Crimes

Latest attack brings death toll from US strikes on vessels in the Pacific and Caribbean to at least 170 since September.

The ⁠United States military has ⁠carried out another attack on a vessel in the eastern Pacific, killing two people, in the latest deadly strike by US forces on boats that Washington alleges have links to Latin American drug trafficking cartels.

US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), which is responsible for Washington’s military operations in Latin America and the Caribbean, confirmed the attack in a post on social media late on Monday, claiming to have killed two “male narco-terrorists”, without providing any evidence.

SOUTHCOM claimed that, based on intelligence reports, the boat was “⁠transiting along known narco-trafficking routes ⁠in the ⁠Eastern Pacific” and was targeted with “a lethal kinetic strike” on the orders of US Commander General Francis L Donovan.

A grainy video clip released with the statement shows a stationary boat with outboard engines and what appear to be floats from fishing nets nearby. The boat comes under attack from the air and explodes into flames.

The attack marked the second day in a row that SOUTHCOM announced a deadly strike on boats in the Pacific. On Sunday, the US military said it blew up two boats in the eastern Pacific a day earlier, killing five people and leaving one survivor. It was not immediately clear what happened to the person who survived the attack, though SOUTHCOM said the US coastguard was notified.

With the attack on Monday, the US military has now killed at least 170 people in dozens of strikes on vessels in the eastern Pacific and Caribbean Ocean since September.

International law experts, human rights groups and regional governments have accused the administration of US President Donald Trump of carrying out extrajudicial killings in international waters, which have likely targeted civilians, often fishing crews, who do not pose an immediate threat to the US.

The Trump administration claims that such attacks are part of its war on drug trafficking cartels in Latin America, but has provided no solid evidence that any of the vessels targeted since last year have been involved in drug trafficking.

WASHINGTON — First lady Melania Trump is denying ties to Jeffrey Epstein and knowledge of his crimes, saying Thursday that the “stories are completely false” and calling online accusations that she was somehow involved “smears about me.”

“The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today. The individuals lying about me are devoid of ethical standards, humility and respect. I do not object to their ignorance, but rather I reject their mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation,” she said.

Reading an extraordinary statement at the White House, she denied any association with Epstein and said, “My attorneys and I have fought these unfounded and baseless lies with success.”

The first lady also called on Congress to hold a public hearing centered on survivors of Epstein’s crimes, with a chance to testify before lawmakers and have their stories entered into the congressional record.

“Each and every woman should have her day to tell her story in public if she wishes,” she said. “Then, and only then, we will have the truth.”

Her out-of-the-blue message came just as her husband, President Donald Trump, and his administration had finally appeared successful in moving beyond the Epstein controversy, which had sent shockwaves through the nation’s politics for months.

The case had begun to be overshadowed by the war in Iran and other major issues — but the first lady’s comments might push it back into the political spotlight.

The first lady said she was not friends with Epstein or Maxwell but was in overlapping social circles in New York and Florida. She described an email reply she sent to Maxwell as “casual correspondence” without elaborating.

“My polite reply to her email doesn’t amount to anything more than a trifle,” she said.

Binkley writes for the Associated Press.

Arrest comes after Roberts-Smith lost case against journalists who said he was involved in murders of unarmed Afghan men.

Former Australian special forces soldier Ben Roberts-Smith has been arrested at Sydney airport and is expected to face charges for alleged war crimes committed in Afghanistan, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

The 47-year-old was expected to appear in a court in New South Wales later on Tuesday over five counts of the war crime of murder, related to unarmed Afghan nationals who “were not taking part in hostilities at the time of their alleged murder”, Australian Federal Police Commissioner Krissy Barrett told reporters in Sydney on Tuesday, according to the ABC.

Barrett said the charges followed a “complex” investigation by the AFP news agency and the Office of the Special Investigator (OSI) dating back to 2021.

The arrest comes after Roberts-Smith lost defamation proceedings he brought against journalists who had reported he was “complicit in and responsible for the murder” of three Afghan men.

An Australian judge found in 2023 that those journalists had not defamed Roberts-Smith, a ruling that was upheld by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in May last year.

Rawan Arraf, the executive director of the Australian Centre for International Justice, said the arrest was a “significant and long-awaited step for victims and affected communities” in Afghanistan, where Roberts-Smith was deployed multiple times.

“The proper investigation and prosecution of alleged war crimes by members of the Australian special forces in Afghanistan are essential to ensuring justice for Afghan victims and to Australia meeting its obligations under international law,” Arraf said in a statement.

About 39,000 Australian soldiers were deployed to Afghanistan as part of the United States and NATO-led operations against the Taliban and other armed groups over two decades.

Roberts-Smith’s case has drawn considerable scrutiny in Australia, including because prior to the charges, he had received the Victoria Cross medal for his fifth tour of Afghanistan, and was reportedly the most-decorated living Australian war veteran.

Meanwhile, former Australian army lawyer David McBride remains imprisoned in Australia over his role in revealing information about alleged Australian war crimes in Afghanistan.

