US Aircraft Used in Attacking 'Drug Smuggling' Boat Disguised as Civilian Plane, Experts Claim War Crime
In a brazen move that has raised questions about the legitimacy of US actions in the Caribbean and Pacific, officials have confirmed that the Trump administration used a military aircraft disguised as a civilian plane to carry out an attack on a boat last September. The attack killed 11 people, according to a post by President Donald Trump on Truth Social.
The use of a civilian-disguised military aircraft, known as "perfidy," is widely regarded as a war crime. Experts argue that the Pentagon overstepped its bounds in disguising the plane and engaging in combatant activity without clearly identifying itself.
Retired Maj. Gen. Steven J. Lepper told The New York Times that shielding one's identity from adversaries is an essential element of perfidy. "If the aircraft flying above is not identifiable as a combatant aircraft, it should not be engaged in combatant activity," he said.
The US has claimed that its actions are legal under the laws of war, as they involve non-international armed conflicts against groups labeled as "narcoterrorists." However, some experts argue that this justification is flawed and does not justify the use of perfidy.
Todd Huntley, a retired Navy captain, added that even if the US had broadcast its military number through the transponder, it's unlikely that the boat targeted in the strike would have been able to receive the signal. The fact remains that the plane was disguised as a civilian vessel, raising concerns about its legitimacy.
The use of perfidy has sparked widespread debate among experts and raises questions about the Trump administration's approach to counter-narcotics efforts in the region. Geoffrey Corn, a former JAG and professor at Texas Tech University, noted that the US has previously charged Guantanamo Bay detainees for acts committed by combatants who exploited apparent civilian status.
"The critical question is whether there is a credible alternative reason for using an unmarked aircraft to conduct the attack other than exploiting apparent civilian status to gain some tactical advantage," Corn said. "It seems unlikely that this was a necessary measure, given the available alternatives."
The incident highlights concerns about the Trump administration's approach to counter-narcotics efforts and raises questions about the legitimacy of its actions in the Caribbean and Pacific.
In a brazen move that has raised questions about the legitimacy of US actions in the Caribbean and Pacific, officials have confirmed that the Trump administration used a military aircraft disguised as a civilian plane to carry out an attack on a boat last September. The attack killed 11 people, according to a post by President Donald Trump on Truth Social.
The use of a civilian-disguised military aircraft, known as "perfidy," is widely regarded as a war crime. Experts argue that the Pentagon overstepped its bounds in disguising the plane and engaging in combatant activity without clearly identifying itself.
Retired Maj. Gen. Steven J. Lepper told The New York Times that shielding one's identity from adversaries is an essential element of perfidy. "If the aircraft flying above is not identifiable as a combatant aircraft, it should not be engaged in combatant activity," he said.
The US has claimed that its actions are legal under the laws of war, as they involve non-international armed conflicts against groups labeled as "narcoterrorists." However, some experts argue that this justification is flawed and does not justify the use of perfidy.
Todd Huntley, a retired Navy captain, added that even if the US had broadcast its military number through the transponder, it's unlikely that the boat targeted in the strike would have been able to receive the signal. The fact remains that the plane was disguised as a civilian vessel, raising concerns about its legitimacy.
The use of perfidy has sparked widespread debate among experts and raises questions about the Trump administration's approach to counter-narcotics efforts in the region. Geoffrey Corn, a former JAG and professor at Texas Tech University, noted that the US has previously charged Guantanamo Bay detainees for acts committed by combatants who exploited apparent civilian status.
"The critical question is whether there is a credible alternative reason for using an unmarked aircraft to conduct the attack other than exploiting apparent civilian status to gain some tactical advantage," Corn said. "It seems unlikely that this was a necessary measure, given the available alternatives."
The incident highlights concerns about the Trump administration's approach to counter-narcotics efforts and raises questions about the legitimacy of its actions in the Caribbean and Pacific.
Idk what's more cringeworthy, the fact that they disguised a military plane as a civilian one or the dude who claims it's not a war crime 
. Like, come on guys, you're basically saying "surprise! We're going to blow up your boat!" 
. And now everyone's all like "oh, but we said it was legal under the laws of war"... yeah right 
. Can't make this stuff up. The whole thing reeks of some messed up game of cat and mouse where the cat is just gonna blow up the mouse anyway 
.
IT'S LIKE SOMETHING OUT OF A MOVIE, BUT IN REAL LIFE PEOPLE LOST THEIR LIVES BECAUSE THE US GOVERNMENT DECIDED TO USE A CIVILIAN-DISGUISED MILITARY AIRCRAFT TO ATTACK A BOAT. THAT'S JUST NOT RIGHT!!! 
You can't just fly around wearing a civilian disguise and then go all guns blazing 
.
. "It's for counter-narcotics efforts" yeah sure, that sounds about as legit as a Timeshare presentation 
. Like, the alternatives were all gone and we should just have done it their way? 
. I think there's been too much military flexing going around lately and someone needs to call them out on it 
like that's supposed to make it okay? I mean, I know the US has a history of doing questionable things in the name of national security, but this takes the cake. It just feels like they're trying to cover their tracks and avoid accountability.
it's like something out of a sci-fi movie. And we're supposed to just accept this behavior from our leaders? No way... 
It just seems like a big ol' mess to me... and those experts are all over this, saying it's a war crime... yeah, I agree with them 
! I mean, who does the US think they are? Disguising a military plane as a civilian one and attacking a boat like that? It's basically a war crime, right? 
I don't buy the whole "narcoterrorists" thing either. If it was that legit, wouldn't they at least have been able to broadcast their military ID or something?
It's all so suspicious.
11 people lost their lives because of a "misunderstanding" 
. I can understand why experts are saying it's a war crime... it feels like a reckless and careless act of violence 
. What's even more disturbing is that people are debating whether or not it was justified 
. Shouldn't we be focusing on finding alternative solutions instead of resorting to such drastic measures? 
, if they're saying it's for "non-international armed conflicts" that's just a cop-out. what even is the point of having laws of war if we can just make up excuses to break them? 
They said it was to stop some kind of boat smuggling, but using a plane that looks like a normal one? That's just not right 
this is just disgusting 
This is so disturbing 
, I can only imagine how devastating it must be for the families of those 11 people who lost their lives 
. The fact that the US used a military aircraft disguised as a civilian plane to carry out an attack is absolutely shocking 
. If we're not careful, we might be creating a culture where military planes can just pretend to be civilians whenever they want, which is terrifying 
.
. No more excuses, no more hiding behind bureaucratic loopholes 
you can't just pretend to be something you're not and get away with it. 
. I don't trust this one bit 
. And those experts are spot on 
, perfidy is a war crime and this incident raises serious concerns about the US's approach to counter-narcotics efforts.
. How can we trust our governments when they're willing to bend (or break) the rules like this? It's time for some real answers 
.
And now experts are saying it's basically a war crime? That's some heavy stuff right there.