Secret Boat Strike Memo Justifies Killings By Claiming the Target Is Drugs, Not People

The Trump administration has produced a secret memo justifying lethal strikes on alleged drug smugglers in Latin America by claiming that the target is narcotics, not people. According to sources, the memo was crafted by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and claims that the cargo on these boats constitutes a legitimate military objective under international law.

The memo relies on a theory known as the "revenue generating target theory," which posits that the sale of drugs by these cartels is a lawful target because it generates revenue for the cartel leaders. According to this theory, the civilians aboard these boats are considered collateral damage and their deaths would be excused through a proportionality analysis tied to the military advantage gained by the attack.

However, experts say this reasoning is flawed and appears to have been crafted to suit a political decision already made by the White House. The Trump administration has previously claimed that the victims belonged to an unspecified designated terrorist organization or DTO (drug trafficking organization), but the memo suggests that these killings are lawful under domestic law.

The memo's contents differ from President Donald Trump's public statements on the killings, which have portrayed the strikes as part of a broader effort to combat narco-terrorists. Experts warn that the strikes are likely illegal extrajudicial killings because they involve deliberately targeting civilians who do not pose an imminent threat of violence.

Critics of the administration's actions say that the memo represents "legal backfilling," attempting to justify actions that would otherwise be considered unlawful or unconstitutional. One expert described it as "legal Mad Libs," saying that the memo relies on a "catch-all" theory that throws together terms and concepts without providing any real substance.

The White House has refused to comment on the memo, but Pentagon officials have defended the strikes as lawful orders that are protected under domestic law. The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel has produced the memo after senior defense officials expressed reservations about the legality of the strikes.

As a result of these actions, several high-ranking military and government officials, including Adm. Alvin Holsey and Rear Adm. Milton Sands III, have faced criticism for their roles in authorizing or supporting the strikes.

The controversy surrounding the Trump administration's lethal strikes on alleged drug smugglers raises serious questions about the limits of executive power and the rule of law in the United States.

This is a super concerning development . I think it's totally legit to say that this memo is basically a bunch of hooey . Like, who comes up with this stuff? The idea that targeting civilians just because they're associated with a cartel is somehow justified by international law is just plain ridiculous .

And what really gets my goat is that the Trump admin is trying to rewrite their own narrative here . They've been claiming that these strikes are part of some grand anti-terror campaign, but now it turns out they're just using a fancy legal justification to cover their tracks .

It's crazy that this memo has already had people like Adm. Holsey and Rear Adm. Sands facing heat for their roles in backing these strikes . The fact that the White House isn't even commenting on it is just more evidence of how shady things are going down .

We need to get a lot more scrutiny on this and make sure our leaders aren't getting away with violating human rights and ignoring the law . This is not the kind of "tough on crime" stuff I'm talking about - we're talking about basic human decency and respect for international law .

come on, this is a total cop-out ! the revenue generating target theory sounds like something straight out of a bad game of 'resistance' to me... i mean, who comes up with this stuff? it's just a bunch of lawyers making excuses for the admin to kill civilians without any real oversight. and now they're saying these people aren't even considered terrorists, but are still considered a threat because they have drugs on them? that's not exactly the most solid logic ...

this is a super concerning development i mean, as long as the cargo is considered a legitimate military objective under international law, it sounds like they're basically saying civilians are just collateral damage... which is never right. but what's even more worrying is that this memo seems to be trying to justify actions that would otherwise be considered unlawful or unconstitutional. it's like legal backfilling - trying to cover their own behinds after the fact. and meanwhile, the Pentagon officials are just brushing it off and saying it's all good under domestic law... which isn't necessarily true. i wish they'd just come clean about what's going on instead of relying on some dodgy legal theory to justify it.

I mean, can you believe this?! So they're saying that because these cartels are making money off drugs, it's a legitimate target? That's just crazy talk! It doesn't matter if there are civilians on board, they're still human beings with families and loved ones. And now we know that the memo was made to justify these actions, not because of any real concern for national security or public safety... it's just a bunch of politicians making stuff up to suit their own agenda. I'm seriously worried about what this says about our country's values and respect for human life. We need to hold our leaders accountable for their actions and make sure they're not putting politics over people's lives.

