The United States is facing questions after a report claimed the military disguised one of its aircraft as a civilian plane during a deadly strike on a suspected drug-smuggling boat in the Caribbean. The aircraft allegedly did not carry clear military markings. It also hid its weapons. Experts say this could violate the laws of war and could amount to a war crime. The claim has added to the growing controversy over the legality of these attacks.
What the report says about the aircraft and the Caribbean attack
The report says the aircraft used in the first strike in the Caribbean did not look like a normal military plane. Although it was painted grey, it did not have clear military markings and its missiles were hidden inside the plane. Because of this, people on the boat in the Caribbean could not easily tell that it was a combat aircraft, even though its tracking system was sending a military number.
This matters because the laws of war say fighters must be able to recognize who is attacking them. International law calls this kind of trick “perfidy,” which means pretending to be something else, like a civilian, to gain an advantage in an attack, and it is not allowed.
After the first explosion, two people were still alive and holding onto wreckage. Reports say they even waved at the aircraft, but a second strike soon followed and killed them. This kind of follow-up attack is often called a “double tap” and is widely criticized because it can kill survivors, which is not allowed even in war.
The report compares this with a later October attack, where two survivors swam away and were later rescued and sent home. This difference has raised more questions about whether the aircraft’s appearance changed how people reacted.
Why the legal and human rights questions are growing
The government says the boat strikes are part of a fight against powerful drug groups and has described these groups as more than just criminals. However, many legal experts disagree, saying that under international law, drug trafficking is a crime, not a reason for war. Human rights groups warn that killing people without a trial, especially outside a clear war zone, amounts to extrajudicial killing and seriously violates international rules.
The report says lawmakers watched a longer video of the September attack, and some privately questioned whether using a disguised aircraft counts as perfidy, which the laws of war forbid. Military rules also state that pretending to be a civilian during an attack is illegal because it puts everyone at greater risk.
Since September, forces have carried out dozens of similar strikes in the region, killing well over a hundred people and leaving one person still missing. After the first strike sparked controversy, the military reportedly changed its tactics and began using clearly marked aircraft, including drones. Even so, officials continue to defend the campaign and insist they broke no laws.
How the controversy is changing the public discussion
The new details have intensified the debate over the boat strike campaign. Supporters say the attacks are needed to stop drugs before they reach the country. Critics argue the authorities are causing too much human suffering and using illegal methods. Many people are especially troubled by claims that the military disguised an aircraft as a civilian one. The law protects civilian planes and ships. Blurring this line could put innocent lives at risk.
The report also keeps the focus on the September attack. A “double tap” strike followed the first explosion. Many see hitting survivors as crossing a serious line, even in wartime. People are now questioning whether those on the boat would have reacted differently. They may have acted differently if they had clearly known they were facing a military aircraft. This question has grown stronger because survivors in a later attack swam away and lived.
The government continues to say all actions in the campaign were legal. However, the claims about disguise, forbidden tactics, and the killing of survivors have turned this into a much bigger issue. It is no longer just about stopping drug smuggling. It is now a broader debate about the rules of war and the protection of civilians.
