The Pentagon launches a new attack against a ship in the Pacific that leaves four dead

BarcelonaThe Pentagon launched another deadly attack early this morning against a vessel in the Caribbean that was allegedly carrying narcotics, killing four men. The U.S. Southern Command announced the attack in a statement, claiming that the "lawful kinetic strike" was carried out against a ship "operated by a designated terrorist organization." "Intelligence services confirmed that the vessel was carrying illicit narcotics and transiting a known drug trafficking route in the Eastern Pacific. Four male narco-terrorists aboard the vessel were killed," the statement, released via social media, added. This marks the 22nd attack carried out by the U.S. military against vessels in the Caribbean and the Pacific, bringing the death toll in this "campaign" to at least 87 since the attacks began in September.

These executions are taking place while the Pentagon is under scrutiny because of the September 2 attackAnd coinciding with the appearance before Congress of those directly responsible. That day, a missile struck the alleged drug-trafficking boat, but as the smoke cleared, the military saw that there were two survivors. It was then that the commander of the operation allegedly ordered a second attack, following the directives of the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth: "Kill them all." In total, 11 people accused of being drug traffickers died in This would be the first action by the Donald Trump administration in the declared "war" on drug trafficking.

This reconstruction of the events – made by the American newspaper The Washington Post Based on firsthand sources, this has raised many questions about the legality of the second attack. In an unusual break with Trump, Republican members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees joined Democrats in calling for a thorough joint investigation into the attack. Admiral Frank M. Bradley, who was head of the Joint Special Operations Command at the time, is expected to appear before Congress this Thursday. In a closed session, he will have to answer the concerns of the lawmakers, who will have access to videos, internal chats, and the alleged radio communications from the vessels in which, according to sources, the attack took place. New York TimesOne of the survivors reportedly called for help.

Since this matter has garnered media attention, the Pentagon has been quick to justify the action, claiming it was aimed at completely destroying the vessel, not the crew, citing a memorandum that supposedly provides them with legal cover. However, Hegseth asserted on Tuesday that he had witnessed the first US attack in real time but had not seen the survivors in the water or the second, lethal attack, which he described as having been carried out in "the fog of war." Nevertheless, he defended the actions of his subordinate, to whom he had delegated command of the operation: "Admiral Bradley made the right decision to finally sink the ship and eliminate the threat," he said. Trump rallied behind his men but claimed he was unaware of the second attack and that even if he had known, he would not have wanted it to happen.

What makes this case different from the rest is that several experts assert it could constitute a war crime. Until now, the United States administration has justified summary executions at sea by arguing that they are part of a "war" against drug cartels, which it classifies as armed groups. Under this pretext, rejected by many expertsThey consider people suspected of drug smuggling to be "combatants" and, therefore, legitimate military targets. That is, they can eliminate them without prior arrest or trial, as if they were on the battlefield.

But the second attack on September 2 might escape that legal logic constructed by the US administration. Killing shipwrecked people, even if they are enemies, is considered a war crime under international law. "This is the only attack we know of where, even if we accept the administration's position that the United States is in an armed conflict with these drug cartels, [the attack] would still be illegal under the laws of armed conflict, because the individuals were not fighting and were directors, and therefore," argues de Huey, of national security at Georgetown University Law Center, in an interview. The New YorkerIf the killings were proven to be illegal, charges of murder or war crimes could be brought against military or civilian leaders, who could then be prosecuted.

First formal complaint

Meanwhile, this week the family of a Colombian man killed in one of the US bombings filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The complaint, filed Tuesday by human rights lawyer Dan Kovalik, alleges that Colombian fisherman Alejandro Carranza died when the United States attacked his boat off the coast of Colombia on September 15. According to the lawyer, the attack was an extrajudicial killing in violation of Carranza's human rights. Pete Hegseth is named as the alleged author of the order and is considered "responsible for ordering the bombing of boats like Alejandro Carranza Medina's and the killing of everyone on board." Kovalik also claims that the Secretary of Defense's conduct was endorsed by the President of the United States. Trump claimed that the September 15 attack killed three "narco-terrorists from Venezuela" who were transporting drugs to the United States. But Kovalik maintains that Carranza, a Colombian citizen, was simply fishing for marlin and tuna when he died in the attack: "That's what he was doing. It was his profession and his calling."