Pentagon ‘used top-secret disguised plane’ to attack drug boat… but its appearance means America may have committed a ‘war crime’, retired major general claims

The first deadly US strike on an alleged narcoterrorist boat in the Caribbean was reportedly launched by a military plane disguised as a civilian aircraft in what one expert labelled a ‘war crime.’

The September 2 strike that killed 11 was ordered by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who claimed that every person on the supposed drug trafficking ship was on a military target list. 

In addition to the plane being disguised, the Pentagon also hid the munitions by not visibly carrying them under the craft’s wings. Ever since, the military has started using MQ-9 Reaper drones and more traditional military aircraft. 

Retired Maj. Gen. Steven J. Lepper told The New York Times that these acts of subterfuge may have led the US to commit an offence known as ‘perfidy,’ which is a war crime. 

‘Shielding your identity is an element of perfidy. If the aircraft flying above is not identifiable as a combatant aircraft, it should not be engaged in combatant activity,’ said Lepper, who served as a deputy judge advocate general for the United States Air Force. 

By claiming that the US is engaged in an armed struggle with narcoterrorists, the Trump administration has justified the strikes’ legitimacy.

‘The U.S. military utilises a wide array of standard and nonstandard aircraft depending on mission requirements,’ Pentagon spokesperson Kingsley Wilson said in a statement.

‘Prior to the fielding and employment of each aircraft, they go through a rigorous procurement process to ensure compliance with domestic law, department policies and regulations, and applicable international standards, including the law of armed conflict.’ 

The Daily Mail’s request for a response was turned down by a US Southern Command spokeswoman. A request for comment from the White House was not answered.

The Department of War’s communications account shared a post by Lee Zeldin, the current EPA Administrator.

 Zeldin, who taught the law of armed conflict in the US Army, called the claims idiotic.

‘What the military can’t do is add certain symbols to pretend the plane is the Red Cross, UN, or something otherwise protected,’ Zeldin explained.

‘Likewise, if you paint a Delta or American Airlines logo on the side, for example, that feigns a civilian aircraft.’

He then determined: ‘A military plane not having any of these symbols at all doesn’t just make it a de facto civilian aircraft, no matter how much TDS has overwhelmed your system.’ 

Multiple sources told The New York Times that the aircraft’s transponder was sending along a military tail number. 

But retired Navy Captain Todd Huntley said that would not solve the perfidy issue and still remain legally tenuous, and added this sort of aircraft was not meant to be used for offensive attacks.

‘The critical question is whether there is a credible alternative reason for using an unmarked aircraft to conduct the attack other than exploiting apparent civilian status to gain some tactical advantage,’ added Geoffrey Cron, a retired lieutenant colonel JAG officer.

It’s not known what type of plane was used in the strike, but users of r/Aviation have suggested they could be modified 737s. 

The September 2 strike started a series of at least 35 boat attacks that have killed 123 people.

Legal experts say the attack in question could be a crime if the survivors were targeted. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have demanded accountability. 

Admiral Frank ‘Mitch’ Bradley told lawmakers in early December that all of those onboard were known to officials as narco-terrorists and as such could be lethally targeted, according to NBC News.

The admiral reportedly testified that the list includes individuals who are eligible for being targeted with lethal action if the opportunity should arise, two officials and one other source told the network.

All 11 on board the boat that was hit on September 2 had been identified, Bradley reportedly told lawmakers.

The admiral was called to Capitol Hill to answer questions from concerned lawmakers over the legality of the strike.

The sources also told NBC News that Bradley made it clear in these meetings that he acted legally throughout the bombing. 

Bradley said that he carried out orders from Hegseth as instructed, killing everyone on the list, destroying the drugs onboard and sinking the boat, the sources added.

It emerged that some onboard survived the initial strike. Bradley confirmed this to lawmakers, adding that a third and fourth strike followed to sink the boat. 

Earlier that month, Hegseth spoke at the Reagan Defence Forum and brought up the operation.

He also outlined the country’s defence priorities and attacked the post-Cold War foreign policy of the nation. 

The secretary also said the age of American ‘utopian idealism’ was over, while demanding allies now defend themselves and suggested a shift in policy regarding China’s defence. 

‘Out with idealistic utopianism. In with hard-nosed realism’, he told those who gathered at the defence forum, Politico reported.

Hegseth also refused to back down over the strikes, saying: ‘If you bring drugs to this country in a boat, we will find you and we will sink you.’ 

He also confirmed that it was himself who gave the order, and confirmed he left the room five minutes after the first strike.

According to Hegseth, he was told that Bradley had ordered a second strike due to there being several survivors. Hegseth said he was told those who survived could ‘still be in the fight’, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Hegseth also said that he agreed with how Bradley carried out the attack, adding: I said, ‘Roger, sounds good.’

‘From what I understood then and what I understand now, I fully support that strike. I would have made the same call myself.’

Although the defence secretary is under increasing criticism, Donald Trump has supported Hegseth in his defence of how he handled the incident.

Hegseth has said the aftermath of an initial strike on the boat was clouded in the ‘fog of war.’

He has also said he ‘didn’t stick around’ for the second strike, but that Bradley ‘made the right call’ and ‘had complete authority’ to do it.

Democrats are asking that written records of Hegseth’s instructions and directives, as well as the whole attack video, be made public by the Trump administration.

While Republicans, who handle the national security committees, have not publicly called for those documents, they have pledged a thorough review.

Attacking a drug boat cannot be a war crime, but smuggling lethal drugs is a crime, and how did they know it was a drug boat – what did they have great big banners saying ‘Hey, we’re carrying drugs.’

But I suppose that if you blow up enough random boats, one of them will eventually be a drug boat, and really, how can it be a war crime if there isn’t a war? Furthermore, a boat operating in international seas without a flag is considered a pirate ship; this was propaganda and a ridiculous tale.

Some people might say that these mules don’t care about anybody else, so why should we care about them? And that they should just be blown to pieces. So, what should we do with these drug dealers? Should we just blow up their homes and kill them all? Since when did drug dealing become punishable by death, let alone with no arrest or trial?

Drug selling or distributing them is illegal, but it should not be punishable by death!