By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A formal complaint has been filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) against the United States, marking the first of its kind concerning attacks against alleged drug-running boats. The complaint, filed by the family of Colombian fisherman Alejandro Carranza, who was identified by President Petro as a civilian killed in a U.S. strike, accuses Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth of ordering the attack. The petition alleges the U.S. violated human rights by carrying out an extrajudicial killing and violating the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. With over 80 casualties from the military campaign, the IACHR will now review the case and make recommendations.
Read the original article here
The family of Colombian fishermen, tragically killed in a military strike in the Caribbean, has filed a formal complaint against the United States, alleging a grave violation of human rights.
The crux of the complaint rests on the assertion that the United States, by authorizing and carrying out the attack, committed an extrajudicial killing. This, the family argues, directly contravenes the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, a foundational document outlining fundamental human rights within the Americas. The claim suggests a deliberate violation of these rights, focusing on the right to life, which is considered a cornerstone of international human rights law.
This situation raises serious questions about the nature of the operation. Was this a targeted strike based on credible intelligence, or was it a case of mistaken identity or collateral damage? The details surrounding the incident, including the targets, the evidence used to justify the strike, and the circumstances leading up to it, are crucial in determining the legality of the U.S. actions. The family’s complaint emphasizes the need for transparency and accountability.
A significant point of contention revolves around the concept of “illegal orders” within military doctrine. The claim suggests that, depending on the circumstances, the order to carry out the strike might have been manifestly illegal, and therefore, should have been refused by the soldiers. The legal and ethical considerations around this are extremely complex.
Furthermore, there is a discussion about the chain of command, as the ultimate responsibility and culpability extend beyond the individuals who pulled the trigger. The argument is that everyone in the chain of command, from those who gave the orders to those who executed them, could be held accountable. The degree of responsibility would vary depending on their level of knowledge and involvement in the planning and execution of the attack.
The defense raised regarding legal clearance, and also the soldiers being given a legal brief, adds another layer of complexity. The argument suggests that if the soldiers were told that their actions were legal, they should not be painted with the same brush as those who gave the orders. However, the legal system states that the courts determine whether it was legal or not.
The idea of a “legal clearance” defense, although plausible, may not be a complete protection. It’s suggested that, if any of the soldiers suspected that the orders were illegal, they should be punished.
The debate further delves into the nuances of military training, particularly concerning soldiers’ understanding of international law. Soldiers are trained to follow orders and are not necessarily legal experts. The question becomes how much responsibility should be assigned to the soldiers who executed the order versus those who authorized it. The argument presented is that the person who pulled the trigger isn’t necessarily a lawyer or legal scholar and the soldiers have been told that, if the lawyers say it’s ok, it’s ok.
There is a suggestion that there is no precedent in international courts where “legal clearance” has been an absolute defense.
The core argument of this perspective is that the soldiers deserve a trial and the chance to present a defense, with a focus on legal clearance. The aim of this opinion is to focus on the soldiers’ rights to a fair trial.
Ultimately, the focus of the complaint is on the alleged extrajudicial killing and the resulting violation of human rights, specifically the right to life. The case will likely hinge on the investigation and the resulting facts, revealing a clearer understanding of the details surrounding the events and the context of the actions.