Ecuador

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, on March 6 of this year, the Pentagon released a video of what it claimed was the destruction of a drug traffickers' training camp near the village of San Martin in the jungle of rural Ecuador. As reported by the New York Times, ``The video was meant to show that the U.S. military, which for months had bombed boats it says are carrying drugs from South America, was `now bombing Narco Terrorists on land,' '' according to a post by Defense Secretary Hegseth.

A thorough, credible investigation of this operation has yet to be carried out. However, based on detailed inquiries by American journalists and Ecuadorian human rights organizations who visited the site and collected testimonies and audiovisual evidence, the official narrative turns out to bear little, if any, resemblance to the facts as they are currently known.

Rather than a drug training camp, the Ecuadorian military, relying on U.S. military intelligence, appears to have bombed a cattle and dairy farm, targeting impoverished workers and terrorizing neighboring villagers.

According to workers at the farm, Ecuadorian soldiers arrived by helicopter on March 3. After reportedly arresting the workers at gunpoint, interrogating and subjecting them to beatings, suffocation, electric shocks, threats of mutilation, water immersion, and mock executions at an undisclosed military facility before releasing them, they returned to the site, poured gasoline on several structures, and burned them to the ground. Villagers said helicopters returned 3 days later, apparently dropping explosives on what remained of the farm, which the soldiers recorded on the video that the Pentagon released.

In addition to releasing the video, the Pentagon claimed credit for carrying out ``target action'' against the supposed traffickers at the request of the Ecuadorian authorities, although no U.S. troops were directly involved in the operation. Ecuadorian officials said the operation relied on U.S. ``intelligence and support'' to identify the farm, which they claimed was a camp for as many as 50 members of irregular armed groups.

According to the owner of the farm, he bought it 6 years ago and had a herd of more than 50 cows used for milk and meat. He said the destroyed structures were two wooden shelters, sheds for equipment, a chicken coop, and a place to make cheese. He said, ``It's a lie that 50 people trained here. Where are they going to train? Out in the open? There's no logic.'' He went on, ``Everywhere you look there are animals: the cows I milk, the calves, the horses.''

According to an Ecuadorian human rights lawyer, ``There isn't a single public official who has come to verify what happened.''

This violent operation occurred in a remote, dangerous area along the border between Ecuador and Colombia where armed groups are engaged in illicit mining and cocaine trafficking. But the version of events recounted by the villagers and the farm workers is totally at odds with the version promoted by the Ecuadorian military and the U.S. Department of Defense. It has been more than a month and half since the incident, and the Ecuadorian Government has yet to present any credible evidence to dispute the farm workers' harrowing account. Instead, they have continued to repeat their assertions and vilify the work of human rights organizations. The farm workers and the villagers have also reported acts of harassment and intimidation by the Ecuadorian military against them since the New York Times story came out. This is the same military that is accused of committing at least 43 cases of enforced disappearances in 2024, according to Amnesty International.

There is no evidence that, prior to issuing a press release characterizing the attack as a counter ``narco-terrorist'' operation, anyone at the Pentagon had visited the site or spoken with any of the Ecuadorian inhabitants. Perhaps the Ecuadorian Government is reluctant to conduct a credible, thorough investigation, fearing the possibility of having to refute the version of its own soldiers and the U.S. Secretary of Defense. But its responsibility is first and foremost to its own citizens, to the truth, and to the law. If the facts described by the owner of the farm are borne out, the operation violated multiple laws, including arbitrary detention, denial of due process, torture, and the destruction of property. And if this was, in fact, an attack based on faulty intelligence that never should have happened, the owner of the farm and the workers who were abused must be compensated and those responsible brought to justice.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source