Because they aren't flying a flag of the country in which their boat is registered. All boats do this. Not doing this is like flying a plane without filing a flight plan.

Technically when you don't fly a flag you are considered a pirate. Clearly they aren't pirates but they are smugglers. There is no other reason why you wouldn't fly a specific national flag. You can complain about the rules of engagement and that is fine. However, posts like yours aren't exactly rooted in honesty, competence or good faith.

> Technically when you don't fly a flag you are considered a pirate

Source? Piracy's definition under UNCLOS seems pretty tight [1].

[1] https://www.un.org/depts/los/piracy/piracy_legal_framework.h...

Only ships are required to fly flags. Not boats. Consider how silly it would become if every dingy and lifeboat needed to be registered as a ship.

https://www.marinepublic.com/blogs/marine-law/294870-unclos-...

You being unable to trust the government is not evidence of wrongdoing.

The military has never had to share its intelligence with civilians and it's not going to start now just to ease your mind.

Literally nobody is demanding Ukraine prove its targets are actually part of the Russian military before striking them.

Historically we get the assurance at least from other branches of government and understand that various oversights are in place, not just whims of the executive.

Among other differences, Ukraine is at war with Russia.

This simply isn't true. Getting the populace on board is a standard and important part of democracies initiating military action. Bush and his team spent endless amounts of time briefing Congress and the public on their justifications for the Iraq war for example.

Ukraine has gone to extensive lengths to only target military and, more recently, energy infrastructure in Russia. They aren't blowing up random civilian vehicles or ships, and have a clear incentive to show that they aren't doing that.

Fighting drug smuggling is a flimsy pretext for why the US is blowing up random ships, although it's apparently one some people are willing to believe. Take the same actions but change up the countries and the reactions would be very different. This is about Trump doing yet another tough guy show of force against a much weaker country he feels safe enough bullying.

> Bush and his team spent endless amounts of time briefing Congress and the public on their justifications for the Iraq war

Correction: they spent endless amounts of time lying to congress and the UN about their concocted, pretextual justification for the Iraq war.

> Correction: they spent endless amounts of time lying to congress and the UN about their concocted, pretextual justification for the Iraq war

One, legitimately unclear to what degree Bush et al believed the nonsense.

Two, they bothered to engage. That's OP's point.

Uh, Ukraine (GUR) deliberately blew up a random civilian who was unwittingly transporting explosives for them across the Kerch Bridge. As well as whoever happened to be nearby (fortunately it was early morning so traffic was light). They also randomly shell residential areas in the Belgorod region and Donetsk city using low-accuracy tube artillery and Grad rockets (including cluster munitions and butterfly mines). The fact that Russia is guilty of much worse does not mean these are not war crimes.

He was a horrible drug smuggler. I heard the government said so.

71% of Americans support the boat strikes. It is one of the most popular military actions the US has ever taken.

The populace is very much already on board.

https://harvardharrispoll.com/press-release-september-2025/

It's sad that the most popular military action is the least justified. Maybe they realised that attempts to justify these things only broaden the surface area for criticism.

We shouldn't be in this situation asking these questions. Any questionable boats should be detained and boarded per the last several hundred years or so of maritime law.

Just random subs and boats hanging around in the middle of the Pacific ocean. It's probably a fishing trip. That's definitely worth the time and resources of the Navy.

Does it actually matter?

So far, no one with a government who is both willing and able to make a fuss about it has been involved.

This is what realpolitik is.

> Does it actually matter?

Yes. The precedent being established would let e.g. China or Russia pot a yacht on the high seas for reasons which only work under their own laws.

What makes you think they wouldn’t already, if they had a reason?

[https://cepa.org/article/bombs-on-board-the-strange-streak-o...]

I've spotted a partisan perspective.

$500K speedboats taking off from an area known for cartel activity in a country with a < $5000 GDP per capita loaded full with boxes and hauling ass on a one way trip across the Caribbean? If you want to argue that we shouldn't use the military to blow up cartel boats, fine. If you want to claim that these guys aren't moving bricks, GTFO.

Prove it.

Some rando on the internet isn't going to be able to prove or disprove this. You believe what you want based on what evidence is available to you.

Myself, the imagery I've seen of the multiple very expensive and very powerful outboard motors on these boats is enough for me to believe that these are not in fact honest fishermen. It's totally incongruous.

We don't have images / videos of all strikes. We don't have anything from the strike that the Colombian president claims was on a fishing boat, for one.

If you really want to go far enough with it, given the administration's general lack of trustworthiness, we don't even have confirmation that all the videos we've been given correspond to the strikes we've been told they correspond to.