By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The New York Times reported that a US military aircraft was allegedly disguised as a civilian plane during a September strike on a suspected drug smuggling boat. This action raises concerns of a potential war crime, as the concealment of military insignia and weaponry could constitute an act of “perfidy” under international law. The report suggests the aircraft lacked military markings and swooped low enough for the targets to see it. The article further details the September 2nd attack, including the possibility of a “double tap” strike, and discusses subsequent boat strikes that were conducted with clearly marked military aircraft.
Read the original article here
US faces war crime allegation for ‘disguising’ aircraft in drug boat attack, and it’s certainly a headline grabber, isn’t it? The central issue appears to be whether the United States military, in an attack on a boat suspected of drug trafficking, used a disguised aircraft, potentially violating international laws of war. The core of the accusation, as presented by sources referencing the New York Times, centers around the claim that the aircraft involved was painted or otherwise modified to appear as something it wasn’t. This deception, if proven, could constitute a war crime, specifically if it violated the principle of distinction – the requirement to differentiate between combatants and civilians, and military objectives and civilian objects.
This idea of “disguising” the aircraft brings up a lot of questions. The comments suggest that the aircraft in question might have been painted in a way that mimicked a civilian plane. However, one of the central arguments against the allegation is that the plane’s transponder was still transmitting a military tail number. This is a critical detail because it contradicts the notion of a truly covert operation intended to deceive. The purpose of painting the plane doesn’t really have a clear motive.
Another key piece of the puzzle is the nature of the attack itself. Many of the comments seem more concerned about the indiscriminate nature of the attack, particularly the fact that the identities of the victims were unknown. The discussion is quickly derailed from the specific of the disguise to the morality of the act. The focus becomes an issue of shooting at people on a boat. The fact that the individuals killed were suspected of drug trafficking seems, to some, to muddy the waters in terms of legality. The core crime appears to be the act of killing people without a clear identification of who they are.
The skepticism of the claims is widespread. One common thread is doubt about the reporting itself, especially given the source. Al Jazeera is a news organization known for its bias. The fact that it is the source of the claim raises valid questions about its credibility. Doubts arise about the veracity of the claim, the lack of definitive evidence like pictures of the aircraft, and the overall context of the event. Another skepticism arises from the fact that it’s difficult to identify aircraft markings, especially in a combat scenario.
The nature of the Geneva Convention, international law, and the definition of “war” come into play. Some argue that this situation doesn’t neatly fit the criteria for a traditional war crime. If a country is not in a declared state of war, and the targets are not considered “lawful combatants,” then the same rules might not apply. Others counter that the principle of distinction applies regardless of the specific context.
Furthermore, some critics are pointing out the hypocrisy of focusing on the method of attack rather than the actual attack itself. It’s as if they are trying to distract from the central crime, which is the act of killing people on a boat. There is a sense that the allegations are designed to create a smokescreen, to divert attention from the more egregious act of extrajudicial killing. This seems to be the case when one of the main questions is if the war crime only applies to lawful combatants in actual wars between opposing sovereign states.
Some of the commenters also raise valid points about the impracticality of the alleged disguise. They question why the US military would go to such lengths, given the capabilities of their other technologies, like drones and long-range munitions, the idea of a disguised plane seems unnecessary. Others simply find the allegations laughable, or a distraction from real problems.
Finally, the lack of accountability in the context of international relations is pointed out. Several commenters ask who, exactly, would enforce any consequences if the US were found guilty of a war crime. The fact that the US is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court is brought up. The article ends up portraying a cynical view of how international law applies in practice.