On May 11, 2012, four Hondurans were killed, including two women, a young man and a 14-year-old boy, and three more were gravely injured in a drug interdiction operation conducted by a joint US-Honduran mission. In the outcry that followed, the US relied on a widely criticized investigation conducted by Honduran authorities to exonerate its agents for any culpability for the fatalities that occurred that day. According to a follow-up report issued by US-based NGOs the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Rights Action earlier this month, US deference to the flawed Honduran investigation raises suspicions about its commitment to uncovering the truth about what really transpired.
The Honduran investigation into eyewitness and forensic evidence was faulty and incomplete. Numerous inconsistencies between the reports of the Honduran officers and the victims seemed to all be resolved in favor of the testimony of the officers. In a decision that defies explanation if uncovering the truth was the real goal, the US declined to make Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agents available to be questioned by the Honduran investigators.
In citing the forensic evidence gathered, the Honduran report notes that the National Police turned over their firearms for ballistic and other testing. In a striking omission, the report fails to mention that no investigation was conducted on DEA firearms, which would seem to be important evidence to support the conclusion that DEA agents did not discharge their weapons. In fact, the Honduran report noted that “the members of the counternarcotics team are unable to say whether the FAST (Foreign-deployed Advisory Support Team) team member used his firearm or not in the midst of the cross-fire fray.” The Honduran investigation noted with specificity the weaponry mounted on the US helicopters, but again failed to mention that these guns were not subjected to ballistics testing, despite testimony from witnesses that a helicopter fired on them.
The forensic evidence regarding the trajectory of the shots in the boat did not support the conclusion that all shots were necessarily fired from a lateral position. Moreover, the report takes pains to describe the facts preceding the shootings, but devotes far less attention to clarifying the critical elements of the operation. Instead of presenting a comprehensive review of evidence supporting an objective conclusion, the report seems calculated to exonerate US agents.
A meticulously-documented investigation released in August 2012 by the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Rights Action provides a much more credible narrative of the events that day and casts serious doubt on the credibility of the Honduran investigation. In addition to the concerns raised by US and Honduran human rights groups, 58 US legislators wrote a letter asking the United States to thoroughly and objectively investigate the deadly incident. Yet the United States has declared its puzzling satisfaction with the Honduran investigation and indicated that it will not investigate the matter further.
A transparent investigation is necessary, both to bring justice to the victims and to ensure proper precautions are integrated into drug interdiction operations conducted or “supported” by US agents that carefully safeguard the protection of innocent life. If the US is interested in truth rather than political cover, it should follow the common sense recommendations of the report by fully cooperating with the investigation. Specifically, the US should turn over the weapons carried by DEA agents and those present on the helicopters for forensic evaluation, disclose the details and conclusions of the DEA’s internal investigation, make the DEA agents available for interviews and provide the surveillance video of the event.
Observers have noted the unprecedented cooperation between US and Honduran agents in drug interdiction efforts, amid growing discontent with the incalculable costs of the expanding war on drugs and increasing misgivings about its effectiveness. Perhaps the Honduran government can deflect the muted outrage of besieged civilians desperate for an end to drug-related violence, but the United States must hold itself to a higher standard. The United States’ refusal to insist on a serious, thorough and credible investigation could be reasonably interpreted as an effort to cover up the politically unpalatable human toll of the escalating militarization of counter-narcotics operations. If the country is truly convinced that eyewitness and forensic evidence would exonerate its agents, it seems counterproductive to impede or evade a thorough and transparent investigation.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.