Besides the fact that evidence doesn't work that way, the Administration has options here if they actually believed those were drug boats. The 50BMG rifle exists to put a big hole in an engine block. There are snipers good enough to make that shot at a few hundred yards in a helicopter.

They choose to use a much more expensive missile that just so happens to obliterate any evidence.

They're just killing random fishers.

A lack of evidence of innocence isn't the same thing as evidence of guilt.

Even if they were guilty of smuggling drugs, using missiles to murder them is excessive force.

It pains me to give trump the benifit of doubt greatly

then don't?

but I'd love to see some solid evidence of it not being drug smugglers

it's pretty hard to get evidence from an exploded small boat, sunk in the ocean… not counting that proving negatives is fairly hard (which is why that's not how evidence works)… how do you "prove" to me you are not a drug smuggler?

Everyone already explained why your view on this issue is misguided, so I'll just add one thing: even if these people are guilty of drug smuggling, that is not a crime that's punishable by death in the United States.

Yeah that's not how evidence works. The onus is on him to provide evidence that they are drug boats, which should be trivial for the largest military in the world.

Why would you ever give him the benefit of the doubt here?

Completely agree. I think that they'd be waving it about if they did.