Advocates push for major probe as US boat strikes in Latin America kill 157 | Donald Trump News
U.S. Military Strikes in the Caribbean Under Scrutiny as Experts Testify before IACHR
Washington, D.C. — In September, the United States initiated a series of military strikes against boats suspected of smuggling drugs in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific. Nearly six months later, details surrounding these operations remain scarce. The identities of approximately 157 individuals reported killed in these strikes have yet to be disclosed, with little evidence made public to support claims of their involvement in drug trafficking.
On Friday, a coalition of United Nations and international law experts is set to testify at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in a bid to shed light on these military actions. This hearing marks the first formal inquiry since the strikes began on September 2, and human rights advocates are hopeful it will facilitate greater accountability as legal cases linked to the strikes unfold.
Steven Watt, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s human rights program, outlined three goals for the upcoming testimony. “Our request will be for a fact-finding investigation into the ongoing situation,” he said. “The second objective is to assert that there is no armed conflict involved,” countering prior assertions from former President Donald Trump. Lastly, Watt expressed a desire for the hearings to promote transparency regarding the legal basis for the strikes.
The experts testifying argue that the IACHR possesses a unique mandate to investigate these incidents. Based in Guatemala City, the commission is recognized as an independent investigative body within the Organization of American States, which the U.S. helped found in 1948.
While the Trump administration has defended its military actions as part of a broader offensive against “narco-terrorists,” human rights groups have denounced the operations, describing them as extrajudicial killings. There is growing concern that these actions deprive victims of their right to due process.
Legal experts have also challenged the administration’s characterization of drug suspects as “unlawful combatants” in an armed conflict. Limited information has emerged from the strikes, but several families have come forward to report the deaths of their loved ones. Among the victims reportedly identified are 26-year-old Chad Joseph and 41-year-old Rishi Samaroo, who were killed in October while returning to Trinidad and Tobago. Additionally, the family of 42-year-old Colombian national Alejandro Carranza claims he was killed in a strike targeting his fishing boat.
To date, the U.S. government has not confirmed the identities of the deceased, and only two survivors have been recovered from the 45 reported strikes.
Experts like Watt emphasize the importance of establishing clarity regarding the incidents. “The IACHR is uniquely positioned to uncover the identities of those who were killed,” he noted. “We know the numbers but not the names or backgrounds.”
Historically, the IACHR has led investigations into various human rights issues throughout the Americas. The commission’s ability to levy resolutions or refer cases to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is well-documented, including recent actions against Peru for its forced sterilization campaign in the 1990s.
Both the Carranza family and the families of Joseph and Samaroo are pursuing legal remedies through the IACHR and U.S. courts, seeking accountability for the military actions. Angelo Guisado, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, emphasized the need for full transparency to prevent future violations.
Guisado also pointed out that the U.S. administration had framed the drug trade as a significant national security threat, equating certain cartels to “foreign terrorist organizations.” Last week, White House security adviser Stephen Miller reiterated that traditional criminal justice approaches would not suffice to address the threat posed by these groups, advocating for military action instead.
However, Guisado noted that the administration has largely failed to substantiate claims linking drug traffickers to broader efforts to destabilize the U.S., cautioning against the misuse of national security narratives to justify lethal actions.
Experts remain hopeful that the IACHR will draw a clear distinction between drug-related crimes and armed conflict. Watt stated, “Even if there were an armed conflict, the laws of war would still prohibit the conduct the U.S. is currently engaging in.”
Friday’s hearing is seen as an initial step toward accountability, though skepticism remains about the efficacy of the IACHR given the U.S. government’s historical resistance to international human rights inquiries. The U.S. is not a party to the International Criminal Court and has not ratified the American Convention on Human Rights, complicating potential enforcement of any IACHR resolutions.
U.S. government representatives are scheduled to appear at the hearing, but whether they will provide substantial legal justification for the strikes remains uncertain. The Department of Justice has yet to disclose the official rationale for the military actions, deepening the inquiries into the Trump administration’s legal framework for these strikes.
“This will be an opportunity for the U.S. to present its case to the commission,” Watt said. “However, it will ultimately depend on the level of cooperation from the U.S. government.”