I'm not sure how some ppl can justify this... If we're saying that the cargo on these boats constitutes a legitimate military objective, then why are we killing people who aren't even involved in any action? It just doesn't add up to me. And what's with this "revenue generating target theory"? That sounds like a total cop-out to me . I think it's clear that the administration is trying to sweep this under the rug and justify something that's clearly not right. We need to hold our officials accountable for their actions and make sure they're following the law, not making up some sketchy excuse to suit their agenda

I'm still thinking about this memo, like what's going on here? It seems like they're trying to justify killing people who are just trying to make a living off drugs. I mean, I get it, the sale of drugs is wrong, but targeting innocent civilians who are just on a boat? That's not cool, fam

And what's with this "revenue generating target theory"? Sounds like something out of a bad movie to me. Like, just because someone is making money off drugs doesn't mean they're fair game for a drone strike .

And don't even get me started on the fact that the White House won't comment on this memo... It's like they're trying to cover their tracks or something. I'm all about transparency and accountability, you know?

This whole thing just makes me think that we need to be super careful with our government's power, you feel? Like, just because someone is in charge doesn't mean they have the right to make decisions without looking at the bigger picture. We gotta hold them accountable for their actions, even if it's hard .

I'm still thinking about this memo... like what's the real story here? Are we really that far off from a situation where our government is targeting civilians without due process? It's unsettling, fam

This memo is super sketchy, ya know? I mean, it sounds like they're just trying to justify killing people who aren't even doing anything wrong, just because they're on a boat with some meds. That's not how we do things here, fam. If you're just going to drop bombs on someone and claim it's legal, that's just not right. And what's with the "revenue generating target theory"? That's some wild stuff right there. It's like they took a bunch of words from a dictionary, threw 'em together, and hoped for the best. The fact that they're trying to cover their tracks by claiming it's legal under domestic law is just, like, totally not cool. We gotta keep our leaders accountable, you feel?

I'm not sure how I feel about this... The idea that these strikes are okay because they're just going after the money part of the cartel is kinda mind-blowing. Like, if we can just shoot the boats and say it's a war on narco-drugs, then what's stopping us from doing the same thing with other stuff? It feels like a slippery slope to me... And I'm not buying the "collateral damage" excuse either - it's still civilians getting killed, no matter how you spin it. This whole thing just smells like a big cover-up to me...

OMG this is so sickening ! I mean, who gets to decide what constitutes a "legitimate military objective" ? It sounds like the Trump administration is just making up rules as they go along . And the fact that they're trying to justify killing innocent civilians by saying it's for the greater good of the cartel leaders is just ridiculous . Like, nope , that's not how it works at all .

I've got a cousin who was in the military and he told me that the whole "proportionality analysis" thing is a total joke . He said it's basically just a fancy way of saying "we're gonna kill whoever we want as long as we say they were a threat " . And now these high-ranking officials are getting in trouble for it ? Good for them , I guess .

Anyway , this whole thing is just so shady and I don't trust the Trump administration one bit . They're always trying to push the limits of what's acceptable and it's getting out of hand . We need some real accountability here .

It's super concerning that the Trump admin is trying to legitimize killing civilians by saying they're just "collateral damage". Like, what even is that? The "revenue generating target theory" sounds like a load of nonsense to me. If the goal is to combat narcotics, why are we targeting boats with people on them? That's not exactly the most effective way to reduce smuggling. And let's be real, this whole thing reeks of politics over principle. I'm all for keeping our borders safe and fighting crime, but not at the cost of human lives . The fact that they're trying to justify it through a memo rather than admitting the truth is just plain shady. We need to hold our leaders accountable for their actions, especially when it comes to something as serious as this

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this whole thing . I mean, the Trump admin is basically saying that it's okay to kill civilians as long as the cartels are making money from selling drugs? That sounds like a pretty flimsy excuse to me . I think it's crazy how they're using some fancy lawyer-speak to try and justify this, but it just seems like they're trying to cover their own tracks . And what's with the whole "proportionality analysis" thing? That sounds like a bunch of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo . At the end of the day, it's still civilians who are getting caught in the crossfire, and that's just not okay . We need to make sure our leaders are held accountable for their actions, not trying to spin some magic logic to get away with them .

this whole thing just feels so shady to me, you know? like, what's the real motive behind these strikes? is it really just about combating narco-terrorists or is there more to it? i mean, the memo's got some pretty sketchy logic going on - using revenue as a target? that sounds like something out of a bad video game . and what's with the "collateral damage" excuse? doesn't that just sound like a fancy way of saying we're gonna kill whoever gets in our way? . and meanwhile, the White House is just refusing to comment on it all... that's just not right .

