The U.S. Department of Justice indicted former Cuban President Raúl Castro for his alleged role in the 1996 Cuban military downing of two civilian planes operated by the exile group Brothers to the Rescue, which killed four people (including three U.S. citizens).Since September 2, 2025, the U.S. military has attacked suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific 59 times, killing 196 people. Shouldn’t we be indicting Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, for murder?
“According to President Donald Trump’s mysterious math, that means this campaign of carnage has prevented around 1.5 million drug-related deaths in the United States—more than 20 times the total number recorded in the year before Trump started treating suspected cocaine smugglers as ‘combatants’ who can be killed at will, from a distance and in cold blood.
“Back on planet Earth, there is no reason to think the boat strikes have prevented any deaths at all. That could only happen if blowing up smugglers—as opposed to the previous practice of intercepting them, arresting them, and seizing their cargo, which Trump says was ‘totally ineffective’—reduced the supply of cocaine available to American consumers. Given more than a century of failed attempts to ‘stop the flow’ of illegal intoxicants, that never seemed likely. And nearly nine months after Trump launched his new, deadlier version of the war on drugs, there is no evidence that it is more effective than the traditional tactics he derides as insufficiently homicidal.” Jacob Sullum, “Blowing up boats hasn’t slowed cocaine traffic to U.S.”
Should we care about such a double standard? Yes. What we are doing is not only illegal but also immoral. Hopefully we aspire to behave morally because we aspire to be moral people. But there is a practical self-interest in playing by the rules as well.
We could often get our way simply because we are the strongest guy on the block. President Trump seems to like being a bully. However, pushing others around has a cost. The better we can live up to the high principles upon which our nation was founded, the more respect we will receive from others (nations and people). One of those important principles is adhering to the rule of law. Such respect means that others will cooperate with us more easily (at lower cost to us).
International norms and conventions generally serve the interests of all who have agreed to them. Win, win. When we violate them, the world pays a cost and so do we.
Warren's space 
Dear Warren, You (and hopefully Ito) must be in California supporting your family during this difficult time. Please convey to your son and his wife my heartfelt condolences and deepest sympathy.
In general, I may agree with the thrust of your conclusion, though not necessarily with the analysis that leads to it. I will therefore limit my comments to your observations regarding the new lawsuits and charges involving Raúl Castro and his family, as well as the long-running and still unresolved U.S.-Cuba relationship.
You are older than I am and have undoubtedly experienced more of this history firsthand from the US perspective only. As a result, you likely possess both factual knowledge and personal experiences that I do not—a simple consequence of our age difference. That said, one observation remains difficult to ignore: the United States is largely unique in maintaining a fundamentally adversarial relationship with Cuba. Most countries in the Americas, as well as many major economies around the world—including Canada, Spain, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, China, and Russia—maintain normal diplomatic and commercial relations with Cuba.
Personally, I do abhor he fact that I cannot bring my stash of Cuban cigars legally int the US.
Whatever one’s views of the Cuban government, the broader question of whether six decades of confrontation have achieved their intended objectives remains open to debate. One could reasonably argue that the policy has not produced the outcomes its architects envisioned.
I also find that both Jacob Sullum’s article and portions of your commentary rely more on emotional characterization than on established facts. The argument may be stronger if framed in a more neutral and precise manner. For example:
“Critics argue that the U.S. military campaign against suspected drug-trafficking vessels may violate domestic and international law and raise serious moral concerns. Supporters contend that the operations are part of an armed conflict against transnational criminal organizations. As of today, the legality of the campaign has not been definitively resolved by U.S. courts or by any broadly recognized international judicial body.”
n my experience, separating factual claims from legal interpretations, moral judgments and self-emotional limitations often lead to a more persuasive discussion.
With my best regards,
Sergio A. Pombo
I broadly agree