November 8, 2025 • 39 mins
We talked about the United States’ war on terror and its complicated history of military engagements against unconventional forces dating back well over a century. Nichols Professor Mike Neagle joined us to chat about his book, "Chasing Bandits", which examines the contemporary war on terror through a wider historical lens. We dug in deeper to how the U.S. has and is tackling the war on terror, different approaches by different presidents or administrations, the types of terror threats and organizations & more!
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Thanks very much.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Al.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
You know, one of the big stories in the last
couple of months has dealt with the Trump administration's decision
to actually attack some boats that leave Venezuela or Colombia,
I guess somewhere in the Caribbean and sometimes in the
Pacific Ocean, and they they hit I'm I'm not sure
(00:29):
if it's they hit it with drone strikes or if
they hit it with traditional you know, airplane airplane strikes.
But you've seen the videos. You see these vessels moving along.
They look to me like pretty fancy speed boats, and
all of a sudden they're gone. And according to whatever
numbers you believe, there have been at least a dozen
(00:53):
strikes since September and about fifty seven people they believe
have been killed. There's been some a lot of publicity
about that. And that's we're going to dig in tonight
with me is Professor Michael Nagel. He is a Holy
Cross graduate, has his PhD out of Yukon teachers at
Nichols College. Been teaching in Nichols College since twenty and fourteen.
(01:18):
Before that, he actually worked as a newspaper reporter in
various locations New York State, Columbus, Ohio, and he's settled
down as a teacher, and he really is an expert
historian on what the US foreign policy has been in
this hemisphere, particularly in Central and South America, through a
(01:40):
whole bunch of presidential administrations, both Democratic and Republicans. So
I want to welcome Professor Michael Nagle Nagel. He's a
professor of history, director of history and political science, and
co chair of the Terrorism Studies Program at Nichols College
in Dudley, Massachusetts. In his new book, Chasing bandits America's
(02:03):
long War on Terror, and we could get into some
history of it, but I'd like to focus initially Professor Nagel.
First of all, welcome to Night's Side number one, Colton.
Speaker 3 (02:15):
Thank you very much, Dan. I appreciate the invitation to
talk he tonight.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Sure, it's what it's tried to set the table. There's
there's a lot of agendas at play here. Obviously, we
have an administration in Venezuela which is welcoming Russian assistance
in our hemisphere, and I'm sure that is something that
the Trump administration is not particularly pleased to see. Uh,
(02:43):
other administrations have done some have engaged in activity. Let's
just let's talk about this, this this boat situation. We
talked to you and I talked earlier today, and I
think you have some real serious questions that I don't
know I have answers for. But on the surface, I'm
(03:03):
glad that some administration is doing something to keep harmful
drugs out of out of our country where so many,
so many young people have died in recent years from fentanyl.
And I and we may disagree a little bit here
around the edges, but obviously anything that could be done
legally that will save lives. For some reason, a lot
(03:26):
of Americans and young Americans take chances with these drugs,
and these drugs they're not your your parents marijuana from Woodstock,
and they have moved on way past whatever people were
puffing on at Woodstock back fifty or so years ago.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
Yeah, there's yeah, there's a lot to unpack with all this.
And I think you know you had mentioned, you know
that you support anything that can be done legally to
try to halt the flow of these narcotics. And I
think that's kind of the the the rub here with
what's going on near Venezuela. Is you know, are these
(04:09):
are these strikes legal? The Trump administration has kind of
has has used the the you know, some of the
rhetoric of the war on terror, uh to suggest that
these drug cartels are essentially like terrorists and should be
treated as such. You know, but before this, you know,
(04:30):
certainly the United States for decades, I mean this is
going back to the Nixon administration has had a so
called war on drugs, and in most of these other cases,
many many of these other cases of interdicting ships at
sea believed to be smuggling uh, narcotics. You know, you
(04:52):
have the Coastguard UH seize the ships, UH, board them,
investigate them, arrest the suspects, and and and you know,
put them through the criminal justice system. But what's going
on here since September? Are these lethal strikes that have
killed you know, I think again I'm also losing track.
(05:15):
I think I think we're probably closer to the death
toll of of close to seventy people, or at least
that's what the Defense Department has been saying. You know,
these these are basically extra judicial killings. We're not quite
sure who exactly these people are or at least the
Defense Department is not saying. We're also not clear if
(05:36):
they are in fact carrying the narcotics that the military
has said that they've been carrying, and that that does
bring in questions of the legality of these kinds of strikes.
But I think regardless, what we're seeing is certainly a
militarization of the war on drugs, and I think this
(05:58):
is also reflective of the militarization of counter terrorism measures
that have really been in place since nine to eleven.
So I do think what the Trump administration is doing
is on the one hand, exacerbating or escalating the war
on drugs and having an intersect with the war on terror,
(06:20):
but also I think drawing from drawing bits and pieces
from previous playbooks to stage these kinds of strikes.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Yeah, I understand where you're coming from totally, and I
think in a perfect world what I have heard and
you know this better than I do, so if I'm incorrect,
please feel free to correct correct me, or you know, change.
My view is that these boats that they're hitting our
(06:50):
high powered speed boats, and that the Coastguard can keep
up with these boats. Now, I guess if you have
three or four coastguard cutters. You can probably cut kind
of off at the chase or something. But it sounds
to me like we're the that these these boats are
not Venezuelan families out for a Sunday afternoon ride ride
(07:15):
around the harbor of Caracas or whatever whatever coastal cities Venezuela. Ya.
I mean, you know you I'm not trying to get
to the to the issue of probable cause here, but
when you look at them and say, well, what are
they doing out there? They're not running, you know, some
form of NASCAR races on water. I'm assuming that the
(07:40):
Trump administration would have lawyers, and again this may be
too big an assumption that they would have some c
i A type operatives within Venezuela who would be able
to give them some information. And at the same time,
you don't want to compromise your your methods and press
(08:01):
so that you can put people who are helping us,
you know, on the inside, in danger. Chris, the administration,
in any administration, but particularly one that is you know,
pretty aggressive in a tough mind, how how do you
feel this could be done? Assuming for a second, these
are not you know, Venezuelan families or out on a
(08:25):
on a little skiff or in the afternoon, what how
And if the Coast Guard is being truthful that these
boats have the ability to outrun the best coast Guard
cutters we have. And I'm not sure, by the way,
how far our Coastguard cutters can can stray from our shores.
(08:46):
Are they allowed in international waters to engage in interdiction?
I just don't know the answers to those questions, and
I don't expect you to have those answers either. So
my question is if the president were to all you
up and say, hey, how how can I do this?
How can I accomplish my goals, however wadable they might be,
(09:10):
and yet not exposed myself to to really justifiable criticism,
got any thoughts ideas?
Speaker 4 (09:17):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (09:17):
No, so, I you know, you mentioned you'd asked, you know,
are these Could these some of these be fishing boats
and just people going out for a drive. I think
one of the strikes there, the Colombian government has said
that it was a Colombian citizen who was a fisherman
(09:38):
who was killed in one of these strikes, And in
another strike there were two survivors and both of them
were remanded to the custody of their home countries, which
also suggests that maybe indeed they were not the drug
smugglers that the milit harry thought that they were. And
(10:02):
so that's where it gets it gets problematic. And then also,
uh to just outright blow up these boats without any
kind of uh direct provocation. Uh, That's that's also I
think another troubling uh escalation.
Speaker 5 (10:27):
And well, the problem the provocation couldn't they could indeed,
they could indeed be drug runners.
