US military aircraft ‘disguised as civilian’ in Venezuela boat strike, NYT reports

The United States military allegedly disguised one of its aircraft as a civilian plane during a deadly strike on a suspected drug-smuggling boat travelling from Venezuela, a move that could amount to a war crime under international law, according to an investigation by The New York Times.

In a report published late on Monday, the newspaper said the aircraft involved in the 2 September strike in the southern Caribbean Sea was painted to resemble a civilian plane and concealed its weaponry inside the fuselage, rather than carrying missiles visibly under its wings. The report said such deception could constitute “perfidy”, a tactic prohibited under the laws of armed conflict.

The strike marked the first known attack in a boat-bombing campaign launched by US President Donald Trump, who announced at the time that 11 people had been killed, describing them as “narcoterrorists”. The White House did not immediately respond to the newspaper’s findings.

According to the Times, the aircraft lacked visible military markings, although its transponder was transmitting a military tail number. Three sources told the newspaper the plane was painted in standard military grey but bore no insignia identifying it as a combat aircraft.

Major General Steven Lepper, a retired deputy judge advocate general of the US Air Force, told the Times that concealing military identity during combat operations could breach international law. “If the aircraft flying above is not identifiable as a combatant aircraft, it should not be engaged in combatant activity,” he said, describing such concealment as an element of perfidy.

The report adds new complexity to the Trump administration’s justification for the boat-bombing campaign, which it has said is aimed at preventing illicit drugs from reaching US shores. Trump has argued that the United States is engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels, whom he has labelled unlawful combatants

Legal experts, however, have questioned that position, noting that drug trafficking is treated under international law as a criminal offence rather than an armed conflict. United Nations experts and human rights groups have previously described the strikes as potential extrajudicial killings.

Further controversy surrounds the September 2 attack following earlier reporting by The Washington Post, which said the strike involved a so-called “double tap”. According to that report, a second missile was fired to kill two survivors of the initial blast, a practice considered illegal under the laws of war, which prohibit attacks on shipwrecked individuals.

The New York Times said two survivors of the first strike were seen waving at the low-flying aircraft while clinging to wreckage, before a second missile killed them. The newspaper contrasted this with a later strike on 16 October, when survivors of an initial blast swam away and were later rescued and repatriated to Colombia and Ecuador.

The report said members of the US Congress were shown extended footage of the 2 September strike and that concerns about possible perfidy were raised privately during classified briefings with military officials.

Following the initial attack, the US military reportedly shifted to using clearly marked military aircraft, including MQ-9 Reaper drones, for subsequent strikes. Since 2 September, at least 35 strikes have been carried out in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, with as many as 114 people killed and one presumed dead.

Trump administration officials told the Times that the campaign falls within the government’s legal authority and denied that any illegal actions were taken. However, the latest revelations are likely to intensify scrutiny of the legality and conduct of the US anti-narcotics operations at sea.