Australian Senator David Shoebridge responded to the news of Roberts-Smith’s arrest by saying “Release David McBride” in a short post on X.

For decades, leaders who were responsible for war crimes tended to plead ignorance or insist it was a mistake and their hands were clean. What has changed in the Middle East is the swaggering contempt we have seen from the United States, Israel and Iran as they instead dismiss, mock or flout the international laws protecting civilians. If the international community does not urgently reassert support for those norms, it may be acquiescing to their destruction.

US President Donald Trump, who told The New York Times he doesn’t “need international law” and the only restraint on his power was his “own morality”, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has dismissed “tepid legality” in favour of “maximum lethality”, have expressed little regard publicly for the safety of civilians  affected by the US-Israeli war on Iran, which just entered its second month.

After announcing that the US had “demolished” Iran’s Kharg Island, Trump told NBC News, “We may hit it a few more times just for fun.” Hegseth has declared that “no quarter” would be given to enemies in Iran. That phrase indicates troops are free to kill those seeking to surrender rather than capture them. Such scenarios have served as a textbook example of a war crime in US military academies.

The Trump administration is not alone in this regard. In language eerily reminiscent of the war in Gaza, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz has threatened to demolish homes across southern Lebanon and block hundreds of thousands of civilians from returning.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has declared US banks, investment firms and commercial ships valid targets despite their civilian status. Its spokesman warned Iranians that any street protests would be met with “an even harsher blow” than the January massacres, in which security forces killed thousands across the country. A state television presenter was more direct, saying opponents in the diaspora would face consequences that would see their “mothers sit in mourning”.

These statements are worthy of our attention not only because they telegraph a blatant disregard for civilian life but also because these leaders seem to mean it.

More than 2,000 people have been killed in Iran, more than 1,200 in Lebanon, and 17 in Israel. Altogether, several million people across the Gulf, Israel and Lebanon have been displaced or forced to flee from their homes. Based on a preliminary US military report, US forces were responsible for a deadly attack on an elementary school in Minab, Iran, in which more than 170 children and staff were killed.

The Israeli military has fired white phosphorus, which can burn to the bone, on Lebanese homes despite a clear prohibition on its use as a weapon in populated areas. Iran has launched internationally banned cluster munitions at Israeli cities and attacked commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

The international legal system, designed to protect civilians during armed conflict, did not falter overnight. Unflinching US support for Israel as it carried out acts of genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza, destroyed its hospitals and water systems, carried out countless air strikes that turned neighbourhoods into rubble and killed tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians over two and a half years contributed to a sense that some leaders would always be above the law.

Those double standards are alive and well, profoundly corroding respect for international law. When Iran struck Gulf energy infrastructure, condemnation rightly came within hours. But when Israel unlawfully dropped white phosphorus on Lebanese neighbourhoods, the same governments went quiet. Leaders need to say, with equal specificity and force, that attacks on Iranian power plants, Lebanese homes and Gulf civilian facilities are violations of the laws of war, regardless of who the perpetrator is. Otherwise, the rules are just a cudgel for punishing rivals.

The Geneva Conventions oblige every country not merely to follow the laws of war but also ensure global respect for them, including by refusing to arm forces credibly accused of violating them.

Yet arms continue to flow to belligerents on multiple sides of these conflicts with no apparent review of the likely impact. European governments that supply weapons or grant overflight and basing rights to forces unlawfully bombing civilians are not bystanders. If the actions of US and Israeli forces match the irresponsible rhetoric of their leaders, countries that arm or assist them could very well find themselves complicit in war crimes.

As during the war in the former Yugoslavia or more recently in Ukraine, the machinery of documentation and accountability needs to occur while the conflict is ongoing, not afterwards. Today, warring parties in the Middle East are working to prevent exactly that. Iran has imposed a nationwide internet shutdown and jailed people for sharing strike footage. Israel has banned live broadcasts and detained journalists. Gulf states have arrested citizens for posting images online. In the US, the Federal Communications Commission has threatened broadcasters’ licences over coverage of the war on Iran unfavourable to the Trump administration.

Governments with developed intelligence capabilities should be preserving and sharing evidence of war crimes right now: satellite imagery, communications intercepts, open-source footage. UN investigative bodies need immediate additional resources. And governments need to speak out clearly on the importance of justice for war crimes.

If this work waits until the shooting stops, the evidence may be gone, and the political will for accountability may quickly shift focus. The belligerents know it. They may even be counting on it.

The leaders repudiating the laws of war today may think they will gain from a world without rules, where brute force settles every question and all civilian harm is just written off as collateral damage. But by dismissing the principle of nonreciprocity, which makes clear that one side’s violations do not justify noncompliance by the other, they have spurred rounds of tit-for-tat strikes that put their own troops as well as their civilian populations in harm’s way.

Those who see the value of the existing system curbing the barbarity of war need to stand up for it. Otherwise, they may one day find themselves forced to explain to future generations why they did nothing while it burned.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.