Speaker 6 (10:32):
They could indeed.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
Know what I'm saying is the problem the provocation would
be the transportation of these you know, you know, highly
fate fatal if there's you know a lot of these
drugs have been laced with other things that I realized
that when we talked today, that fentanyl is more of
a product from China into Mexico and then it's changed
(10:54):
in Mexico. But I I'm just asking what could you do?
I mean, I guess, you know, Kennedy put up a
blockade of Cuba in nineteen sixty two, uh, and and
force the Russian ships to turn around.
Speaker 6 (11:10):
Yeah, hopefully, And.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
That's you know, we made we made some some compromises
and some commitments in there, we pulled some missiles out
of Turkey that were pointing at pointing at Russia. But
Stevenson was our ambassador at least Stevenson to the United Nations.
Do we have to just wait and and track these
these these boats and see where they go and what
(11:34):
they offload. I mean, I'm just trying to figure out
a way in which we can do it, but do
it right.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
Yeah, And and I think I think one of the
things to not do is to summarily blow up a
boat without any further investigation, you know, because where where
does the line stop? Then I think it's a slippery
slope if the administration is simply going to target uh
(12:05):
and and kill, you know, criminals without uh you know,
sufficient cause. And so I think that's that's that's one aspect.
And I think the other aspect to just a very
long running war on drugs one of the other things
that also has to be remember remember too, it's it's
(12:26):
it's a business and considering it, you know, consider supply
and demand. If there's a way in which to curb
demand uh in US markets, that will bring the supply down,
But that is a much longer term.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
Kind of I remember Nancy Reagan just saying no. And
I remember, you know, frying eggs on a sidewalk. This
is your brain drugs. Let me take a quick break.
I've gone past our commercial break. My guest is Professor
Michael Beagle. He is with me. I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Someone said to me early take It rhymes with that
(13:02):
I was in my head. Professor Michael Nagel any a
g l e uh. And we will continue our conversation
with him, and we invite you to call uh. Some
of you probably have questions that are better than mine
or observation six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty
six one seven, nine three, one ten thirty. My name
is Dan Ray. His name is Professor Michael Nagel. Back
(13:24):
on Nightside after.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
This night Side with Dan Ray on w BZ, Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
All right, I'm going to get this right. I was uh,
I was given some wrong information today, Professor. It is
Professor Michael Nagel. Yeah, and I'm embarrassed. But I was
given that information and I took it as his truth.
So Nagel's easy. Nagel, Professor Michael Nagel. So let me
(13:53):
come back to again. I think we all can agree
that we want to keep these drugs out of our territory.
And even if there is a desire for Americans to
experiment with these drugs, I don't think we can we
can allow that desire to overcome a government policy which
(14:18):
may mean to keep this stuff out. So it sounds
to me like you've constructed kind of a catch twenty
two here where it would be great to keep this
stuff out, but is there a way to do it
according to the Marcus of Queensberry rules of international law?
And these guys don't have due process rights because first
(14:41):
of all, they're not American citizens, they're not in American territory.
And if they are doing this and we're defending ourselves,
I don't think we have a problem legally. But how
do we know?
Speaker 3 (14:51):
Well, that's why I think the language and the descriptors
come in, you know, referring to them as narcot terrorists,
uh and and unlawful combatants, as the Trump administration has done.
This is this is I think what what the Trump
administration is using to justify, uh, these these recent attacks. Now,
(15:16):
narco terrorists. It's not that that's not a new term.
That's something that the C I A coined back in
the nineteen eighties to refer to this kind of nexus
of of drug cartels with leftist insurgent groups in in
Latin America. And you know, the name Pablo Escobar is
probably familiar to to many of your listeners. You know,
(15:37):
he was kind of the uh, the narco terrorist uh
uh par excellence of of of his day. And and
Trump has also referred to, you know, these these targets
as quote unquote unlawful combatants.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
UH.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
And this is something that's also not new. The Bush
administration used UH similar terminology in the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan to refer to captured insurgents to then justify
the indefinite detention UH and the use of enhanced interrogation
(16:14):
against some of these individuals. So one of the things
that I've been focusing on with this with this story
is the terminology that's being used. And you know, as
a historian, I'm trying to think of UH change or
continuity over time. And one of the things I see
over and over is even though some of the terminology
(16:35):
might be different, this kind of rhetoric has been similarly
used by various administrations both Republican and Democrat over the
last century plus, to justify getting involved in in places abroad,
or to justify going after enemies, to to change rules
(17:00):
of engagement, uh, to get past previous standards of of uh,
the way in which the United States would pursue some
of these enemies. And so for me, uh my my,
what what really kind of perked my interest in this
in this story going on in outside Venezuela right now,
(17:23):
is is that aspect is is the rhetoric and how
it's been used to justify certain policies.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Okay, I want to be a wise guy here, but
but if the Trump administration came to you and said, hey,
what about if we call these guys unlicensed Venezuelan pharmaceutical exporters,
I mean you, uh, whatever the language, you wouldn't.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
It still wouldn't justify killing them.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Well okay, so let okay, fair enough, far enough, and
I understand that that position. Obviously, we went in and
cad the Bush administration went and captured Manuel Noriega and
basically captured him, put him on trial, convicted him, and
he died in federal prison. President Obama eliminated an imam
(18:16):
uh In uh In.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
Yemen, an American, an American citizen, and his kid and
his I.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
Think his fifty his twelve year old son was in
the vehicle with him. Now, you know, I don't I
don't remember anybody really, you know, concerned about that action.
By the way, Alawaukee had actually been a visitor to
the White House. Did you know that?
Speaker 6 (18:43):
No, I did not know that he had been he had.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
Been invited, He had been in uh an Imam. I
believe his mosque was of the Moscoe with which he
was affiliated, either was in Maryland or Virginia, and at
some point during the Obama administration he had actually either
been invited or spoke at the White House. And then
(19:06):
they realized that this guy was a bad dude, and
they decided to take him out. And they took him,
and I think it was his twelve thirteen year old
son was in the car. They had they had actionable
intelligence as to and there's no question they got the
right guy. Let's do this, Let's take a break, and
let's invite some callers to join the conversation. As they say,
this is I think a legitimate topic to be discussing. Uh.
(19:28):
This is the type of dilemma that any commander in
chief has to face. I realized that Donald Trump has
been someone who who in some cases perhaps acts first
and then thinks about it, as opposed to those who
are a little bit more thoughtful initially and action oriented after.
But well, this is I think this is this is
(19:52):
a great sort of class for you as a historian,
and you're that you're conducting for us tonight, and and
also for political scientists to look at. I mean, does
the president of the United States actually have an obligation,
if he has actionable intelligence, to try to intercept and
(20:14):
if necessary, destroy boats heading here that have high potency drugs. Again,
I don't assume they're bringing bales of marijuana on those boats.
They're too small. But the points you raise are great.
I want to hear from the audience and I'd like
to get their sense of if they are troubled by
(20:35):
this or do they feel this is necessary doing business
in the world in twenty twenty five, it seems to
it seems to get more complicated every year. Back on
Night's Tide with my guest, professor Michael Nagel. He's a
historian at Nichols College. Very impressive record and he has
(20:58):
a resume, I should say, no record. And he has
a new book out that he has recently written about
and that is how it was called. To our attention,
author of the book Chasing Bandits America's Long War on Terror.
That's the entire title. We will be back with Professor
Nagel and hopefully some phone calls six one, seven, two, five,
(21:19):
four ten thirty six one, seven, nine, three, ten thirty.
My name is Dan Ray. This is Nightside on a
Friday night. I'm here. You're there, pick up the phone
back after this.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on w b Z,
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
My guest is Professor Michael Nagel Nichols College, and he
is an historian and his his area of expertise is again, uh,
Central and South America and US involvement going back all
the way even to Teddy Roosevelt's day as well. You
could probably go back to James Monroe's days with the
Monroe doctrine, which I mean, correct me if I'm wrong here,
(22:01):
but President Monroe kind of made it up. It said
we got a Monroe doctrine.
