General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Drone plane manufacturing industry is writing the legislation that governs their use in the US [View all]sad sally
(2,627 posts)Speaking publicly for the first time on the controversial CIA drone strikes, Obama claimed last week they are used strictly to target terrorists, rejecting what he called this perception were just sending in a whole bunch of strikes willy-nilly.
Drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties, he told a questioner at an on-line forum. This is a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists trying to go in and harm Americans.
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/
I can only shake my head and ask how on earth did this method of killing - no, murdering innocent people - become acceptable to Americans with absolutely no legal documents or rules of war* allowing it? It turns us into barbarians.
*It is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions to attack rescuers wearing emblems of the Red Cross or Red Crescent. But what if rescuers wear no emblems, or if civilians are mixed in with militants, as the Bureaus investigation into drone attacks in Waziristan has repeatedly found?
Do the administrations claims of legality add up? And what of the specific instances of attacks on rescuers and mourners uncovered by the Bureau?
According to a wide range of international law experts consulted by the Bureau, for the CIAs drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen to be legal they would at the very least need to be covered by the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC).
Professor Dapo Akande, who heads Oxford Universitys Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, believes that under LOAC the killing of civilian rescuers is problematic: The question is, can rescuing be regarded as taking part in hostilities, to which for me the answer is clearly No. That rescuing is not taking part in hostilities.
If LOAC does not apply as some respected lawyers believe is the case then the far more restrictive international human rights law (IHRL) applies. This explicitly forbids attacks except in the most restricted circumstances, namely when the possibility of being attacked is absolutely imminent.
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/a-question-of-legality/
Naz Modirzadeh, Associate Director of the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (HPCR) at Harvard University, said, Not to mince words here, if it is not in a situation of armed conflict, unless it falls into the very narrow area of imminent threat then it is an extra-judicial execution, she said. We dont even need to get to the nuance of whos who, and are people there for rescue or not. Because each death is illegal. Each death is a murder in that case.
The Khaisoor incident** was not a one time incident. Between May 2009 and June 2011, at least fifteen attacks on rescuers were reported by credible news media, including the New York Times, CNN, Associated Press, ABC News and Al Jazeera.
It is notoriously difficult for the media to operate safely in Pakistans tribal areas. Both militants and the military routinely threaten journalists. Yet for three months a team of local researchers has been seeking independent confirmation of these strikes.
**This was the first confirmed attack on rescuers took place in North Waziristan on May 16 2009. According to Mushtaq Yusufzai, a local journalist, Taliban militants had gathered in the village of Khaisor. After praying at the local mosque, they were preparing to cross the nearby border into Afghanistan to launch an attack on US forces. But the US struck first.
A CIA drone fired its missiles into the Taliban group, killing at least a dozen people. Villagers joined surviving Taliban as they tried to retrieve the dead and injured.
But as rescuers clambered through the demolished house the drones struck again. Two missiles slammed into the rubble, killing many more. At least 29 people died in total.