Was the three people aboard columbian fishing boat that broke down and put out distress call fired upon by us military sept 15 2025
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Available reporting says a U.S. strike on a boat on or around 15 September 2025 killed at least one Colombian fisherman, Alejandro Andrés Carranza, whose family and Colombia’s president say the vessel had signalled distress and was fishing — not trafficking [1] [2] [3]. The U.S. government has described the campaign as lawful action against alleged drug-smuggling vessels but has not publicly released comprehensive evidence tying every struck boat to trafficking; critics and legal experts call some strikes potentially illegal and say civilians, including fishers, have been killed [4] [5] [6].
1. What the reporting says about the September 15 incident
Multiple outlets report that a Colombian man, Alejandro Carranza, is believed to have been killed in a U.S. strike in mid‑September; his family and the petition filed with the Inter‑American Commission on Human Rights assert he was fishing for tuna and marlin and that the boat had emitted a distress signal because of engine trouble [1] [2] [7]. Colombian President Gustavo Petro publicly accused the U.S. of killing a fisherman with no ties to drug smuggling [3] [8].
2. What U.S. officials and the White House say
U.S. officials have framed the broader campaign as strikes against vessels they allege were operated by groups designated as narcoterrorists and as lawful anti‑narcotics operations; the White House has defended an admiral’s decision to authorize strikes and said the actions were within legal bounds [4] [8]. However, reporting notes the administration has not publicly released detailed evidence proving the drug‑trafficking activities of the specific boats struck [8] [5].
3. Conflicting narratives and the evidence gap
Independent journalists, rights groups and families say there is an evidence gap: many victims’ families and local officials describe the dead as fishers or civilians, while the U.S. has often provided only short strike videos and summary assertions about narcotics [2] [9] [5]. FactCheck.org and other trackers report dozens killed in a string of strikes and emphasize that concrete proof tying particular people or boats to major trafficking operations has not been publicly shown [5].
4. Legal and human‑rights perspectives
Legal experts quoted in international reporting argue some strikes — especially where survivors were later targeted or where intent to kill everyone aboard was allegedly given — raise potential violations of international law and could amount to extrajudicial killings [10] [6]. Former military lawyers and human‑rights advocates have called some orders “patently illegal,” urging accountability [4] [6].
5. How governments and families have responded
Colombia’s president suspended certain intelligence cooperation and publicly demanded answers after the strike; at least one family has filed a complaint with the IACHR and a legal petition alleging their relative was killed while fishing, not smuggling [7] [1] [2]. Governments of the region and relatives of other victims have similarly contested U.S. accounts in several reported cases [11] [3].
6. Broader context: a pattern of strikes and disputed casualties
Since early September, reporting documents a sustained U.S. campaign against alleged drug boats that has resulted in dozens of strikes and scores of deaths; outlets cite totals ranging from dozens up to the mid‑80s killed across many strikes and emphasize that several incidents are contested by local authorities and families [9] [2] [5]. This pattern has deepened regional diplomatic tensions and prompted legal and ethical scrutiny [11] [4].
7. What is provably known and what is not in current reporting
Provable from the cited sources: a Colombian man identified as Alejandro Carranza was believed killed in a mid‑September U.S. strike and his family and Colombia’s president say he was a fisherman whose vessel had signalled distress [1] [2] [7]. Provably disputed: the U.S. government’s characterization that the boats were narcotics conveyances is asserted but, in these sources, is not accompanied by publicly released, case‑specific evidence [8] [5]. Available sources do not mention full forensic or classified evidence proving the 15 September vessel was actively smuggling at the time of the strike.
8. Why the question matters
If true that distress‑signalling fishermen were struck, the incident raises immediate questions about rules of engagement, oversight, and accountability for lethal force at sea — and whether law enforcement-style objectives are being pursued by military means without adequate transparency [6] [10] [5]. Conversely, the U.S. framing reflects a policy of aggressive disruption of maritime drug trafficking that supporters say targets organized criminal enterprises [4] [8].
Limitations: this summary relies only on the provided reporting and does not incorporate later or classified material. Source citations: Reuters, BBC, NPR, CNN, Democracy Now!, FactCheck.org, The New York Times, The Guardian and related coverage as listed above [4] [12] [3] [1] [2] [5] [9] [11].