Two new reports on U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan and Yeman by two respected organizations, Amnesty International and Human Right Watch, raise extremely troubling questions about the use and legality of weapon which has been used with increasing frequency by the Obama administration.
“WILL I BE NEXT?”
US Drone Strikes in Pakistan
Amnesty International“Between a Drone and Al-Qaeda”
Human Rights Watch
The reports document so-called “rescuer strikes,” a terror tactic often attributed to Al-Qaeda. In these attacks, a second drone is programmed to attack shortly after the first, targeting rescuers responding to the initial attack.
From the Amnesty report:
Amnesty International investigated cases in which secondary drone strikes were carried out, that
is, strikes that appeared to target those trying to help victims of initial drone strikes. As previously
documented by CIVIC, Reprieve and other organizations, these so-called “rescuer attacks” have
had a devastating impact on people in North Waziristan, with many residents fearing they will be
killed whether or not they belong to an armed group. As noted above, in the 6 July 2012 attack on
Zowi Sidgi, drones appear to have deliberately fired missiles at people who came to assist victims
of the initial strike, resulting in at least a further six deaths, numerous injuries, and sowing fear
and panic among Zowi Sidgi residents. “Because of the second attack [on rescuers] no one dared
return to the site until the next morning,” said Irfan.In another attack, in Darai Nishtar on 23 July 2012, US drones targeted, according to residents,
fighters from the Maulvi Ihsanullah group which are part of the Haqqani network of the Afghan
Taliban. “It was evening time and it was very difficult to understand how many planes were there,”
recalled eyewitness Shakeeb. “It was fast-breaking time and we were sitting together to break
our fast. Then the first drone attack took place on the Taliban Centre near Shaingai Shrine. The
missiles, about six or seven, hit the building direct.”At least six residents who, as far as Amnesty International could determine, were not directly
participating in hostilities, were killed by a follow-up strike as they were attempting to rescue those
injured in the initial attack. Among the local residents killed in the follow-up strike were Khatim,
Noor Wali, Sabirkai and Bashirullah. According to residents interviewed by Amnesty International,
these four men and possibly the two others killed, were not members of al-Qa’ida, the Taliban or
other armed groups but ordinary residents. “Some locals came to offer help when the second strike
occurred. By then I tried to get as far as possible from there,” Shakeeb added.
It’s a sad comment on how we start to take on the attributes we find most repellent in our enemies.
Both reports review applicable provisions of international law, and find that certain of these drone attacks may be considered war crimes. These sections of the reports deserve careful reading, especially in light of the Obama administration’s failure to disclose the legal basis of its policies or the policies themselves.
International law prohibits arbitrary killing and limits the lawful use of intentional lethal force to exceptional situations. In armed conflict, only combatants and people directly participating in hostilities may be directly targeted. Outside armed conflict, intentional lethal force is lawful only when strictly unavoidable to protect against an imminent threat to life . In some circumstances arbitrary killing can amount to a war crime or extrajudicial execution, which are crimes under international law.
Amnesty notes:
The USA’s promise to increase transparency around drone strikes, underscored by a major policy speech by President Barack Obama in May 2013, has yet to become a reality, and the USA still refuses to divulge even basic factual and legal information.
This secrecy has enabled the USA to act with impunity and block victims from receiving justice or compensation. As far as Amnesty International is aware, no US official has ever been held to account for unlawful killings by drones in Pakistan.
In any case, these are reports that deserve wide circulation.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Human rights, schmuman rights. WHo gives a damn? International law? Haven’t you gotten the memo? We are Americanally Exceptional! That means we are the one nation who is the exception to the principle, once promoted by the United States, that all nations are bound by international laws and treaties. Heck, we are SO exceptional that we can ignore the clause in our Sacred Text, the US Constitution which says “… all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
What are you, some kind of anarcho-commie traitor? Elevating international law above the right of Our President, as “Commander-in-Chief,” to do whatever the heck he wants to do?
Does Anonymous Kolea’s dismissive tone help us understand what our government is doing?
Dennis Blair (the last CINCPAC before Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared that our nation could have only a single commander-in-chief and eliminated the position of Commander-in-Chief Pacific) served in the Obama administration as Director of National Intelligence. About a year after he resigned as DNI, Blair wrote an op-ed for the NYT (“Drones Alone Are Not the Answer,” 8-14-11). Notice what he said:
“In Pakistan, no issue is more controversial than American drone attacks in Pakistani territory along the Afghan border. The Obama administration contends that using drones to kill 10 or 20 more Qaeda leaders would eliminate the organization. This is wishful thinking.”
And:
“Moreover, as the drone campaign wears on, hatred of America is increasing in Pakistan.”
The NYT informs us today (“French Condemn Surveillance by N.S.A.”) that before he left the Obama administration “Dennis C. Blair, tried to put in place a written agreement pledging that neither country would spy on the other’s soil — similar to the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ that the United States has with Britain.”
If Ian’s rather bland post (“In any case, these are reports that deserve wide circulation.”) makes him “some kind of anarcho-commie traitor,” I wonder how Kolea would characterize Admiral Blair, whose salary for many years was paid for by American taxpayers.
Warren, did you actually read what I wrote before concluding it was worthless? It was parody, but also very serious. The US government, under the Obama administration as well as the Bush and earlier administrations, has developed an outlaw’s contempt for the rule of law.
The slogan, “American Exceptionalism,” is used as a magical incantation which trumps not only our treaty commitments, Article 6 of the US constitution, but also the small amount of common sense which barely remains in our discussion of foreign policy.
Obama has been a bit less crude about invoking his extraordinary powers as “Commander-in-Chief” than George Dubya was. But his smooth exterior should not fool us into thinking his policies are not as illegal and counter-productive as those of his predecessor. Even the Europeans, who had been fooled by his urbane style and their own hopes enough to give him the Nobel Peace Prize, based primarily on the fact he was NOT George Bush, are starting to get angry with him.
Where can we find a new, “transformative,” “Hopey-Changey” presient to further mask the real nature of the bi-partisan, Washington Consensus around neo-liberal globalization and the doctrine of War Without End? Both to fool foreigners and American liberals.
Was that less ambiguous for you?
I provided the example of Dennis Blair, the last CINCPAC, who had the bad fortune of being named Director of National Intelligence by President Barack Obama. Before he was dismissed by Obama, Blair was trying to work out a treaty (“tried to put in place a written agreement,” according to the NYT) between our country and France that would have ended our disgraceful practice of spying on an ally. Angela Merkel, who is familiar with the Stasi, had appropriately tart remarks for our President today.
I think it’s important to know that there are dissenting voices in the highest levels of our government. Admiral Blair expressed himself clearly in the NYT op-ed I referenced above.
(Comment edited)
If we don’t murder people with flying robots the “terrorists” will “win”.
Actually, Juicy J, the drones make those Americans terrorists! In my opinion Amnesty International is way late on this accusation!
Yup, rather than using these new fangled drones, let’s do it the old fashioned way; fly over with half a dozen B52s full of 500 pound bombs.
Lets do it not at all! When will America value life?
I think there are few things which erode respect for America more than our preening about high tech stand-off weapon technologies that blithely treat the death of innocents as acceptable collateral damage.
pertinent.
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201311/drone-uav-pilot-assassination?printable=true