Assessing the drones value
A short paper The Year of the Drone: An Analysis of U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004-2010 by Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann, which appears on: http://counterterrorism.newamerica.n...iedemann_0.pdf
My web access defences inserted the Privoxy Force text, so readers may need to access the website as:http://counterterrorism.newamerica.ne
Within I noted:
Quote:
In total, between 100 and 150 Westerners are believed to have traveled to the FATA in 2009.25 So far, however, none of these militants has been able to carry out an attack in the West.
The paper concludes:
Quote:
The drone attacks in the tribal regions seem to remain the only viable option for the United States to take on the militants based there who threaten the lives of Afghans, Pakistanis, and Westerners alike.
A timely response from the Obama Administration
HT to NRO's Weekend "The Corner", Friday, March 26, 2010, Harold Koh on Targeted Killing of Terrorists, by Ed Whelan, re: yesterday's speech to the American Society of International Law by Harold Koh, DoS Legal Adviser.
From the ASIL Press Release, as summed by NRO:
Quote:
[I]t is the considered view of this administration…that targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war….As recent events have shown, Al Qaeda has not abandoned its intent to attack the United States, and indeed continues to attack us. Thus, in this ongoing armed conflict, the United States has the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks….[T]his administration has carefully reviewed the rules governing targeting operations to ensure that these operations are conducted consistently with law of war principles, including:
- First, the principle of distinction, which requires that attacks be limited to military objectives and that civilians or civilian objects shall not be the object of the attack; and
- Second, the principle of proportionality, which prohibits attacks that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
In U.S. operations against al Qaeda and its associated forces – including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles – great care is taken to adhere to these principles in both planning and execution, to ensure that only legitimate objectives are targeted and that collateral damage is kept to a minimum.…
[S]ome have suggested that the very use of targeting a particular leader of an enemy force in an armed conflict must violate the laws of war. But individuals who are part of such an armed group are belligerent and, therefore, lawful targets under international law….[S]ome have challenged the very use of advanced weapons systems, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, for lethal operations. But the rules that govern targeting do not turn on the type of weapon system involved, and there is no prohibition under the laws of war on the use of technologically advanced weapons systems in armed conflict – such as pilotless aircraft or so-called smart bombs – so long as they are employed in conformity with applicable laws of war….[S]ome have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force. Our procedures and practices for identifying lawful targets are extremely robust, and advanced technologies have helped to make our targeting even more precise. In my experience, the principles of distinction and proportionality that the United States applies are not just recited at meeting. They are implemented rigorously throughout the planning and execution of lethal operations to ensure that such operations are conducted in accordance with all applicable law….Fourth and finally, some have argued that our targeting practices violate domestic law, in particular, the long-standing domestic ban on assassinations. But under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems – consistent with the applicable laws of wear – for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defense or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute ‘assassination.’
The full text is at The Obama Administration and International Law (Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, Washington, DC, March 25, 2010).
This speech surprised some because of Mr Koh's prior views (before entering the Obama Administration). E.g., see Kenneth Anderson, Bleg for Harold Koh’s ASIL Speech, vs. Kenneth Anderson, Predators Over Pakistan.
Both legal and practical aspects are covered more fully in this thread, HVTs/Political Assassination, and its many links.
Regards
Mike
Domestic Due Process Leading to Overseas Drone Strikes?
Yes - I suppose that's a rather broad hypothesis, but I hope that I explain my stance a bit clearer here.
Also, if you haven't checked out Current Intelligence, it has some interesting analysis that tends to complement SWJ.
I'd be interested in hearing any feedback on the article.
Bill
Hello O'Razor and Da Big Furry One
I can't answer the question asked (as the title of this thread) because I don't have the foggiest idea what rationales drive the Obama administration to do what they do.
I can say firstly the drone strikes (and implicitly all direct action taken against HVTs) are based on the Laws of War. See this post, A timely response from the Obama Administration, in the Drone Paradox thread. Just a snip from LA Koh's statement:
Quote:
[I]t is the considered view of this administration…that targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war….As recent events have shown, Al Qaeda has not abandoned its intent to attack the United States, and indeed continues to attack us. Thus, in this ongoing armed conflict, the United States has the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks….[T]his administration has carefully reviewed the rules governing targeting operations to ensure that these operations are conducted consistently with law of war principles, including:
- First, the principle of distinction, which requires that attacks be limited to military objectives and that civilians or civilian objects shall not be the object of the attack; and
- Second, the principle of proportionality, which prohibits attacks that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
In U.S. operations against al Qaeda and its associated forces – including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles – great care is taken to adhere to these principles in both planning and execution, to ensure that only legitimate objectives are targeted and that collateral damage is kept to a minimum.…
Both legal and practical aspects are covered more fully in this thread, HVTs/Political Assassination, and its many links.
I can say secondly that our detention policy is also firmly based on the Laws of War - e.g., take a look at these posts in the War Crimes thread (all on page 12):
222 - Obama DoJ "refines" the standard for detention !!
223 - Statements about the new standard ...
225 - DoJ Memorandum re: detention
226 - continuation of DoJ memo ...
227 - Well, George, if you are asking my opinion on this ...
The key statement in this package is from #226:
Quote:
Moreover, the Commentary to Additional Protocol II draws a clear distinction between individuals who belong to armed forces or armed groups (who may be attacked and, a fortiori, captured at any time) and civilians (who are immune from direct attack except when directly participating in hostilities). That Commentary provides that “[t]hose who belong to armed forces or armed groups may be attacked at any time.” See ICRC, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 Aug. 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Additional Protocol II), ¶ 4789.
(emphasis added). Thus, both direct actions and detentions have the AUMF as their base and are clearly based on the Laws of War.
The Rule of Law (domestic laws, whether in the US or in foreign countries) has nothing to do with either direct actions or detentions.
How did the Rule of Law get into this discussion ? Because folks in the Bush II and Obama administration wanted, or felt it necessary, to go beyond detention and prosecute crimininally. The criminal prosecution approach (going back to the Clinton administration) could go either of two routes: military commissions (Bush II prime choice) or Federal courts (Obama prime choice). In either, the procedures (due process) are spelled out.
Regards
Mike