Speaker 3 (22:08):
Yeah, you had a lot of help with his Secretary
of State Massachusetts own John Quincy Adams with that, Oh yeah,
but I.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
Could be wrong here, but I don't think the Monroe
doctrine ever passed Congress or was it was? It was
a presidential statement, So that that is where I guess
all of this does start. We have a bunch of
phone calls, Professor, so let's plow ahead and see what
folks have to say and what they they can express
(22:38):
an opinion, ask a question, their choice. Let's start it
off with Jane in Shrewsbury. Hey, Jane, welcome you first tonight,
First this Hour, with my guest, Professor Michael Nagel.
Speaker 7 (22:48):
Go ahead, Hi, Dan High Professor. I'm quite concerned about
this topic, and I have a couple of questions and
a couple of statements. I don't think that there's any
kingpins on these So even if they were drug boats,
we're not going to eliminate the source by blowing up boats.
And then we have no evidence and absolutely no way
(23:09):
to prove that they were drug boats. It's raising a
lot of questions that can't be answered. And Dan, when
you said, if it's necessary to do this kind of thing,
then why would we only be targeting Venezuelan boats? You
know there's drugs coming into United States ports, open waterways
that are not protected, and there's drug dealers all over
the world. So I don't see why Venezuela is being
(23:31):
singled out, and it makes me wonder why.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
Now, jas let me try to answer that question first.
First of all, Yeah, there's a lot of stuff coming
into this country, coming in over the northern border, coming
in and over the southern border, coming through ports, probably
coming in through airports, no question. If, however, we have
actionable intelligence, which is a question, but if we have
(23:54):
actionable intelligence that these speed boats are moving contraband illicit
drugs from Venezuela or Colombia to drop off spots and
they're in the open waters, international waters, they become easy targets.
And I would suspect that one of the things that
the administration might be thinking, and I don't want to
(24:14):
jump ahead here, might be thinking that if we make
an example out of a few of these boats, it
might discourage others. Yeah, there's going to be no drug
kingpins in the Voat, no question about it. Pablo Escobauro
were alive today, he wouldn't be in one of these boats.
But it might a lot of other people might say,
you know, good money doing this this boat stuff, but
(24:35):
maybe not worth the price of admission. Dan.
Speaker 7 (24:39):
Yes, but some of the people on those bats might
be forced to do that. We don't know if they're
you know, being that's heavy handed treatment to make them
do those jobs. And it also seems it also seems
really inconsistent with President Trump's been saying multiple times I
just want to stop the killing when he talks about
(25:00):
Gaza or Ukraine. But blowing up boats isn't stopping the killing,
and if it leads to another war, I sort of
suspect he's deflecting. He wants to take our attention away
from other things like Jeffrey Epstein or the problems with
the economy or whatever. Just the whole thing is a
little bit suspicious.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
Yeah, first of all, I'm going to assume that you're
not somebody who is ambivalent on Donald Trump. If you're
going to say.
Speaker 7 (25:25):
No, no, no, you know I'm not.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
Yeah, right, So no, that's fine, And I know you
as well, And I was trying to be gentle. So
I don't know if if we were to find out
a couple of years from now that this the CIA
had developed intelligence that these boats were in fact what
they are, and President Trump did nothing. Would you defend
him for doing nothing if we really know what's on
(25:49):
these boats.
Speaker 7 (25:52):
I don't know, But I also think if it's if
they are drug boats, then there are other boats from
other places, and that Venezuelan boat shouldn't be the only
ones if we really want to target the boats.
Speaker 5 (26:06):
Jane Jane, Well, if I got, if I may, if
I made, Jane Jane, you raised, you raised a lot
of good questions, and I think, and I think one
of them is, you know, what is the broader utility
of this?
Speaker 6 (26:17):
Is this?
Speaker 3 (26:18):
Are these strikes really cutting down on the supply of
illegal narcotics into the United States? These are just drops
in the bucket. The Coast Guard has routinely these tons
of drugs that see all over the place. So I
think that's number one. I think number two, why off
the coast of Venezuela. I think there's another dimension to this,
(26:39):
and that is to put pressure on the the government
of Nicholas Maduro, who the Trumpet minister Trump has been
trying to get rid of since his first term. I
think there's there's been a intense military build up uh
in that part of the Caribbean that is also trying
to put pressure on on Maduro, who's you know, let's
(27:03):
face it, a dictator who has ignored elections, who has
run a by all accounts, a corrupt regime. And so
this is also so in addition to this being an
escalation of the long running war on drugs, I think
this is also some kind of old fashioned gun boat
(27:27):
diplomacy in you know, Dan, a few minutes ago, you
were referencing Teddy Roosevelt. You know, he did stuff like
this with the gunboat diplomacy relative to getting the Panama
Canal and at the turn of the twentieth century, and
you know, by stationing American.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
Sure, professor, let me jump in for a second there,
I never want to correct a historian. He may have
with gunboat diplomacy, got the property where we built the
Panama Canal.
Speaker 3 (28:02):
I'm sorry.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
Yeah, so there's a difference. It isn't as if we
took over the Panama Canal. We took over the property
where we built the Panama Canal. Uh. It's a small
it was.
Speaker 3 (28:15):
It was part of what was going on was the
province of Panama was trying to separate itself from the
state of Colombia. It had been part of Colombia, and
you know, and so Teddy Roosevelt parks, you know, gunboats
offshore just to kind of keep the Colombian authorities at bay,
to allow for Panamanian separatists to declare independence with the
(28:39):
then with the quid pro quo of granting the United
States the canal zone to then build the Panama Canal.
So my point is that using using a show, we're
having a display of military force or the threat of
military force to try to get one's foreign policy goals achieved.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
The question would be whether or not the Venezuelan people
And this gets, I think to secondary in tertiary issues.
Would it be good for the Venezuelan people to be
led by a government by Nobel Peace Prize William Maria
Karina Machado rather than Nicholas Madora.
Speaker 3 (29:20):
Well, that would be up for the Venezuelans to decide.
My concern is that if and there's a law, there's
a long history.
Speaker 6 (29:27):
There's a long history.
Speaker 3 (29:28):
Of American regime change around the world, and almost none
of these cases go well. And the most recent example,
certainly is you know what happened in Iraq, in two
thousand and three. You know, nobody was trying to suggest
that Saddam Hussein was a good guy or anything like that.
But the fall of Saddam Hussein at the hands of
(29:52):
the United States then leads to a calamitous cascade of
violence in Iraq that the Iraqi State is still trying
to dig itself out of.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
Yeah, I think that was I think that was a
huge mistake by the Bush administration and by the late
Dick Cheney who led the who led the arguments in
favor of that. I think that the Venezuelan people are
significantly different, both in terms of geography UH and in
terms of close closer to the United States. And I
(30:26):
do think that when you have a Nobel Peace Prize
winner currently who is the face of the opposition in Venezuela,
UH and the and our government has put a fifty
million dollar price tag on the head of Maduro, I mean,
should we be doing that? I would say, why not?
Speaker 3 (30:45):
You know, and doing by doing that, you mean, just
try to take out Madruro directly?
Speaker 2 (30:51):
Well, I don't think how you can take him out
anymore directly by putting a fifty million dollar price tag
on his head. Yeah, I'm not saying we go in
there with I'm not saying we go in there with
with the eighty second Airborne Division. But if all of
a sudden, our presence there does have the secondary benefit
of Maduro deciding to to to take a plane ride
to Moscow and and and allow the his corrupt elections
(31:15):
to be overthrown and Maria Karina Machado were to become
the head of state. I would celebrate that, you know,
I would say that, I'm not stressful.
