Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UN investigates US drone strikes

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • UN investigates US drone strikes

    UN launches investigation into US drone strikes
    Ned Resnikoff
    01/24/2013

    The United Nations formally launched an investigation into the United States’ targeted killing program on Thursday morning. Ben Emmerson, the U.N.’s special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights, announced the beginning of the inquiry at a press conference in London. “The central objective of the present investigation is to look at the evidence that drone strikes and other forms of remote targeted killing have caused disproportionate civilian casualties in some instances,” he said, “and to make recommendations concerning the duty of States to conduct thorough independent and impartial investigations into such allegations, with a view to securing accountability and reparation where things can be shown to have gone badly wrong with potentially grave consequences for civilians.” While Emmerson said his investigation while concern “all use of armed force…for the purpose of targeted killing,” he stressed that “it is the use of drones which has propelled this issue to the top of the international agenda” because of the ease with which the relatively new technology can be deployed.

    The American Civil Liberties Union, which has filed several lawsuits challenging the legality of the Obama administration’s targeted killing program, said it welcomed the investigation. “Virtually no other country agrees with the U.S.’s claimed authority to secretly declare people enemies of the state and kill them and civilian bystanders far from any recognized battlefield,” said ACLU National Security Project director Hina Shamsi in a statement. “To date, there has been an abysmal lack of transparency and no accountability for the U.S. government’s ever-expanding targeted killing program.” The ACLU Human Rights Program’s director, Jamil Dakwar, said, “We hope the U.S. cooperates with the inquiry, and whether it does or not will show whether it holds itself to the same obligation to cooperate with U.N. human rights investigations that it urges on other countries.”
    Source: MSNBC

    Tip Of The Day: If you like your ass intact... stay away from the terrorist crowd.
    sigpic

  • #2
    A old southern saying "If you lay with dogs, you get fleas"

    If you lay with terrorist, you get Hellfires

    Comment


    • #3
      Minskaya Reply

      I'll offer this thread as an insight to some of my views regarding this matter. We've been discussing this matter, at times intensely, since probably 2008. Maybe earlier. Certainly the killing of Baitullah Mehsud acted as a catalyst but our history of drone strikes reaches back to June 2004 with the targeted killing of Nek Mohammad.
      "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
      "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

      Comment


      • #4
        Armed drones are obviously legal as weapons of war since they embody the idea of distinction and proportionality. Only a sniper is better able to meet those two goals and you can't always use a sniper. As far as I know the US tends to target either buildings where the structure contains the blast or hits in isolated areas. This adds a further level of protection to civilians. This is why most of the civvie losses are the families and hosts of terrorist, not passers-by.

        I don't see an international law issue here so long as the drone operator has permission to be in the air space they are in and permission to use force.

        Comment


        • #5
          Reportedly, three nations formally complained to the United Nations. Pakistan complained that US drone attacks violated its sovereignty. The other two nations were not named, but insider sources said they were members of the Security Council.... no doubt Russia and China.

          Since neither Pakistan (no inclination) nor Yemen (no wherewithal) will decapitate the international terrorist leaderships within their jurisdictions, I believe the battle principle of 'hot pursuit' is viable.
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            "...I believe the battle principle of 'hot pursuit' is viable."

            Pakistan long ago aborgated sovereign responsibility over FATAville. You cannot simultaneously claim authority without exercising the requisite responsibility. Permitting sanctuary for the ousted taliban government of Afghanistan and facilitating the replenishment and reconstitution of their forces renders null any claim to sovereign authority.
            "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
            "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by S2 View Post
              "...I believe the battle principle of 'hot pursuit' is viable."

              Pakistan long ago aborgated sovereign responsibility over FATAville. You cannot simultaneously claim authority without exercising the requisite responsibility. Permitting sanctuary for the ousted taliban government of Afghanistan and facilitating the replenishment and reconstitution of their forces renders null any claim to sovereign authority.
              The US, or any other country, cannot unilaterally make an abiding determination that 'Pakistan abrogated its sovereign responsibility over FATA' - the US has no legal cover for its actions without UNSC resolutions agreeing with the US position as argued by you, and authorizing the use of military force by the US in FATA.
              Last edited by Agnostic Muslim; 25 Jan 13,, 15:50.
              Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
              https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by zraver View Post
                Armed drones are obviously legal as weapons of war since they embody the idea of distinction and proportionality. Only a sniper is better able to meet those two goals and you can't always use a sniper. As far as I know the US tends to target either buildings where the structure contains the blast or hits in isolated areas. This adds a further level of protection to civilians. This is why most of the civvie losses are the families and hosts of terrorist, not passers-by.

                I don't see an international law issue here so long as the drone operator has permission to be in the air space they are in and permission to use force.
                Highlighted section - I agree, though I don't believe the UN investigation being discussed will make any determination about the legality of drone strikes in specific countries.

