The Pentagon secretly used a military plane painted to look like a civilian plane on September 2 in its first attack on a ship the Trump administration said was carrying drugs, killing 11 people, according to officials familiar with the matter. The plane also carried its munitions inside the fuselage, rather than under its wings, they added.
Published at
PHOTO MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE ARCHIVES
A U.S. Navy plane lands at José Aponte de la Torre Airport, Puerto Rico, last December.
The fact that the plane did not resemble a military aircraft is crucial, legal experts say, as the administration has claimed its attacks on boats were legal — not murder — as President Donald Trump “determined” that the United States was at war with drug cartels.
But laws on armed conflict prohibit combatants from pretending to be civilians to deceive their opponents into lowering their guard, before attacking and killing them. This is a war crime, called “perfidy”.
“Concealing one’s identity is an act of perfidy,” said retired Maj. Gen. Steven J. Lepper, former deputy judge advocate general of the United States Air Force.
If the aircraft flying overhead is not identifiable as a combat aircraft, it should not be participating in combat activities.
Steven J. Lepper, retired major general and former deputy judge advocate general of the United States Air Force
The plane flew low enough that people on the boat could see it, according to officials who saw video of the attack or were briefed on it. The boat reportedly turned back toward Venezuela, apparently after sighting the plane, shortly before the first strike.
Two survivors of the initial attack then appeared to wave at the plane after climbing aboard an overturned part of the hull, before they were killed in an additional strike which sank the wreckage. It is unclear whether these survivors knew that the first explosion on their ship was caused by a missile.
Since then, the army has decided to change its method and use planes clearly identifiable as military for strikes against boats.
Media relations for U.S. Special Operations Command — whose chief, Admiral Frank M. Bradley, led the Sept. 2 operation — declined to comment on the nature of the aircraft used in the attack.
“The U.S. military uses a wide range of standard and non-standard aircraft depending on mission needs,” Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson said in response to questions from New York Times. “Prior to entry into service and use, each aircraft undergoes a rigorous process to ensure compliance with national law, department policies and regulations, and applicable international standards, including the law of armed conflict. »
For its part, the White House did not respond to requests for comment.
A military identity broadcast by radio signal
The exact nature of this aircraft is not entirely clear. While several officials confirmed that it was not painted in a classic military style, they declined to specify what exactly it looked like.
In early September, aviation enthusiasts posted photos on Reddit of what appeared to be a modified Army 737, painted white with a blue stripe and without military markings, at St. Croix Airport in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Three people familiar with the matter acknowledged that the plane used was not painted the usual military gray and did not have military markings. But they said his transponder transmitted a military registration number, that is, he broadcast his military identity by radio signal.
Several law of war experts said this did not make the use of such an aircraft legal in these circumstances, because the people on the boat likely did not have the equipment necessary to pick up this signal.
In the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean, the US military has killed at least 123 people in 35 attacks on boats, including that of September 2.
Many experts on the law governing the use of force have reiterated that the army is not authorized to target civilians who do not pose an immediate threat, even if they are suspected of having committed crimes.
The administration argued that the strikes were legal and that those on the boats were “combatants,” as Trump declared the situation an armed conflict between the United States and a secret list of 24 criminal gangs and drug cartels that he called terrorists.
The legitimacy of this claim is widely contested.
This article was published in the New York Times.
Read the original version (in English; subscription required)