Speaker 3 (31:28):
I think he has uh you know, he's been he's
held onto power far too long. He has just completely
ignored the most recent elections that I think overwhelmingly we're
looking to vote him out. So this is this is
not this is not me trying to to Oh I
know that.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
No, I know that. Look, Stretch, I've keep my conversation, Jane.
I I hate to do this to you, but I
we have. I've kind of taken over the conversation here, uh,
And I apologize. I will make it up to you
next time.
Speaker 7 (31:57):
But it was It's an interesting topic and I appreciated
the chance to contribute.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
Well. You contributed mightily, and I hope you can contribute
whether you agree with me on any this, this or
any other topic. Thank you so much.
Speaker 7 (32:12):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (32:13):
Talk to you soon. Okay, we've got to take a
very quick break. I got three callers left, Steve, Tom,
and Carol, and I'm gonna listen to all of you
and you can interchange with Professor Nagel, simple as that.
I'll be back on Nightside right after this break.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
It's night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
Where the lines have lit up. Let's go to I'm
going to go first of all to Carol in Randolph.
Carol next on Nightside.
Speaker 8 (32:43):
Hi, Dan, how are you.
Speaker 2 (32:45):
We're doing great, We're tight on time. I went very
long and I interrupted Jane, but I'm going to listen
to what you have to ask or say. Go right ahead.
Speaker 8 (32:55):
I really agree with your guest speaker, Michael Nail. We
have to do whatever we can to stop the drugs
coming into this country.
Speaker 2 (33:05):
And we don't know that. Profession Nagel necessary has expressed
that opinion. Professors is Carol on the money with that?
Speaker 3 (33:15):
Well, I mean what we're supposed to be a loss?
Speaker 6 (33:19):
We have to be.
Speaker 3 (33:20):
You know, we're we're a nation of loss, and you know,
if it's if it's certainly you know, if it's it's
within within legal bounds to to stop drugs, I mean,
then you know we can do it. My my concern
is in this case, you know, I'm not I'm not sure.
I don't think what's going on here with h the
(33:40):
these strikes off Venezuela and the the quote unquote Eastern
Pacific would would necessarily qualify. You know, the United States
for years and years and years has been has been
working to uh interdict drugs at sea. It's it's had
tremendous success, but yet more comes in because is here
(34:02):
so in demand.
Speaker 8 (34:06):
We have to stop the demand that the seventies and yeah,
I tried everything, but I didn't think it was going
to kill me. But now but they're innocent, they don't know,
they can go out to one party in their first
time and they can be dead.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
Absolutely tell you that's probably the most salient, the most
important point anyone could make tonight. And I'm glad you
make it. But you made it. But let me grab
a couple of other folks in here quickly. Okay, all right,
thanks great, Thanks by good night. Steve is in Bridgewater. Steve,
You're next on nightside, go right ahead.
Speaker 6 (34:44):
Yes, I again, I got to say I disagree with
the professor. I just want to say briefly in my
first of all, I don't believe they're just randomly blowing
boats out of the water. There must be heavy intelligence
that you told them to be boats are carrying drugs
and that's so called fishing boat had drugs on it.
Damn that they were talking about that. I heard it
(35:06):
had drugs on it. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
Again, I take what the professor said to be true,
and I take what you said to be true. And
I don't know, you know whatever, But that's think about it.
Speaker 6 (35:18):
It's nice. It's pretty smart to disguise a drug boat
as a fishing boat. That's I'm sure it was the
idea behind it. But I think I as far as i'mthing,
turned down their enemies in the United States, they're foreign enemies,
and we have to do what it takes to stop
that poison for coming in here.
Speaker 2 (35:35):
Yeah, if it was a fishing boat, I think that
that would have been better for the Coastguard. I was.
I'm more supportive of when they're going after these uh
these speedboats.
Speaker 6 (35:44):
Yes, yes, well yeah, okay, me too, speedboats.
Speaker 2 (35:48):
Yeah, Steve, I appreciate it. Let me I just kind
of try to get one more in here. I wish
you had called a little earlier and I could have
got more people.
Speaker 6 (35:56):
Well, I was gone for a while waiting. But it's okay,
damn give it took no.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
I understand that it's just that I should have gotten
to the call. Is that's really my mistake? Sooner for
all right, for this segment. But you've made your point
pretty clear. Steve. Yes, I think you've made you as
you always do. Thank you so much.
Speaker 6 (36:16):
All right, Thank you, Dan, thank you.
Speaker 2 (36:18):
Let me get Tom and Lowell. Tom, you go right ahead.
You're all with Professor Mike Nagel.
Speaker 9 (36:24):
Hi, guys, thanks for having me. What a great conversation
this has been. I think you really touched on a
lot this whole conversation. I think the two main themes
that I took away from this was a United States intervention,
which I think we covered pretty clearly, and the use
of extra judicial killing.
Speaker 6 (36:40):
One big point I wanted to bring.
Speaker 10 (36:41):
Up was you guys talked about anwar Alilaki and the
killing of his son Aldulermont. I thought I was killed
two weeks later by Obama and Yemen in a drone
strike on a public Restaurantlake talk about an extra judicial
killing of an American citizen without Judge Jerry or Isle
and Obama just acting as executioner, but bringing up.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
The did we lose him here?
Speaker 9 (37:09):
I got a big conversation that no.
Speaker 4 (37:11):
As I talked about go right.
Speaker 2 (37:13):
To go right ahead, Tom, we're getting we're running out
of time, quick go ahead, yep.
Speaker 4 (37:17):
Uh was a lot of this isn't really even to
do with necessarily Venezuela, but it's the interests in Venezuela,
especially coming from Russia and China, which we really didn't
talk about. Yeah, it's sure we're killing the drug the
drug runners off the coast, and there could be the
legal argument here, but the pressure we're putting on here
(37:40):
is China and Russia. It's not necessarily Venezuela. We would
love the Nobel Peace Prize winner to take over for
Venezuela and she's more compliant with the United States interests.
But the real targets here is the geopolitical interest with
Russia and China, and I just don't think that needed
to be said.
Speaker 2 (37:57):
Okay, thank you very much for staying that. And I
appreciate it again. I wish I had more time for you, Tom,
but I will get to the calls. I got to
get to the callers more quickly. Thank you so much. Okay,
thanks Tom. Professor Nagel, Uh, let me mention the book
which is just out, if I'm not mistaken, Chasing Bandits
America's Law Long War on Terror. I think everybody should
(38:19):
get a chance to read it. Available Amazon and bookstores,
I assume. Tell me, is there any other way they
can get to it?
Speaker 3 (38:26):
Oh, Amazon, Barnes and Noble. Uh, it's through the University
of North Carolina Press their website. You can you can
order directly off.
Speaker 2 (38:36):
Do you have a website where people can reach you?
Speaker 5 (38:41):
No, I don't have my own.
Speaker 3 (38:43):
I don't have my own website. I'm on I'm on
the social media's so uh, you know, folks can find
me find me there.
Speaker 8 (38:50):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (38:50):
You know, it's Professor Michael Nagel, and it's spelled n
E A g l E, but it's professor. Thank you
so much for your time tonight. I enjoyed talking with you.
I really You've been a great guest and I'd love
to have you back.
Speaker 6 (39:07):
That would be great.
Speaker 3 (39:08):
Yeah, I appreciate the time, Dan and I appreciate to
get a chance to talk with your audience.
