The Lie Behind the Cartel-Boat Hysteria

The Big Lie About “Illegal Orders” — And Why Taking Out Narco-Terrorist Boats Is Entirely Lawful

Every time the United States disables, sinks, or neutralises the narco-terrorist vessels blasting out of Venezuela toward American waters, a predictable chorus erupts:
“You can’t fire on them! It’s illegal! The Law of War says so!”

This is nonsense.
Worse — it’s weaponised ignorance dressed up as legal authority.

A few activists have been waving around a screenshot of a military law-of-war manual with red and yellow highlights, pretending they’ve found some “gotcha” that proves U.S. interdiction is unlawful.

Nothing in that screenshot applies.
Nothing in those highlights limits lawful maritime action.
And nothing in that document changes the mission.

Let’s break this down properly.

Fact: These Aren’t ‘Fishing Boats.’ They’re Combat Smuggling Rigs.

People keep pretending these are innocent little coastal fishing boats. That lie collapses instantly when you look at the vessels.

These narco-terrorist boats are:

• Up to 40 feet long
• Powered by multiple high-horsepower outboard engines
• Carrying barrels of gasoline for long-range cartel runs
• Loaded with drugs
• Crewed by armed operatives, not fishermen
• Carrying no nets, no gear, no trawling equipment — nothing resembling a fishing operation
• Actively evading U.S. interdiction at high speed

These craft are designed for one purpose:
rapid transport of cartel operatives and narcotics while outrunning law enforcement.

Calling them “fishing boats” is propaganda, and very bad propaganda at that.

Fact: The U.S. Isn’t Just Stopping These Boats — It’s Taking Them Out

When these vessels barrel toward U.S. waters at high speed, ignore warnings, and continue their hostile approach, they trigger the legal standard of:

• hostile act, and
• hostile intent.

That authorises — explicitly — the United States to:

• Disable engines
• Neutralise the vessel
• Engage hostile actors
• And yes, sink the boat if necessary

One recent vessel required two separate engagements to ensure the threat was neutralised.
And every second of it was lawful.

These aren’t civilians.
They aren’t distressed boats.
They aren’t compliant vessels.

They are hostile maritime platforms.
Taking them out is not only authorised — it is expected.

Fact: The Manual Critics Keep Citing Doesn’t Apply

The screenshot floating around contains two highlighted sections:

Yellow highlight

This is basic internal doctrine:

• troops receive law-of-war training
• troops can ask questions through the chain of command
• illegal orders must be refused

This has nothing to do with civilians lecturing the military.
It does not empower the public.
It does not override ROE.

Red highlight

This part prohibits clearly illegal orders like:

• killing surrendered personnel
• harming shipwreck survivors
• executing defenceless people
• harming those under U.S. control

And guess what?

None of that applies to hostile, armed narco-terrorist vessels evading interdiction.

These cartel boats are not:

• shipwrecked
• arrested
• unarmed
• detained
• helpless
• under U.S. custody

Trying to equate a hostile narco vessel with a lifeboat of shipwrecked civilians is legally illiterate.

Fact: Maritime Engagement of Hostile Smugglers Is Fully Legal

U.S. forces at sea operate under:

• Rules of Engagement
• Counter-Drug authority
• Maritime Interdiction Operations authority
• Homeland Security maritime powers
• International law covering hostile intent

Under these frameworks, interdiction — including disabling or sinking vessels — is completely lawful in scenarios involving:

• drug trafficking
• weapons smuggling
• cartel operative transport
• evasion of lawful boarding
• threats to U.S. territorial security

This isn’t controversial.
This is standard maritime law enforcement and national security practice.

Fact: The Real Problem Isn’t ROE — It’s Political Interference

The only illegal behaviour in this entire debate comes from politicians and activists who are trying to:

• undermine lawful orders
• confuse service members
• weaponise half-read manuals
• and interfere with national security operations

This falls under serious federal statutes, including:

• 18 U.S.C. § 2387 — Activities Affecting the Armed Forces (seditious interference)
• Laws prohibiting disloyalty or obstruction in military operations
• Statutes against undermining national security missions

Encouraging troops to refuse lawful interdiction orders is not oversight — it is sabotage.

Bottom Line

These aren’t fishing boats.
They aren’t civilians.
They aren’t helpless.
And the highlighted sections critics keep waving around do not apply.

The United States is lawfully taking out narco-terrorist boats because:

• They are hostile
• They are armed
• They are evading capture
• They are carrying drugs and operatives
• They pose a direct threat to U.S. national security

The manual doesn’t stop that mission.
The law doesn’t stop that mission.
And the noise from critics doesn’t matter.

Interdiction is lawful.
Neutralisation is lawful.
Taking out narco-terrorist vessels is lawful — and necessary.