The press has been insistent on undermining the president on virtually every one of his policies, and they have been intent for over a year now to bring down Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. When those two efforts are brought together, the excitable reports are sure to flow. On the subject of Venezuelan actions, the journalists have crossed the streams and leaned into a full-throttle opposition program.
The accusations of impropriety have been flying regarding all military maneuvers involving that country. Seizing illegal tankers, removing the authoritarian Maduro, and targeting the drug trade have all been challenged and criticized.
Venezuelan Opposition Leader Machado Shares Who She Thinks Should Lead After Maduro Capture
Drug Boat Bafflement and Drone Dysphoria - Media Trapped Themselves Trying to Implicate Pete Hegseth
All the more hysterical have been the charges of war crimes being committed. This has been a hotly contested narrative in accusing Hegseth and the administration of committing violations of war standards by hitting drug boats a second time and taking the lives of survivors. Now comes the newest charge at this level.
The New York Times details that aircraft used in at least one of these strikes had been illegally disguised or painted to resemble a domestic and innocent aircraft. The accusation is that this is an act of perfidy when hostile actors disguise themselves as either civilians or performers of relief efforts. As a general example, vehicles and military members are forbidden from resembling the Red Cross during wartime efforts.
The Times stipulated that a plane used to target drug boats off the coast of Venezuela had been camouflaged in this illegal manner.
The Pentagon used a secret aircraft painted to look like a civilian plane in its first attack on a boat that the Trump administration said was smuggling drugs, killing 11 people last September. The laws of armed conflict prohibit combatants from feigning civilian status to fool adversaries into dropping their guard, then attacking and killing them. That is a war crime called “perfidy.”
This new report is, as expected, based on the details provided by “officials briefed on the matter.” Apart from all the anonymous sources, one former military official was actually named and gave his assessment:
Retired Maj. Gen. Steven J. Lepper, a former deputy judge advocate general for the United States Air Force, said that if the aircraft had been painted in a way that disguised its military nature and got close enough for the people on the boat to see it… that was a war crime under armed-conflict standards. “If the aircraft flying above is not identifiable as a combatant aircraft, it should not be engaged in combatant activity.”
The use of “if” in that passage is rather striking. Here we are being presented with the severe charge of war crimes having taken place, but with it comes a subjective use of language. In hedging on a direct accusation, it shows hesitancy, and then we see that this is for a good reason.
After explaining at length about the definition of perfidy and then detailing the mission and use of this alleged illegal aircraft, we find a disqualifying detail buried deep in this report. It takes over a dozen paragraphs before we get details about this contested plane that is at the center of the accusations. That is to say, we get no details about this supposed illegal aircraft.
It is not clear what the aircraft was. While multiple officials confirmed that it was not painted in a classic military style, they declined to specify exactly what it looked like.
This... is... amazing, in a ludicrous manner. The war crime accusation is thrown about freely, but there is no confirmation on the aircraft used, or the fashion that it had supposedly been deceptively displayed. Making this malpractice all the more asinine, the Times lists no fewer than half a dozen reporters on this article, yet none were capable of delivering any of the needed details to hold up their accusation. With that level of effort, nobody could get at least one official or expert to describe the plane in question? No description of how it was displayed in an unapproved fashion? The article is thus meritless.
This report calls to mind a story from last October, when the press was occupied with accusing Border Czar Tom Homan of taking a bribe of $50,000. Details were reported on, and the charge was the transaction was recorded. Except, it was all based on (once again) anonymous sources, who simply are described as being “familiar with the probe.” No actual evidence was given, and the reporters never saw direct evidence, and their sources did not even stipulate seeing the evidence. It was so bad that reporters could not even agree on what type of non-evidence was cited; some were said to be based on audio recordings, but others stated Homan had been caught “on camera.”
The Tom Homan Bribery Story Has the Press Convinced of His Guilt – Despite the Lack of Evidence
This is not journalism. This is “take our word for it,” hearsay and rumor. One reporter even defended the report by stating they spoke with numerous experts confirming what constitutes perfidy in this instance, but still never gave the actual instance of what is accused. Six journalists cobbled together what amounts to a 1,200-word innuendo.
When you have no idea of what plane was used, and no actual description of how it was illegally altered in appearance, something else is lacking.
You also have no story.
Editor's Note: The mainstream media continues to deflect, gaslight, spin, and lie about President Trump, his administration, and conservatives.
Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member