The Daily Populous Tuesday January 13rd, 2026 evening edition
Authored by aljazeera.com and submitted by Disastrous_Award_789

The New York Times says the US allegedly painted its military aircraft like a civilian plane to conduct a September strike.

The United States military allegedly disguised one of its aircraft as a civilian plane to attack a suspected drug smuggling boat coming from Venezuela, according to a report in The New York Times.

In an article published late on Monday, the newspaper noted that the incident raises questions about the possible commission of a war crime.

There was no immediate reaction from the White House following the publication of the report.

The article focuses on the first known attack in the boat-bombing campaign President Donald Trump launched on September 2 in the southern Caribbean Sea.

At the time, Trump announced on his platform Truth Social that the initial attack killed 11 people, whom he accused of being “narcoterrorists”.

But the New York Times report suggests the plane used in the military operation was painted to look like a civilian vessel, with its missiles tucked away in the fuselage, instead of instead of being carried visibly under its wings.

Such an act of disguise could be considered a war crime under the laws governing armed conflict, the article said.

The newspaper quoted a retired deputy judge advocate general for the US Air Force, Major General Steven Lepper, as saying the concealment of military insignia and weaponry could constitute an act of “perfidy”, a deceptive tactic forbidden under international law.

“Shielding your identity is an element of perfidy,” Lepper told the Times. “If the aircraft flying above is not identifiable as a combatant aircraft, it should not be engaged in combatant activity.”

The report did not say who ordered the military plane to be disguised.

But three sources told The New York Times that “it was painted in the usual military grey and lacked military markings”. Still, its transponder was transmitting a military tail number.

The report, if true, offers new details that complicate the narrative around the Trump administration’s boat-bombing campaign and the inaugural September 2 strike.

The Trump administration has repeatedly argued that attacking the boats is necessary to prevent illicit drugs from reaching US shores from South America.

In a memo to Congress, Trump also indicated that he considers the US to be in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels, whom he described as unlawful combatants.

However, there is no legal basis for such a determination, and drug trafficking is considered a criminal offence, not equivalent to an armed attack.

Human rights experts, including at the United Nations, have also characterised the attacks as an act of extrajudicial killing and a violation of international law.

In describing the September 2 attack, Trump accused the targets of being members of the Tren de Aragua criminal organisation “operating under the control” of Venezuela’s then-President Nicolas Maduro.

The US military earlier this month abducted Maduro and brought him to New York to face criminal charges related to drug trafficking.

A brief 29-second video accompanied Trump’s announcement of the attack, showing a boat engulfed in a single blast.

But in December, The Washington Post reported that the attack had instead been a “double tap”, with US Navy Admiral Frank Bradley allegedly authorising a second missile blast to kill two previously unreported survivors.

That reporting likewise raised concerns that a war crime had taken place, as it is considered illegal to attack shipwrecked adversaries even in a wartime context.

The new report from The New York Times raises further questions about that “double-tap” strike, including whether the survivors might have saved themselves had the aeroplane’s military markings been visible.

The sources told the Times that the aircraft swooped in low enough for the people on board the boat to see it.

“Two survivors of the initial attack later appeared to wave” at the disguised aircraft while clinging to wreckage, the Times reported. The second strike then killed them.

The newspaper contrasted their reactions to those of survivors in a later attack on October 16.

The initial blast in that October attack likewise left two survivors – but those survivors swam away after the first strike hit. They were later retrieved from the water and repatriated to their home countries, Colombia and Ecuador.

Members of Congress have been shown an extended video of the September 2 attack, and the Times reported that questions about perfidy were privately raised during closed-door briefings with military leaders.

“US military manuals about the law of war discuss perfidy at length, saying it includes when a combatant feigns civilian status so the adversary ‘neglects to take precautions which are otherwise necessary’,” the Times said.

The newspaper, however, pointed out that the US military has switched to clearly marked military aircraft, including MQ-9 Reaper drones, to conduct subsequent boat strikes after the September 2 attack.

It also quoted Trump administration officials as defending the military actions as well within the US government’s legal authority. The Trump administration has denied taking any illegal actions at any point in the boat-bombing campaign.

At least 35 strikes have been conducted in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean since September 2, with as many as 114 people killed and one presumed dead.

IndividualSkill3432 on January 13rd, 2026 at 11:50 UTC »

Well respected OSINT people were very sceptical of this this morning. I can't say if it's true or not, just it seems to be pretty fishy.

It's not like they have been trying to hide what they have been doing up till now. Nor do they really need to go to these lengths. You can drop munitions from so high and far away that no one is going to spot something like the F-18 doing it.

I can't say it did not happen, but Id be waiting for solid evidence before starting to take it seriously.

Zdrack on January 13rd, 2026 at 11:49 UTC »

Im still waiting to see a single picture of this alleged plane, because the only ones ive found online so far still say us navy in big letters on the side

BlockQuiet6210 on January 13rd, 2026 at 11:28 UTC »

I don’t support this action, but everything I’ve heard of this seems so vague. The only aircraft that comes to mind is perhaps a P-8 Poseidon??