Family of Colombian fisherman killed in US boat strike alleges murder in complaint
The family of Colombian fisherman Alejandro Carranza, who was killed in a U.S. military boat strike in September, has filed a formal complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights alleging that the U.S. government unlawfully killed him. The petition, submitted Tuesday, claims Carranza was killed in the Caribbean on Sept. 15.
According to the filing, Carranza’s lawyer, Dan Kovalik, stated the family “has no recourse to adequate and effective remedies in Colombia to obtain redress for the injuries they have suffered due to the actions of the United States.” The petition also accused U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of ordering the strike despite not knowing the identities of those on the targeted boats. While the commission can investigate and issue findings, any ruling would not be legally binding on the U.S. government.
Colombian President Gustavo Petro has publicly condemned the strike, saying Carranza “had no ties to the drug trade and his daily activity was fishing” and calling the U.S. actions a violation of Colombia’s sovereignty. U.S. officials said three people were killed in the Sept. 15 strike. At the time, President Donald Trump defended the operation, claiming the targeted boat was smuggling drugs from Venezuela and Colombia and noting the discovery of narcotics in the water after the strike.
Since September, Trump and Hegseth have authorized more than 20 military strikes against suspected drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. The campaign, which the administration claims targets drug trafficking, has killed over 80 people. Hegseth maintains that the operations are legal and asserts the military has evidence of illicit cargo on the boats.
Some members of Congress from both parties have questioned whether the strikes were constitutional and whether they might violate the laws of war. Reports indicate that survivors of an initial Sept. 2 strike were killed in a follow-up attack, raising concerns that war crimes may have occurred. Hegseth has defended the strikes, stating he saw the first attack unfold but was not present for the subsequent action, which was ordered by an admiral he said made the “right call.”
Comments
Post a Comment