Speaker 2 (39:13):
Excellent. We'll talk again. We'll talk again. We get back
on and talk with doctor Chloe Carmichael about free speech
because she thinks free speech matters, and so do I.
Coming back on Night Side,
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Thanks very much.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Al.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
You know, one of the big stories in the last
couple of months has dealt with the Trump administration's decision
to actually attack some boats that leave Venezuela or Colombia,
I guess somewhere in the Caribbean and sometimes in the
Pacific Ocean, and they they hit I'm I'm not sure
(00:29):
if it's they hit it with drone strikes or if
they hit it with traditional you know, airplane airplane strikes.
But you've seen the videos. You see these vessels moving along.
They look to me like pretty fancy speed boats, and
all of a sudden they're gone. And according to whatever
numbers you believe, there have been at least a dozen
(00:53):
strikes since September and about fifty seven people they believe
have been killed. There's been some a lot of publicity
about that. And that's we're going to dig in tonight
with me is Professor Michael Nagel. He is a Holy
Cross graduate, has his PhD out of Yukon teachers at
Nichols College. Been teaching in Nichols College since twenty and fourteen.
(01:18):
Before that, he actually worked as a newspaper reporter in
various locations New York State, Columbus, Ohio, and he's settled
down as a teacher, and he really is an expert
historian on what the US foreign policy has been in
this hemisphere, particularly in Central and South America, through a
(01:40):
whole bunch of presidential administrations, both Democratic and Republicans. So
I want to welcome Professor Michael Nagle Nagel. He's a
professor of history, director of history and political science, and
co chair of the Terrorism Studies Program at Nichols College
in Dudley, Massachusetts. In his new book, Chasing bandits America's
(02:03):
long War on Terror, and we could get into some
history of it, but I'd like to focus initially Professor Nagel.
First of all, welcome to Night's Side number one, Colton.
Speaker 3 (02:15):
Thank you very much, Dan. I appreciate the invitation to
talk he tonight.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Sure, it's what it's tried to set the table. There's
there's a lot of agendas at play here. Obviously, we
have an administration in Venezuela which is welcoming Russian assistance
in our hemisphere, and I'm sure that is something that
the Trump administration is not particularly pleased to see. Uh,
(02:43):
other administrations have done some have engaged in activity. Let's
just let's talk about this, this this boat situation. We
talked to you and I talked earlier today, and I
think you have some real serious questions that I don't
know I have answers for. But on the surface, I'm
(03:03):
glad that some administration is doing something to keep harmful
drugs out of out of our country where so many,
so many young people have died in recent years from fentanyl.
And I and we may disagree a little bit here
around the edges, but obviously anything that could be done
legally that will save lives. For some reason, a lot
(03:26):
of Americans and young Americans take chances with these drugs,
and these drugs they're not your your parents marijuana from Woodstock,
and they have moved on way past whatever people were
puffing on at Woodstock back fifty or so years ago.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
Yeah, there's yeah, there's a lot to unpack with all this.
And I think you know you had mentioned, you know
that you support anything that can be done legally to
try to halt the flow of these narcotics. And I
think that's kind of the the the rub here with
what's going on near Venezuela. Is you know, are these
(04:09):
are these strikes legal? The Trump administration has kind of
has has used the the you know, some of the
rhetoric of the war on terror, uh to suggest that
these drug cartels are essentially like terrorists and should be
treated as such. You know, but before this, you know,
(04:30):
certainly the United States for decades, I mean this is
going back to the Nixon administration has had a so
called war on drugs, and in most of these other cases,
many many of these other cases of interdicting ships at
sea believed to be smuggling uh, narcotics. You know, you
(04:52):
have the Coastguard UH seize the ships, UH, board them,
investigate them, arrest the suspects, and and and you know,
put them through the criminal justice system. But what's going
on here since September? Are these lethal strikes that have
killed you know, I think again I'm also losing track.
(05:15):
I think I think we're probably closer to the death
toll of of close to seventy people, or at least
that's what the Defense Department has been saying. You know,
these these are basically extra judicial killings. We're not quite
sure who exactly these people are or at least the
Defense Department is not saying. We're also not clear if
(05:36):
they are in fact carrying the narcotics that the military
has said that they've been carrying, and that that does
bring in questions of the legality of these kinds of strikes.
But I think regardless, what we're seeing is certainly a
militarization of the war on drugs, and I think this
(05:58):
is also reflective of the militarization of counter terrorism measures
that have really been in place since nine to eleven.
So I do think what the Trump administration is doing
is on the one hand, exacerbating or escalating the war
on drugs and having an intersect with the war on terror,
(06:20):
but also I think drawing from drawing bits and pieces
from previous playbooks to stage these kinds of strikes.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Yeah, I understand where you're coming from totally, and I
think in a perfect world what I have heard and
you know this better than I do, so if I'm incorrect,
please feel free to correct correct me, or you know, change.
My view is that these boats that they're hitting our
(06:50):
high powered speed boats, and that the Coastguard can keep
up with these boats. Now, I guess if you have
three or four coastguard cutters. You can probably cut kind
of off at the chase or something. But it sounds
to me like we're the that these these boats are
not Venezuelan families out for a Sunday afternoon ride ride
(07:15):
around the harbor of Caracas or whatever whatever coastal cities Venezuela. Ya.
I mean, you know you I'm not trying to get
to the to the issue of probable cause here, but
when you look at them and say, well, what are
they doing out there? They're not running, you know, some
form of NASCAR races on water. I'm assuming that the
(07:40):
Trump administration would have lawyers, and again this may be
too big an assumption that they would have some c
i A type operatives within Venezuela who would be able
to give them some information. And at the same time,
you don't want to compromise your your methods and press
(08:01):
so that you can put people who are helping us,
you know, on the inside, in danger. Chris, the administration,
in any administration, but particularly one that is you know,
pretty aggressive in a tough mind, how how do you
feel this could be done? Assuming for a second, these
are not you know, Venezuelan families or out on a
(08:25):
on a little skiff or in the afternoon, what how
And if the Coast Guard is being truthful that these
boats have the ability to outrun the best coast Guard
cutters we have. And I'm not sure, by the way,
how far our Coastguard cutters can can stray from our shores.
(08:46):
Are they allowed in international waters to engage in interdiction?
I just don't know the answers to those questions, and
I don't expect you to have those answers either. So
my question is if the president were to all you
up and say, hey, how how can I do this?
How can I accomplish my goals, however wadable they might be,
(09:10):
and yet not exposed myself to to really justifiable criticism,
got any thoughts ideas?
Speaker 4 (09:17):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (09:17):
No, so, I you know, you mentioned you'd asked, you know,
are these Could these some of these be fishing boats
and just people going out for a drive. I think
one of the strikes there, the Colombian government has said
that it was a Colombian citizen who was a fisherman
(09:38):
who was killed in one of these strikes, And in
another strike there were two survivors and both of them
were remanded to the custody of their home countries, which
also suggests that maybe indeed they were not the drug
smugglers that the milit harry thought that they were. And
(10:02):
so that's where it gets it gets problematic. And then also,
uh to just outright blow up these boats without any
kind of uh direct provocation. Uh, That's that's also I
think another troubling uh escalation.
Speaker 5 (10:27):
And well, the problem the provocation couldn't they could indeed,
they could indeed be drug runners.
Speaker 6 (10:32):
They could indeed.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
Know what I'm saying is the problem the provocation would
be the transportation of these you know, you know, highly
fate fatal if there's you know a lot of these
drugs have been laced with other things that I realized
that when we talked today, that fentanyl is more of
a product from China into Mexico and then it's changed
(10:54):
in Mexico. But I I'm just asking what could you do?
