Using drones: principles, tactics and results (amended title)

[Fuchs]

Keep in mind the legal / law stuff is only about quite arbitrary rules once set and newly interpreted. It is NOT about what's right or wrong, or about what should be done and what shouldn't.

Policymakers need to make up their minds about the assassination and accompanied negligent mass homicides and then they need to define what's not legal.
Likewise, the citizens should make up their mind as well, as they're the source for the policymaking's legitimacy through elections. They need to hold the politicians' feet to the fire if they come to the conclusion that they don't want assassinations and negligent mass homicide be done in their name.


This is only in the second order about effectiveness of the tactics and techniques employed. First, it's about ethics. The ends don't justify the means - that is as far as I know a consensus in Western civilisation.
In case you disagree about the means and ends thing: Get ready for getting killed by your government in order to salvage your organs for several life-saving organ transplantations.

______
You probably noted that my vocabulary differs from the official ones.
targeted killing = assassination
collateral damage = negligent homicide

Face it; that's what it is. The whitewashed terminology is meant to deceive and manipulate.
I understand the art of manipulating and deceiving through focus group-tested and optimised language is quite sophisticated in the U.S. (don't export it, please). One should be able to see through such manipulation, though.

[jmm99]

I'm gratified to see that we disgree on all material points.

Regards,

Mike

[jmm99]

Witness List

Hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights On “Drone Wars: The Constitutional and Counterterrorism Implications of Targeted Killing”; Tuesday, April 23, 2013, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226, 4:00 p.m.

General James Cartwright, United States Marine Corp (Ret.), Washington, DC.

Farea Al-Muslimi, Sana’a, Yemen

Peter Bergen, Director, National Security Studies Program, New America Foundation, Washington, DC.

Rosa Brooks, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC

Colonel Martha McSally, United States Air Force (Ret.), Tucson, AZ

Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, VA.

You have a choice between the USG clip and the C-SPAN clip (both over 2 hours).

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

JMM,

Twitter was abuzz with positive comments when Farea Al-Muslimi gave his evidence; his blog site is:http://yemeni-motanen.blogspot.com/

[jmm99]

Neither al-Muslimi's testimony nor his two blog posts concerning drones were surprising to me - nor, should they be, to anyone else who has followed the Pew International polls of the Muslim countries since 2001. Of course, would the reaction be the same if the drones were really and truly Yemenese, without the US being in the picture at all ? Or, flown by Muslim nations, such as Saudi, Iran and Turkey. I suspect we'll see some evidence on that question in the not so distant future.

One point emphasized in al-Muslimi's testimony was "why not just capture the man ?". That issue has been debated from at least the 1970s; specifically as to drones, but more generally as to the use of lethal force in tomorrow's warfare.

The basic argument by the "capture" proponents is to create a mandatory spectrum of force escalation - e.g., capture without physical force, capture with physical force, light wounding, heavy wounding, killing:

During wartime a critical legal question involves the scope of authority to choose whether to kill or capture enemy combatants. An important view, expressed by many contemporary experts, maintains that a combatant can be subject to lethal force wherever the person is found—unless and until the individual offers to surrender. I argue that, in certain well-specified and narrow circumstances, the use of force should instead be governed by a least-restrictive-means (LRM) analysis. That is, I contend that the modern law of armed conflict (LOAC) supports the following maxim: if enemy combatants can be put out of action by capturing them, they should not be injured; if they can be put out of action by injury, they should not be killed; and if they can be put out of action by light injury, grave injury should be avoided. Admittedly, there are all manner of caveats and conditions that will qualify the application of this maxim. However, the general formula—and its key components—should be understood to have a solid foundation in the structure, rules and practices of modern warfare.

from Ryan Goodman on The Power to Kill or Capture Enemy Combatants.

Lawfare links Goodman, and those arguing against his proposition, earlier this year, The Capture-or-Kill Debate #11: Goodman Responds to Ohlin.

I found it interesting that al-Muslimi was on the cutting edge of "modern lawfare" (more so than the other panelists).

Regards

Mike

[slapout9]

Link to an article from a new Jihad magazine requesting help against Drone attacks.

http://preview.reutersnext.com/2013/...r-help-against

[jmm99]

Lawfare, Lawfare Podcast Episode #31: Special Edition: Ben Emmerson Discusses His Investigation (by Benjamin Wittes and Ritika Singh, May 14, 2013) (audio, just over 40 min.)

A couple of key snips:

There is a really wide spectrum of informed, intelligent and reasonable opinion on what the basic framework issues are. And I’ve taken part now in too many high-level seminars with people who are all genuine experts in their fields addressing a problem which has multi dimensions and within each dimension multiple facets, in which it is it almost impossible to find a common agreement on the core principles. . . . There are fundamental differences on first principles, but there are also fundamental differences on all of the refinements within those principles. I am unable amongst informed opinion at present to discern a critical mass of concurrent opinion, which to me in itself is a conclusion—and is also a conclusion which points towards the need for some fairly urgent discussions in the face of a technology that is ... technology that is proliferating . . . at a remarkable speed.
...
I think it’s absolutely fair for me to acknowledge that . . . I did start from a position in common with other international lawyers from my side of the world, which found the new paradigm [the U.S. view] difficult to accept and follow. But I have to say that like all good conversations, the moment one begins to talk to others and see things from a different point of view, what has become clearer and clearer to me is that we get nowhere by the continuance and maintenance of entrenched positions and that, crucially, we need to listen to one another’s point of view and see what is the way forward.

Mr. Emmerson's last public statement as UNSR, Statement of the Special Rapporteur following meetings in Pakistan - UN Counter-Terrorism Expert meets victims of drone strikes in Waziristan and receives clear statement from the Government of Pakistan that it considers US drone strikes to be counter-productive, contrary to international law, and a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity (March 14, 2013), was more hardcore Emmerson.

Regards

Mike