I'm low-key freaking out about this memo . Like, I get it, the cartels are scum and all that, but deliberately targeting civilians is a whole different story. It's like they're trying to rewrite the rules of war or something. The "revenue generating target theory" sounds like a bunch of BS to me - if we start counting innocent people as collateral damage just because they're on a boat with some bad guys, where do we draw the line?

this is crazy i mean, i get it, tackling cartels can be super tough, but using a memo to justify killing people just cuz they're on a boat with some contraband? that's like, totally not right i guess it's good that someone's speaking out against this tho, 'cause these strikes could have major consequences for the rule of law and all that jazz also, can we talk about how messed up it is that we need a memo to justify killing people? shouldn't we be focusing on finding ways to prevent violence in the first place?

This memo is a perfect example of how politics can be used to justify actions that are morally and legally questionable... The fact that the Justice Department has created this "revenue generating target theory" to legitimize lethal strikes on civilians who are simply carrying out their jobs is, in my opinion, a worrying trend. It's like they're trying to redefine what constitutes a legitimate military objective under international law... If this memo holds any weight, it would essentially give the executive branch carte blanche to kill whoever they deem a threat, without needing to provide evidence or due process. That's a recipe for disaster and a significant erosion of civil liberties. The fact that Pentagon officials are defending these strikes as lawful orders is equally concerning... We need more transparency and accountability in the decision-making process, not just a cleverly crafted memo trying to justify questionable actions.

omg this is crazy the revenue generating target theory is straight outta a bad movie, like they think we're all stupid or something? "oh hey civilians just standing there with a boat full of drugs, nice guys, you can die" it's literally not that hard to tell if someone's an actual threat or not. and what's next? targeting people who own lawn mowers just because they're generating revenue for the cartel? this whole thing smells like a bunch of bull to me

I've got the tea and it's not good. This memo is a total game-changer and I'm low-key shocked that nobody's talking about how shady this whole thing is. From what I've heard, these strikes are basically just a fancy way of saying "we're gonna kill whoever's on these boats" without actually having to do the hard work of building a case or following due process.

The revenue generating target theory sounds like a bunch of hooey to me and I'm not buying it. I mean, how can targeting people who are just trying to make a living (or in this case, smuggle some goods) be considered a legitimate military objective? It's just plain wrong. And the fact that the White House is refusing to comment on it? That's just more evidence of their attempts to cover up something they don't want us talking about.

This whole thing stinks of "legal backfilling" and I'm not surprised that the Pentagon officials are defending these strikes as lawful. It's a total abuse of power and it needs to be called out for what it is. We need to start asking some tough questions about who's really in charge here and whether our government is actually working in our best interests.

I don't know what's more disturbing - that they're actually justifying killing people for profit or that someone thought it was a good idea to write a memo with loopholes like this... I mean, if we start allowing governments to justify civilian casualties because they're making money off the trade, where do we draw the line? It's not like these aren't real people, just regular folks trying to make ends meet. And what about the fact that the Pentagon and Justice Department are trying to sweep this under the rug? I'm not buying it when officials say they're doing this to combat narco-terrorists... sounds like a convenient excuse to me.

I'm not sure I agree with this memo being totally legit . I mean, it seems like a clever way to justify killings that are basically just a war on cartels, but what if we're missing something? Like, how do we know these civilians aren't actually cartel leaders in disguise or something? It's a pretty shaky logic. And another thing, isn't this just an example of the Trump admin trying to cover its own tracks and avoid accountability for some questionable actions? I'm not saying they're definitely guilty, but it seems suspiciously convenient that this memo comes out at the same time as all these high-ranking officials are getting heat for their roles in authorizing the strikes.