I mean, I guess, you know, Kennedy put up a
blockade of Cuba in nineteen sixty two, uh, and and
force the Russian ships to turn around.
Speaker 6 (11:10):
Yeah, hopefully, And.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
That's you know, we made we made some some compromises
and some commitments in there, we pulled some missiles out
of Turkey that were pointing at pointing at Russia. But
Stevenson was our ambassador at least Stevenson to the United Nations.
Do we have to just wait and and track these
these these boats and see where they go and what
(11:34):
they offload. I mean, I'm just trying to figure out
a way in which we can do it, but do
it right.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
Yeah, And and I think I think one of the
things to not do is to summarily blow up a
boat without any further investigation, you know, because where where
does the line stop? Then I think it's a slippery
slope if the administration is simply going to target uh
(12:05):
and and kill, you know, criminals without uh you know,
sufficient cause. And so I think that's that's that's one aspect.
And I think the other aspect to just a very
long running war on drugs one of the other things
that also has to be remember remember too, it's it's
(12:26):
it's a business and considering it, you know, consider supply
and demand. If there's a way in which to curb
demand uh in US markets, that will bring the supply down,
But that is a much longer term.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
Kind of I remember Nancy Reagan just saying no. And
I remember, you know, frying eggs on a sidewalk. This
is your brain drugs. Let me take a quick break.
I've gone past our commercial break. My guest is Professor
Michael Beagle. He is with me. I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Someone said to me early take It rhymes with that
(13:02):
I was in my head. Professor Michael Nagel any a
g l e uh. And we will continue our conversation
with him, and we invite you to call uh. Some
of you probably have questions that are better than mine
or observation six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty
six one seven, nine three, one ten thirty. My name
is Dan Ray. His name is Professor Michael Nagel. Back
(13:24):
on Nightside after.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
This night Side with Dan Ray on w BZ, Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
All right, I'm going to get this right. I was uh,
I was given some wrong information today, Professor. It is
Professor Michael Nagel. Yeah, and I'm embarrassed. But I was
given that information and I took it as his truth.
So Nagel's easy. Nagel, Professor Michael Nagel. So let me
(13:53):
come back to again. I think we all can agree
that we want to keep these drugs out of our territory.
And even if there is a desire for Americans to
experiment with these drugs, I don't think we can we
can allow that desire to overcome a government policy which
(14:18):
may mean to keep this stuff out. So it sounds
to me like you've constructed kind of a catch twenty
two here where it would be great to keep this
stuff out, but is there a way to do it
according to the Marcus of Queensberry rules of international law?
And these guys don't have due process rights because first
(14:41):
of all, they're not American citizens, they're not in American territory.
And if they are doing this and we're defending ourselves,
I don't think we have a problem legally. But how
do we know?
Speaker 3 (14:51):
Well, that's why I think the language and the descriptors
come in, you know, referring to them as narcot terrorists,
uh and and unlawful combatants, as the Trump administration has done.
This is this is I think what what the Trump
administration is using to justify, uh, these these recent attacks. Now,
(15:16):
narco terrorists. It's not that that's not a new term.
That's something that the C I A coined back in
the nineteen eighties to refer to this kind of nexus
of of drug cartels with leftist insurgent groups in in
Latin America. And you know, the name Pablo Escobar is
probably familiar to to many of your listeners. You know,
(15:37):
he was kind of the uh, the narco terrorist uh
uh par excellence of of of his day. And and
Trump has also referred to, you know, these these targets
as quote unquote unlawful combatants.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
UH.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
And this is something that's also not new. The Bush
administration used UH similar terminology in the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan to refer to captured insurgents to then justify
the indefinite detention UH and the use of enhanced interrogation
(16:14):
against some of these individuals. So one of the things
that I've been focusing on with this with this story
is the terminology that's being used. And you know, as
a historian, I'm trying to think of UH change or
continuity over time. And one of the things I see
over and over is even though some of the terminology
(16:35):
might be different, this kind of rhetoric has been similarly
used by various administrations both Republican and Democrat over the
last century plus, to justify getting involved in in places abroad,
or to justify going after enemies, to to change rules
(17:00):
of engagement, uh, to get past previous standards of of uh,
the way in which the United States would pursue some
of these enemies. And so for me, uh my my,
what what really kind of perked my interest in this
in this story going on in outside Venezuela right now,
(17:23):
is is that aspect is is the rhetoric and how
it's been used to justify certain policies.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Okay, I want to be a wise guy here, but
but if the Trump administration came to you and said, hey,
what about if we call these guys unlicensed Venezuelan pharmaceutical exporters,
I mean you, uh, whatever the language, you wouldn't.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
It still wouldn't justify killing them.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Well okay, so let okay, fair enough, far enough, and
I understand that that position. Obviously, we went in and
cad the Bush administration went and captured Manuel Noriega and
basically captured him, put him on trial, convicted him, and
he died in federal prison. President Obama eliminated an imam
(18:16):
uh In uh In.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
Yemen, an American, an American citizen, and his kid and
his I.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
Think his fifty his twelve year old son was in
the vehicle with him. Now, you know, I don't I
don't remember anybody really, you know, concerned about that action.
By the way, Alawaukee had actually been a visitor to
the White House. Did you know that?
Speaker 6 (18:43):
No, I did not know that he had been he had.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
Been invited, He had been in uh an Imam. I
believe his mosque was of the Moscoe with which he
was affiliated, either was in Maryland or Virginia, and at
some point during the Obama administration he had actually either
been invited or spoke at the White House. And then
(19:06):
they realized that this guy was a bad dude, and
they decided to take him out. And they took him,
and I think it was his twelve thirteen year old
son was in the car. They had they had actionable
intelligence as to and there's no question they got the
right guy. Let's do this, Let's take a break, and
let's invite some callers to join the conversation. As they say,
this is I think a legitimate topic to be discussing. Uh.
(19:28):
This is the type of dilemma that any commander in
chief has to face. I realized that Donald Trump has
been someone who who in some cases perhaps acts first
and then thinks about it, as opposed to those who
are a little bit more thoughtful initially and action oriented after.
But well, this is I think this is this is
(19:52):
a great sort of class for you as a historian,
and you're that you're conducting for us tonight, and and
also for political scientists to look at. I mean, does
the president of the United States actually have an obligation,
if he has actionable intelligence, to try to intercept and
(20:14):
if necessary, destroy boats heading here that have high potency drugs. Again,
I don't assume they're bringing bales of marijuana on those boats.
They're too small. But the points you raise are great.
I want to hear from the audience and I'd like
to get their sense of if they are troubled by
(20:35):
this or do they feel this is necessary doing business
in the world in twenty twenty five, it seems to
it seems to get more complicated every year. Back on
Night's Tide with my guest, professor Michael Nagel. He's a
historian at Nichols College. Very impressive record and he has
(20:58):
a resume, I should say, no record. And he has
a new book out that he has recently written about
and that is how it was called. To our attention,
author of the book Chasing Bandits America's Long War on Terror.
That's the entire title. We will be back with Professor
Nagel and hopefully some phone calls six one, seven, two, five,
(21:19):
four ten thirty six one, seven, nine, three, ten thirty.
My name is Dan Ray. This is Nightside on a
Friday night. I'm here. You're there, pick up the phone
back after this.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on w b Z,
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
My guest is Professor Michael Nagel Nichols College, and he
is an historian and his his area of expertise is again, uh,
Central and South America and US involvement going back all
the way even to Teddy Roosevelt's day as well. You
could probably go back to James Monroe's days with the
Monroe doctrine, which I mean, correct me if I'm wrong here,
(22:01):
but President Monroe kind of made it up. It said
we got a Monroe doctrine.
