bunch of independent countries in the Caribbean. And also they still have a few colonies there (Montserrat? Etc) So, they still have a vested interest in the safety of its subjects who may be using the international waters in the Caribbean. Even if those persons aren’t directly affected, they may be reluctant to perform their normal activities (like fishing).
- kjsingh 1y agoWhen you are so blood thirsty for no reason that even UK stops aiding you
- hollerith 1y agoThe UK government might consider the faction currently in power in Washington to be a bigger enemy than any drug cartel.
- FridayoLeary 1y agoUK pauses intelligence-sharing with US on suspected narco terrorist vessels in Caribbean Fixed it. These guys are responsible for scores of thousands of deaths a year, both in the US and their own countries i have no idea why they are getting so much sympathy here.
- tototrains 1y agoTypically suspects of crime are arrested, which brings them to a trial (Habeus Corpus) in which that evidence must be presented and assessed, and then a consistent punishment is meted out. What is happening is called extrajudicial murder. Be aware that the US is constructing casus belli for invading Venezuela, who has the largest proven oil reserves in the world. There is more at play.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- FridayoLeary 1y agoI keep hearing that. I don't know law so i have some questions. Do countries/US have to respect that outside their own borders? Why in war is that dispensed with. I.E what is the underlying framework? How is it legal under US law to assassinate people/terrorists outside their borders? (i feel the answer is that in the US and most countries, they can do whatever they want to people outside their borders. I.E. There is no special constitutional protection for them. The only restrictions are aimed at not starting wars. I could be wrong about this. I'm not fluent in your constitution. The UK has no clear constitution either) These are obvious questions, but i feel we don't agree on fundamentals here so it's important to clarify them. For you: Do you think the US is facing a serious drug crisis? If they are, who is responsible for it? What do you think the correct response should be? Do statistics show a significant drop in drug deaths? If yes, and i don't know, why would your response have better results? Venezuela is too complicated, so i won't include it in my current discourse, unless you think it's the key factor without which no debate could be had. I'm not sure why that would be because there are plenty of other South America drug exporters.
- anonymousiam 1y agoFive Eyes could become Four Eyes. The UK has more to lose here than it has to gain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
- Andaith 1y agoAs I understand it, the old system was: - UK, Canada, Guyana, probably more countries shared intelligence on suspected drug vessels in Caribbean - US Coast Guard accosted said vessels, searched them, arrested everyone if anything illegal was found. Now it's: - UK, Canada, Guyana, have all said they're not going to share intelligence, decreasing(by whatever percentage) the chances of finding a drug smuggling boat, and increasing the chance of it making its way to the USA. - US Navy blows up what boats it does find without checking them for drugs, increasing(by whatever percentage) the chance of killing innocents, and degrading intl law & norms. What does the US benefit from this new policy? (Edited for formatting)
- beardyw 1y ago> What does the US benefit from this new policy? Theatre.
- sjs382 1y ago> What does the US benefit from this new policy? This really makes me feel like a conspiracy theorist, but it doesn't seem as far from reality as it should... If there's no response: exhibiting total dominance of the region and being able to make up whatever unverifiable statistics they want re: domestic safety (drugs, gangs, etc). If there is a response: potential for armed conflict which could become a pretense for interning more citizens with hispanic heritage, similar to what was done to Japanese Americans in the 1940s.
- Woodi 1y agoMaybe US have a bigger problem with drugs then drugs dilers and their minors ? Like for example: US civilians drug usage ? Maybe that should be "healed" first ?
- metalman 1y agoit is impossible not wonder why there are not very fast uncrewed interceptor boats that would handle these situations,great big hydrofoils that just jam in there and litteraly grab a drug boat, drop a ladder down for the poor bastards to climb up, into there surrender cell for there remote debreef and a mre, if they are part of drug smuggling, it is strait off to some prison/mine and if they are bieng trafficed or other innocent, they get a phone. the main thing is that there is no excuse for ANY drug boats getting through, and the US, trillion dollar+ military/coast guard should be perfecly capable of intecepting and inspecting anything and everything in US waters without it bieng a stretch or any big deal. but then we come full circle, and the fact is that drug demand is driven by peoples lives, sucking so bad, and that is systemic in origin, with a ready domestic industry there to manufacture all the drugs, and more