The American plane used in the attack on a boat was disguised as a civilian plane, contrary to Pentagon regulations
Listen to this article
About 6 minutes
The audio version of this article is generated by AI-based technology. Pronunciation errors may occur. We work with our partners to continually review and improve results.
The plane used by the U.S. military to strike a boat accused of drug trafficking off the coast of Venezuela last fall was painted to look like a civilian plane, a decision that appears to be at odds with the Pentagon’s manual on the laws of war.
The plane, part of a secret US fleet used in surveillance operations, also carried munitions in the fuselage rather than under the plane, raising questions about the extent to which the operation was disguised in a manner contrary to military protocol.
Details of the plane’s appearance, first reported Monday by The New York Times, were confirmed by two people familiar with the matter who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive topic.
Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson said in a statement that “the U.S. military uses a wide range of standard and non-standard aircraft depending on mission requirements.”
The Trump administration is facing new pressure from some Republican lawmakers who are demanding that footage of a controversial second strike against an alleged Venezuelan drug boat in the Caribbean be made public.
The new details come after the Trump administration’s pressure campaign on Venezuela — which began with a marshaling of military resources in Latin America and the attack on a series of suspected drug trafficking boats, killing at least 115 people — culminated this month with a stunning raid that captured its leader, Nicolás Maduro. He and his wife traveled to the United States to face federal drug trafficking charges, to which they pleaded not guilty.
Alarmed by the actions, the U.S. Senate is preparing to vote this week on a war powers resolution that would ban further military action in Venezuela without lawmakers’ authorization.
Trump ‘excited’ by possible backlash
US President Donald Trump was so infuriated by the Senate’s possible rollback on his war powers that he aggressively called several Republican senators who joined Democrats in voting for the resolution last week. It should be subject to a final vote on Wednesday.
“He was very, very excited,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who did not vote for the resolution. He described Trump as “animated” on the subject when they spoke before last week’s vote.
To justify the boat strikes since September, the Trump administration has argued that the United States is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels in the region and that those operating the boats are illegal combatants.
The White House confirmed it authorized a second airstrike on a suspected Venezuelan drug boat in September, but denied ordering everyone on board to be killed, which would be considered a war crime.
Military directives prohibit civilian disguise
However, U.S. military guidelines on the laws of war prohibit troops from posing as civilians when engaging in combat. This practice is legally known as “perfidy.”
The U.S. Department of Defense manual, which runs to more than 1,000 pages, specifically notes that “feigning civilian status then attacking” is an example of this practice. An Air Force manual says the practice was prohibited because it means the enemy “neglects to take precautions that would otherwise be necessary.”
The US Navy manual explains that “attacking enemy forces while impersonating a civilian places all civilians at risk” and that sailors must use offensive force “within the bounds of military honor, particularly without resorting to perfidy.”
Wilson said each aircraft undergoes a “rigorous procurement process to ensure compliance with national legislation, departmental policies and regulations, and applicable international standards, including the law of armed conflict.”
The plane that was painted as a civilian aircraft was used in a Sept. 2 strike, the first in what would become a months-long campaign of deadly U.S. military strikes against suspected drug boats with policy and political ramifications for the Trump administration.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other senior officials were asked by Congress to address questions and concerns about these actions, particularly the first, as it involved a follow-up strike that killed two survivors who were clinging to the wreckage of the ship hit in the initial attack.
Legal experts have said the ensuing strike may have been illegal because striking shipwrecked sailors is considered against the laws of war. Some lawmakers have called on the Pentagon to release never-before-seen video of the operation, which Hegseth said it would not do.
At a Trump Cabinet meeting on Dec. 1, Hegseth said he “watched that first strike live” but left before the next strike.
Lawmakers demonstrated legal justification for Maduro’s ouster
Senators were able to examine Tuesday, in a confidential setting, the still undisclosed legal opinion from the White House for having used the army to oust Maduro. It has been described as a lengthy document outlining the Trump administration’s justifications.
As he exited the classified Capitol facilities, Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican who has long opposed U.S. military campaigns abroad, said none of the legal justifications should be kept secret.
“The legal and constitutional arguments should all be public, and it’s a terrible thing that all of this is kept secret because the arguments aren’t very good,” Paul said.
Democratic Senator Peter Welch said he did not have confidence in the legality of the Venezuelan operation and particularly in Trump’s plans to “run” the South American country. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said control would come from enforcing a quarantine on sanctioned oil tankers linked to Venezuela, as the United States asserts its power over the country’s oil.
“The question remains whether the use of the military can be used to bring a person to justice,” Welch said, calling Maduro “truly evil.”
The legal justification concerned the military action “but not the current reality that the president says we will be here for years and we will rule Venezuela,” Welch said.