Speaker 3 (22:08):
Yeah, you had a lot of help with his Secretary
of State Massachusetts own John Quincy Adams with that, Oh yeah,
but I.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
Could be wrong here, but I don't think the Monroe
doctrine ever passed Congress or was it was? It was
a presidential statement, So that that is where I guess
all of this does start. We have a bunch of
phone calls, Professor, so let's plow ahead and see what
folks have to say and what they they can express
(22:38):
an opinion, ask a question, their choice. Let's start it
off with Jane in Shrewsbury. Hey, Jane, welcome you first tonight,
First this Hour, with my guest, Professor Michael Nagel.
Speaker 7 (22:48):
Go ahead, Hi, Dan High Professor. I'm quite concerned about
this topic, and I have a couple of questions and
a couple of statements. I don't think that there's any
kingpins on these So even if they were drug boats,
we're not going to eliminate the source by blowing up boats.
And then we have no evidence and absolutely no way
(23:09):
to prove that they were drug boats. It's raising a
lot of questions that can't be answered. And Dan, when
you said, if it's necessary to do this kind of thing,
then why would we only be targeting Venezuelan boats? You
know there's drugs coming into United States ports, open waterways
that are not protected, and there's drug dealers all over
the world. So I don't see why Venezuela is being
(23:31):
singled out, and it makes me wonder why.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
Now, jas let me try to answer that question first.
First of all, Yeah, there's a lot of stuff coming
into this country, coming in over the northern border, coming
in and over the southern border, coming through ports, probably
coming in through airports, no question. If, however, we have
actionable intelligence, which is a question, but if we have
(23:54):
actionable intelligence that these speed boats are moving contraband illicit
drugs from Venezuela or Colombia to drop off spots and
they're in the open waters, international waters, they become easy targets.
And I would suspect that one of the things that
the administration might be thinking, and I don't want to
(24:14):
jump ahead here, might be thinking that if we make
an example out of a few of these boats, it
might discourage others. Yeah, there's going to be no drug
kingpins in the Voat, no question about it. Pablo Escobauro
were alive today, he wouldn't be in one of these boats.
But it might a lot of other people might say,
you know, good money doing this this boat stuff, but
(24:35):
maybe not worth the price of admission. Dan.
Speaker 7 (24:39):
Yes, but some of the people on those bats might
be forced to do that. We don't know if they're
you know, being that's heavy handed treatment to make them
do those jobs. And it also seems it also seems
really inconsistent with President Trump's been saying multiple times I
just want to stop the killing when he talks about
(25:00):
Gaza or Ukraine. But blowing up boats isn't stopping the killing,
and if it leads to another war, I sort of
suspect he's deflecting. He wants to take our attention away
from other things like Jeffrey Epstein or the problems with
the economy or whatever. Just the whole thing is a
little bit suspicious.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
Yeah, first of all, I'm going to assume that you're
not somebody who is ambivalent on Donald Trump. If you're
going to say.
Speaker 7 (25:25):
No, no, no, you know I'm not.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
Yeah, right, So no, that's fine, And I know you
as well, And I was trying to be gentle. So
I don't know if if we were to find out
a couple of years from now that this the CIA
had developed intelligence that these boats were in fact what
they are, and President Trump did nothing. Would you defend
him for doing nothing if we really know what's on
(25:49):
these boats.
Speaker 7 (25:52):
I don't know, But I also think if it's if
they are drug boats, then there are other boats from
other places, and that Venezuelan boat shouldn't be the only
ones if we really want to target the boats.
Speaker 5 (26:06):
Jane Jane, Well, if I got, if I may, if
I made, Jane Jane, you raised, you raised a lot
of good questions, and I think, and I think one
of them is, you know, what is the broader utility
of this?
Speaker 6 (26:17):
Is this?
Speaker 3 (26:18):
Are these strikes really cutting down on the supply of
illegal narcotics into the United States? These are just drops
in the bucket. The Coast Guard has routinely these tons
of drugs that see all over the place. So I
think that's number one. I think number two, why off
the coast of Venezuela. I think there's another dimension to this,
(26:39):
and that is to put pressure on the the government
of Nicholas Maduro, who the Trumpet minister Trump has been
trying to get rid of since his first term. I
think there's there's been a intense military build up uh
in that part of the Caribbean that is also trying
to put pressure on on Maduro, who's you know, let's
(27:03):
face it, a dictator who has ignored elections, who has
run a by all accounts, a corrupt regime. And so
this is also so in addition to this being an
escalation of the long running war on drugs, I think
this is also some kind of old fashioned gun boat
(27:27):
diplomacy in you know, Dan, a few minutes ago, you
were referencing Teddy Roosevelt. You know, he did stuff like
this with the gunboat diplomacy relative to getting the Panama
Canal and at the turn of the twentieth century, and
you know, by stationing American.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
Sure, professor, let me jump in for a second there,
I never want to correct a historian. He may have
with gunboat diplomacy, got the property where we built the
Panama Canal.
Speaker 3 (28:02):
I'm sorry.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
Yeah, so there's a difference. It isn't as if we
took over the Panama Canal. We took over the property
where we built the Panama Canal. Uh. It's a small
it was.
Speaker 3 (28:15):
It was part of what was going on was the
province of Panama was trying to separate itself from the
state of Colombia. It had been part of Colombia, and
you know, and so Teddy Roosevelt parks, you know, gunboats
offshore just to kind of keep the Colombian authorities at bay,
to allow for Panamanian separatists to declare independence with the
(28:39):
then with the quid pro quo of granting the United
States the canal zone to then build the Panama Canal.
So my point is that using using a show, we're
having a display of military force or the threat of
military force to try to get one's foreign policy goals achieved.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
The question would be whether or not the Venezuelan people
And this gets, I think to secondary in tertiary issues.
Would it be good for the Venezuelan people to be
led by a government by Nobel Peace Prize William Maria
Karina Machado rather than Nicholas Madora.
Speaker 3 (29:20):
Well, that would be up for the Venezuelans to decide.
My concern is that if and there's a law, there's
a long history.
Speaker 6 (29:27):
There's a long history.
Speaker 3 (29:28):
Of American regime change around the world, and almost none
of these cases go well. And the most recent example,
certainly is you know what happened in Iraq, in two
thousand and three. You know, nobody was trying to suggest
that Saddam Hussein was a good guy or anything like that.
But the fall of Saddam Hussein at the hands of
(29:52):
the United States then leads to a calamitous cascade of
violence in Iraq that the Iraqi State is still trying
to dig itself out of.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
Yeah, I think that was I think that was a
huge mistake by the Bush administration and by the late
Dick Cheney who led the who led the arguments in
favor of that. I think that the Venezuelan people are
significantly different, both in terms of geography UH and in
terms of close closer to the United States. And I
(30:26):
do think that when you have a Nobel Peace Prize
winner currently who is the face of the opposition in Venezuela,
UH and the and our government has put a fifty
million dollar price tag on the head of Maduro, I mean,
should we be doing that? I would say, why not?
Speaker 3 (30:45):
You know, and doing by doing that, you mean, just
try to take out Madruro directly?
Speaker 2 (30:51):
Well, I don't think how you can take him out
anymore directly by putting a fifty million dollar price tag
on his head. Yeah, I'm not saying we go in
there with I'm not saying we go in there with
with the eighty second Airborne Division. But if all of
a sudden, our presence there does have the secondary benefit
of Maduro deciding to to to take a plane ride
to Moscow and and and allow the his corrupt elections
(31:15):
to be overthrown and Maria Karina Machado were to become
the head of state. I would celebrate that, you know,
I would say that, I'm not stressful.