                The legality of drone strikes is part of a broader question of the legality of military action by one country in another.
                Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                  Highlighted section - I agree, though I don't believe the UN investigation being discussed will make any determination about the legality of drone strikes in specific countries.

                  The legality of drone strikes is part of a broader question of the legality of military action by one country in another.
                  Until Dec of 2011, and perhaps continuing the drones used in the strike were based in Pakistan. Pakistan is also officially an allied co-belligerent in the war. I just don't see a legal issue. Borders are for the most part worthless once an enemy group sets up an armed camp inside of them. Either the host country is providing aid and comfort, is unable to expel them thus is/becomes a co-belligerent or is in violation of the duty of neutrals (hot pursuit).

                  There is no refrain from allies attacking one anothers countries in pursuit of joint military victory. Just ask France in WWII, or look at the plans for NATO operations if WWIII had kicked off. You fight the enemy where you find them in accordance with the LOAC (Military Necessity, Distinction and Proportionality).

                  Lets look at a hypothetical scenario. A militant linked to TWO suicide car bombings that have killed 30 people is discovered in a house in a small village in FATA. The house like most houses an extended family totaling 10 people, the target and a few allied militants. The US takes him out with a single Hellfire missile that kills him, 2 allied militants and 3 civilian residents plus wounds 2 more both under the age of 6.

                  Military Necessity- He is already a serial bomber and if he is not taken out he will strike again. The military necessity and the gain expected to be achieved are what determines proportionality.

                  Distinction- The Hellfire struck its intended target and did not damage neighboring structures or property. Further by striking him in the building instead of a public place and using the smallest reasonable weapon to achieve the objective.

                  Proportionality. There are a couple of ways to look at this. 1. The bomber was already responsible for the death of 30 people so up to 30 people would be proportional to get him. 2. The number of lives assumed to be saved because of the strike (average of victims per car bomb attacks x number of usual attacks per bomber) set the floor on what is a proportional response.

                  Further proportionality and distinction are both premised on the tools the military power has to use. Call it a means test. You can't carpet bomb a village if you have guided weapons. The US has hellfires so we use them. However, lets say all we had were 500lb JDAMS which would entail more property damage and likely more dead both inside the target house and in neighboring structures. Since that was the only weapon able to be used with distinction and in a proportional way it would still be legal.

                  Now, lets say instead of a bomber its Al-Zawahiri and he is living in an interior apartment of the bottom floor of a highrise apartment complex. Lets say the US feels the only way to get into the building deep enough to get him is by burrowing a 2000lb JDAM into the building which ends up causing the entire structure to pancake killing 200. Guess what, still legal because of the military necessity of killing a man responsible for the deaths of over 100,000.

                  There is no legal issue here.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                    ... the US has no legal cover for its actions without UNSC resolutions agreeing with the US position as argued by you, and authorizing the use of military force by the US in FATA.
                    Disagree. The International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) in Afghanistan is a mandate of the United Nations operating under nine UN Security Council resolutions (1386, 1413, 1444, 1510, 1563, 1623, 1707, 1776 and 1833). Striking anti-ISAF forces in the Pakistani sanctuary of FATA is perfectly legal and legitimate under the battle principle of 'hot pursuit'.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Minskaya View Post
                      but insider sources said they were members of the Security Council.... no doubt Russia and China.
                      What does Russia gain from this?
                      Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
                      -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Tronic View Post
                        What does Russia gain from this?
                        Embarrassing the US? US drone - a warrior sword or headman’s axe? | Voice Of Russia

                        Just a few weeks ago, the ACLU and the New York Times lost their FOIA lawsuit regarding the drone program in US federal court. John Brennan - who Obama has nominated to be the new CIA Director - is acknowledged as the architect of the Pakistani/Yemeni drone programs. The UN has collected information on ~51 US drone attacks which it considers 'representative'. One of the things the UN will be looking at in detail is what UAV operators call a 'double-tap' strike. Double-taps are secondary strikes on the same target roughly 15 minutes after the initial strike. This secondary strike is intended to kill collaborators coming to the aid of the targeted.
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Minskaya View Post
                          . One of the things the UN will be looking at in detail is what UAV operators call a 'double-tap' strike. Double-taps are secondary strikes on the same target roughly 15 minutes after the initial strike. This secondary strike is intended to kill collaborators coming to the aid of the targeted.
                          That practice is on much thinner ground as it can be argued they are targeting those who are hours de combat and those rendering them aid.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by zraver View Post
                            That practice is on much thinner ground as it can be argued they are targeting those who are hours de combat and those rendering them aid.
                            Of course. On the other hand it does happen that a real-time BDA indicates a secondary strike is a mission necessity. Presence/proximity of non-combatants would certainly be components of the decision calculus.
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Roughly 15 minutes as a matter of course doesn't really leave any time to do a BDA analysis since the second strike is already inbound or already orbiting. It smacks of using the dead and wounded as a lure. Something the Taliban has no problem doing, but seemingly against the laws of armed conflict.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X