The U.S. Pentagon deployed a military aircraft disguised to resemble a civilian plane in a September 2, 2025 attack on a boat in the southern Caribbean Sea, killing 11 people, according to a January 12, 2026 report by The New York Times. The aircraft was painted in civilian colors and carried munitions internally to complete the deception, flying low enough for the boat's occupants to identify it before the strike.
The operation has triggered accusations of perfidy—the war crime of feigning protected status to kill adversaries—from former senior military legal officials. The revelation places this single incident within a broader pattern of lethal maritime strikes that has already drawn condemnation from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights as potential extrajudicial killings, as detailed in previous Crisis Zone reporting.
Crossing the line from combat to criminality
The prohibition against perfidy exists to preserve the distinction between civilian and military objects in armed conflict. By painting a military strike aircraft to resemble a civilian plane, U.S. forces allegedly exploited protections designed to safeguard non-combatants. Steven J. Lepper, former deputy judge advocate general of the U.S. Air Force, stated the act could constitute a war crime under both international and U.S. military law.
The deception appears central to the operation's success. According to the Times report, the aircraft flew at sufficiently low altitude for those on the boat to visually identify it as civilian, creating a false sense of safety. This alleged tactic distinguishes the September 2nd incident from conventional airstrikes, where targets typically receive no warning but face no deliberate misrepresentation of the attacking platform's status.
The Pentagon responded with a blanket statement that its operations "comply with the laws of armed conflict and are conducted in a manner consistent with international humanitarian law," without addressing the specific perfidy allegation. This generalized denial contrasts with the detailed legal concerns raised by former military legal officials who spent careers interpreting and enforcing those same laws.
Members are reading: Analysis of how the disguised aircraft tactic exposes fatal contradictions in the administration's legal framework for extrajudicial killings.
Eroding the laws we claim to uphold
The September 2nd strike sits within a broader campaign that continues to generate international legal challenges. Recent reporting details mounting scrutiny over alleged "double-tap" strikes and questions of state responsibility that extend beyond individual incidents to systemic practice.
When a state resorts to perfidy—one of the clearest prohibitions in the laws of war—it signals more than tactical desperation. It reveals a willingness to dismantle the legal architecture that distinguishes lawful force from murder. The United States has historically prosecuted perfidy as a war crime when committed by adversaries. Applying that same standard to this incident requires asking who benefits when the state can kill without legal constraint, concealed behind false civilian markings. The answer determines whether laws of war retain meaning or become tools selectively deployed against the weak while ignored by the powerful.
Subscribe to our free newsletter to unlock direct links to all sources used in this article.
We believe you deserve to verify everything we write. That's why we meticulously document every source.