Speaker 3 (31:28):
I think he has uh you know, he's been he's
held onto power far too long. He has just completely
ignored the most recent elections that I think overwhelmingly we're
looking to vote him out. So this is this is
not this is not me trying to to Oh I
know that.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
No, I know that. Look, Stretch, I've keep my conversation, Jane.
I I hate to do this to you, but I
we have. I've kind of taken over the conversation here, uh,
And I apologize. I will make it up to you
next time.
Speaker 7 (31:57):
But it was It's an interesting topic and I appreciated
the chance to contribute.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
Well. You contributed mightily, and I hope you can contribute
whether you agree with me on any this, this or
any other topic. Thank you so much.
Speaker 7 (32:12):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (32:13):
Talk to you soon. Okay, we've got to take a
very quick break. I got three callers left, Steve, Tom,
and Carol, and I'm gonna listen to all of you
and you can interchange with Professor Nagel, simple as that.
I'll be back on Nightside right after this break.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
It's night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
Where the lines have lit up. Let's go to I'm
going to go first of all to Carol in Randolph.
Carol next on Nightside.
Speaker 8 (32:43):
Hi, Dan, how are you.
Speaker 2 (32:45):
We're doing great, We're tight on time. I went very
long and I interrupted Jane, but I'm going to listen
to what you have to ask or say. Go right ahead.
Speaker 8 (32:55):
I really agree with your guest speaker, Michael Nail. We
have to do whatever we can to stop the drugs
coming into this country.
Speaker 2 (33:05):
And we don't know that. Profession Nagel necessary has expressed
that opinion. Professors is Carol on the money with that?
Speaker 3 (33:15):
Well, I mean what we're supposed to be a loss?
Speaker 6 (33:19):
We have to be.
Speaker 3 (33:20):
You know, we're we're a nation of loss, and you know,
if it's if it's certainly you know, if it's it's
within within legal bounds to to stop drugs, I mean,
then you know we can do it. My my concern
is in this case, you know, I'm not I'm not sure.
I don't think what's going on here with h the
(33:40):
these strikes off Venezuela and the the quote unquote Eastern
Pacific would would necessarily qualify. You know, the United States
for years and years and years has been has been
working to uh interdict drugs at sea. It's it's had
tremendous success, but yet more comes in because is here
(34:02):
so in demand.
Speaker 8 (34:06):
We have to stop the demand that the seventies and yeah,
I tried everything, but I didn't think it was going
to kill me. But now but they're innocent, they don't know,
they can go out to one party in their first
time and they can be dead.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
Absolutely tell you that's probably the most salient, the most
important point anyone could make tonight. And I'm glad you
make it. But you made it. But let me grab
a couple of other folks in here quickly. Okay, all right,
thanks great, Thanks by good night. Steve is in Bridgewater. Steve,
You're next on nightside, go right ahead.
Speaker 6 (34:44):
Yes, I again, I got to say I disagree with
the professor. I just want to say briefly in my
first of all, I don't believe they're just randomly blowing
boats out of the water. There must be heavy intelligence
that you told them to be boats are carrying drugs
and that's so called fishing boat had drugs on it.
Damn that they were talking about that. I heard it
(35:06):
had drugs on it. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
Again, I take what the professor said to be true,
and I take what you said to be true. And
I don't know, you know whatever, But that's think about it.
Speaker 6 (35:18):
It's nice. It's pretty smart to disguise a drug boat
as a fishing boat. That's I'm sure it was the
idea behind it. But I think I as far as i'mthing,
turned down their enemies in the United States, they're foreign enemies,
and we have to do what it takes to stop
that poison for coming in here.
Speaker 2 (35:35):
Yeah, if it was a fishing boat, I think that
that would have been better for the Coastguard. I was.
I'm more supportive of when they're going after these uh
these speedboats.
Speaker 6 (35:44):
Yes, yes, well yeah, okay, me too, speedboats.
Speaker 2 (35:48):
Yeah, Steve, I appreciate it. Let me I just kind
of try to get one more in here. I wish
you had called a little earlier and I could have
got more people.
Speaker 6 (35:56):
Well, I was gone for a while waiting. But it's okay,
damn give it took no.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
I understand that it's just that I should have gotten
to the call. Is that's really my mistake? Sooner for
all right, for this segment. But you've made your point
pretty clear. Steve. Yes, I think you've made you as
you always do. Thank you so much.
Speaker 6 (36:16):
All right, Thank you, Dan, thank you.
Speaker 2 (36:18):
Let me get Tom and Lowell. Tom, you go right ahead.
You're all with Professor Mike Nagel.
Speaker 9 (36:24):
Hi, guys, thanks for having me. What a great conversation
this has been. I think you really touched on a
lot this whole conversation. I think the two main themes
that I took away from this was a United States intervention,
which I think we covered pretty clearly, and the use
of extra judicial killing.
Speaker 6 (36:40):
One big point I wanted to bring.
Speaker 10 (36:41):
Up was you guys talked about anwar Alilaki and the
killing of his son Aldulermont. I thought I was killed
two weeks later by Obama and Yemen in a drone
strike on a public Restaurantlake talk about an extra judicial
killing of an American citizen without Judge Jerry or Isle
and Obama just acting as executioner, but bringing up.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
The did we lose him here?
Speaker 9 (37:09):
I got a big conversation that no.
Speaker 4 (37:11):
As I talked about go right.
Speaker 2 (37:13):
To go right ahead, Tom, we're getting we're running out
of time, quick go ahead, yep.
Speaker 4 (37:17):
Uh was a lot of this isn't really even to
do with necessarily Venezuela, but it's the interests in Venezuela,
especially coming from Russia and China, which we really didn't
talk about. Yeah, it's sure we're killing the drug the
drug runners off the coast, and there could be the
legal argument here, but the pressure we're putting on here
(37:40):
is China and Russia. It's not necessarily Venezuela. We would
love the Nobel Peace Prize winner to take over for
Venezuela and she's more compliant with the United States interests.
But the real targets here is the geopolitical interest with
Russia and China, and I just don't think that needed
to be said.
Speaker 2 (37:57):
Okay, thank you very much for staying that. And I
appreciate it again. I wish I had more time for you, Tom,
but I will get to the calls. I got to
get to the callers more quickly. Thank you so much. Okay,
thanks Tom. Professor Nagel, Uh, let me mention the book
which is just out, if I'm not mistaken, Chasing Bandits
America's Law Long War on Terror. I think everybody should
(38:19):
get a chance to read it. Available Amazon and bookstores,
I assume. Tell me, is there any other way they
can get to it?
Speaker 3 (38:26):
Oh, Amazon, Barnes and Noble. Uh, it's through the University
of North Carolina Press their website. You can you can
order directly off.
Speaker 2 (38:36):
Do you have a website where people can reach you?
Speaker 5 (38:41):
No, I don't have my own.
Speaker 3 (38:43):
I don't have my own website. I'm on I'm on
the social media's so uh, you know, folks can find
me find me there.
Speaker 8 (38:50):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (38:50):
You know, it's Professor Michael Nagel, and it's spelled n
E A g l E, but it's professor. Thank you
so much for your time tonight. I enjoyed talking with you.
I really You've been a great guest and I'd love
to have you back.
Speaker 6 (39:07):
That would be great.
Speaker 3 (39:08):
Yeah, I appreciate the time, Dan and I appreciate to
get a chance to talk with your audience.
Speaker 2 (39:13):
Excellent. We'll talk again. We'll talk again. We get back
on and talk with doctor Chloe Carmichael about free speech
because she thinks free speech matters, and so do I.
Coming back on Night Side,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com