UK Reprieve to Sue Drone Operators in the US
Here's one for you, David - since it apparently originates in the UK.
Reprieve’s director, Clive Stafford-Smith, is well-known to us from his role in a number of Gitmo cases. Those cases, from the detainees' standpoint, seem to have largely run out of gas in the DC Circuit. Thus, my British "colleague" :rolleyes: has moved to a new theater of Lawfare operations.
From the Miami Herald, Group threatens legal trouble for US over drones:
Quote:
.....
"There are endless ways in which the courts in Britain, the courts in America, the international courts and Pakistani courts can get involved," director Clive Stafford-Smith told journalists in London. "It's going to be the next 'Guantanamo Bay' issue."
.....
Stafford-Smith said he was exploring options ranging from civil litigation to criminal prosecution but gave few details. Reprieve's legal director, Cori Crider, said the group might try to pursue individual drone operators in the United States or file suit against the British government if it could show that U.K. intelligence had been used to help target a drone strike.
But Crider acknowledged that U.S. rules which shield government officials from lawsuits would be a formidable obstacle.
.....
Stafford-Smith seemed to acknowledge that how any prospective lawsuit played in the media could be more important than a lawsuit in court.
"The crucial court here is the court of public opinion," he said.
And, so it (the court of public opinion) is.
Regards
Mike
Bin Laden mission signals the end for the Predator drone
Bin Laden mission signals the end for the Predator drone
Entry Excerpt:
Today’s Washington Post discussed how the CIA used a stealthy drone – the RQ-170 Sentinel – to collect overhead imagery and signals intelligence on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The RQ-170 was dubbed “the Beast of Kandahar” after it was spotted at the nearby military airbase as early as 2007, according to Aviation Week & Space Technology. Intelligence preparation for the bin Laden raid demonstrated the requirement for a persistent overhead reconnaissance platform that also had to be stealthy. This requirement for the bin Laden mission foreshadows a rapid change in required drone capabilities, which implies a need to change the government’s current drone investment plans. After just coming into their own, the Pentagon and CIA should consider ending purchases of the non-stealthy Predator, Reaper, and Global Hawk drones and redirecting those funds to their stealthy drone successors.
Click below to read more ...
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
Casualties caused in Pakistan
Added as a resource for the casualties caused by drone attacks:http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.u...ondVersion.pdf
A very short introduction:
Quote:
In Pakistan, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (‘drones’) has preceded and succeeded the death of Osama bin Laden. Drones’ use, in particular by the US within Pakistan, is surrounded by debate over their dubious legality. All the while, civilian and militant deaths continue on. Jacob Beswick, Project Officer for ORG’s Recording Casualties in Armed Conflict (RCAC) programme, has written a Working Paper comparing the methodologies and findings of the organisations dedicated to reporting on casualties caused by drones within Pakistan. The paper highlights and discusses why gaps in data exist and what can be done to address them.
From:http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.u...ict_casualties
Advisers Urge Military to Rely Less on Drones, More on Expertise
Advisers Urge Military to Rely Less on Drones, More on Expertise
Entry Excerpt:
Advisers Urge Military to Rely Less on Drones, More on Expertise - Eli Lake, Washington Times. BLUF: "Military operations in Afghanistan rely too much on intelligence gathered by unmanned drones, often exclude important publicly available data and do not focus enough on the recruitment of human agents, a Pentagon report says."
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
Drone warfare: cost and challenge
Professor Paul Rogers in a wide ranging commentary, with useful links and is sub-titled:
Quote:
The repositioning of the United States’s military strategy includes a great expansion in the use of armed-drones to attack targets in Pakistan and Yemen. But this development raises profound legal and ethical questions that are now entering the public arena.
Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-ro...utm_campaign=0
In particular he refer to a new report by the Oxford Research Group 'Drones Don't Allow Hit & Run' and he writes:
Quote:
The key conclusions of Drones Don't Allow Hit and Run are simple - but their implications are huge:
“There is a legal requirement to identify all casualties that result from any drone use, under any and all circumstances”
“The universal human right which specifies that no-one be 'arbitrarily' deprived of his or her life depends on the identity of the deceased being established as to reparations or compensation for possible wrongful killing, injury and other offences.”
The words sound straightforward, but they strike right at the heart of armed-drone operations precisely because these are remote operations in which the exact identities of many of those killed are neither known nor even sought (cites a link). They imply that the very unwillingness, and even the inability, of the attackers to identify the people they kill amount to infringements of international law. This judgment, moreover, applies both to a state that carries out drone-attacks and to a state that allows its territory to be used for them.
Link to ORG press release and report:http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.u...ow_hit_and_run
I am not a lawyer, but I'd expect some will "beat the drum" citing this and others, especially in governments, will look away. Secondly I have no idea what international law is being used in the ORG report, which for a layman seems odd to have such clauses - notably about the identification of targets.
Global Race to Match US Drone Capabilities
Global Race to Match US Drone Capabilities
Entry Excerpt:
Global Race On to Match US Drone Capabilities by William Wan and Peter Finn, Washington Post. BLUF: "More than 50 countries have purchased surveillance drones, and many have started in-country development programs for armed versions because no nation is exporting weaponized drones beyond a handful of sales between the United States and its closest allies."
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
New study proves falsity of Brennan's drone claims
An article which opens with:
Quote:
In late June, President Obama's chief Terrorism adviser, John Brennan, made an extraordinary claim about drone attacks in Pakistan: "in the last year, 'there hasn't been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities that we've been able to develop." He added: "if there are terrorists who are within an area where there are women and children or others, you know, we do not take such action that might put those innocent men, women and children in danger." The London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism had heard similar claims from Obama officials over the past several months, and thus set out to examine the relevant evidence to determine if those claims are true.
The report for example finds:
Quote:
Contrary to Brennan's public assertions, "a detailed examination by the Bureau of 116 CIA 'secret' drone strikes in Pakistan since August 2010 has uncovered at least 10 individual attacks in which 45 or more civilians appear to have died.
Link:http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...1/07/19/drones
That guy is an embarrassment...
Proving yet again that smooth political playing in Washington is far more important for advancement to high places than is competence... :rolleyes:
Two recent decisions - impact ?
What impact (if any; and if so, positive or negative ?) will the two judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber, have on EU military operations (say, UK and German) ?
In the case of Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom (7 July 2011)
In the case of Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom (7 July 2011)
Al-Skeini covers shoot-kill situations. Al-Jedda covers capture-detain situations.
These decisions are roughly 180 degrees out of phase with the US cases decided within the last year covering the same situations. So much for any "Western" standard.
Regards
Mike
Former Intel Chief: Call Off The Drone War plus
Id'd late and not listened to the talk in Aspen by Dennis Blair, although I have read the article cited: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...War-Reading%29
The full title is 'Former Intel Chief: Call Off The Drone War (And Maybe the Whole War on Terror)' and I cite two paragraphs:
Quote:
Starting with the drone attacks. Yes, they take out some mid-level terrorists, Blair said. But they’re not strategically effective. If the drones stopped flying tomorrow, Blair told the audience at the Aspen Security Forum, “it’s not going to lower the threat to the U.S.” Al-Qaida and its allies have proven “it can sustain its level of resistance to an air-only campaign,” he said.
It’s one of many reasons why it’s a mistake to “have that campaign dominate our overall relations” with countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. “Because we’re alienating the countries concerned, because we’re treating countries just as places where we go attack groups that threaten us, we are threatening the prospects of long-term reform,” Blair said.
The last question he posed, without answering was:
Quote:
What is it that justifies this amount of money on this narrow problem?
Quite timely as the US had a budget crisis or is it a budget moment?