Since September 2, the United States has been launching an intense campaign of attacks in the Caribbean Sea against ships supposedly used by drug trafficking mafias to bring drugs to their country. It is estimated that it has destroyed at least 35 ships, leaving 123 dead. He has never presented evidence that these narcos were, that the barges carried the cargo that he denounced. That’s why human rights and opposition groups talk about .
But those shadows over the operation, of which the president, Donald Trump, is proud, could be even greater: as the newspaper revealed this morning the Pentagon used a secret aircraft, painted to imitate a civilian plane, in its first attack. Washington said that the boat was carrying narcotics and that it killed its 11 crew members. According to officials familiar with the matter, the aircraft carried its ammunition inside the fuselage, rather than visibly under the wings. A fake to appear harmless.
The non-military appearance is significant, according to legal specialists, because the Administration has argued that its lethal attacks on vessels are lawful, not assassinations, because Trump “determined” that the US is in an armed conflict with drug cartels. He does not call it war, which is why he argues that he does not need the permission of Congress, which is required by Congress.
“However, the laws of war prohibit combatants from pretending to be civilians to deceive their adversaries and make them lower their guard, and then attack and kill them,” recalls the Times. That constitutes
For example, the newspaper speaks with retired General Steven J. Lepper, former deputy attorney general of the US Air Force, who claims that if the aircraft had been painted in a way that hid its military nature and had gotten close enough for the people on board to see it, tricking them into not realizing that they had to evade it or surrender to survive, that constituted a war crime by the standards of armed conflict. “Hide your identity is an element of perfidy,” he declared. “If the aircraft overflying is not identifiable as a combat aircraft, it should not engage in combat activities.”
It is not clear which plane it was. While several officials confirmed that it was not painted in the classic military style, they declined to specify its exact appearance used in this Operation Southern Spear.
What is perfidy
Perfidy in international law is a war crime defined by malicious deception to betray the trust of the adversary, inciting him to believe that he has protection and then kill, wound or capture him, seriously violating International Humanitarian Law. It is distinguished from tricks accepted in war (such as camouflage), because perfidy is a serious infraction, sanctioned by the , which uses protective signals (such as the white flag or emblems of the Red Cross) for war purposes, generating a risk for humanitarian work.
It is characterized by:
- Deception and betrayal: Acts that appear harmless or invite trust (e.g. feigning surrender, using protective emblems) to attack the enemy.
- Violation of International Law: It constitutes a serious infraction, such as treacherously killing or wounding, or improperly using flags of truce or humanitarian emblems.
- Tricks Distinction: Unlike stratagems (camouflage, disinformation), perfidy seeks to deceive the protection owed by IHL.
- Examples of perfidy: Making believe that a combatant is not a military objective to attack him, using the white flag of parliament to attack, using emblems of the Red Cross or the UN to cover up military operations.
- Legal consequences: Perfidy can be a war crime, with penalties applicable by national and international courts. It undermines confidence in humanitarian standards, jeopardizing future missions and the protection of combatants and civilians.
Image from the video released by the US War Department of the last attack on a ship in the Caribbean, on November 7, 2025.
The details of the operation
The aircraft attacked, says the NOWdescended enough for people on board to see it, according to several officials who saw or were briefed on surveillance footage of the attack. The boat had returned to Venezuela, apparently after seeing the plane, before the first attack.
Two survivors of the initial attack later appeared to salute the aircraft, after climbing onto an overturned piece of the hull, before the military shot them down in a subsequent attack that also sank the wreckage. It is unclear whether the first survivors knew that the explosion on their boat had been caused by a missile attack. There has also been controversy about this, about whether it was known that there were survivors and, instead of assisting them, they were auctioned off, something that the Secretary of Defense (renamed “of War”) has rejected.
“Since then, the Army has chosen to use recognizable military aircraft for attacks against vessels, including MQ-9 Reaper drones, although it is not clear whether these aircraft flew low enough to be seen,” the information details. In an attack on a boat in October, two survivors of an initial attack managed to swim away from the wreckage, thus avoiding being killed by a subsequent attack on the wreckage of their boat. The army rescued them and returned them to their countries of origin, Colombia and Ecuador.
According to people familiar with the matter, questions about perfidy have been raised in closed-door congressional briefings by military leaders but have not been publicly debated, because the aircraft is classified. Public debate has focused on a subsequent attack that killed the first two survivors, even though the law of war prohibits attacking shipwrecked people. No more.
The defense
When asked by the newspaper, the Pentagon insisted in a statement that its arsenal has been subjected to a legal review to guarantee its compliance with the laws of armed conflict. “The US military uses a wide range of standard and non-standard aircraft depending on mission requirements,” said Kingsley Wilson, Pentagon press secretary.
“Prior to the commissioning and employment of each aircraft, they undergo a rigorous procurement process to ensure compliance with national legislation, department policies and regulations, and applicable international standards, including the law of armed conflict.”
The White House has not responded.
Various specialists in laws governing the use of force have stated that Trump and Hegseth’s orders to attack the vessels were illegal and that the killings were murders. The military is not allowed to attack civilians who do not pose an imminent threat, even if they are suspected of crimes.
The government has argued that the attacks are lawful and that the people aboard the ships are “combatants” because Trump decided that the situation constituted an alleged non-international armed conflict – that is, a war against a non-state actor – between the US and a secret list of 24 criminal gangs and drug cartels that he considers terrorists. The legitimacy of this claim is widely questioned. Still, it has drawn attention to how certain attacks could have violated the laws of war.
The attacks occurred before, on January 3 and by order of President Trump, US military forces deployed near Venezuela entered the country to capture the leader of Caracas, who has been held in a federal prison in New York for ten days.
The operations against vessels attributed to drug trafficking have been questioned by analysts and by governments such as that of Colombia, which consider them a violation of international law and denounce that they have left more than a hundred dead without their link with organized crime having been publicly demonstrated.
