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

[jmm99]

with Ben Emmerson's UN report; though in a more strident manner.

Amnesty International, “Will I Be Next?” - US Drone Strikes in Pakistan; investigates nine drone strikes in North Waziristan between January 2012 and August 2013.

Human Rights Watch, “Between a Drone and Al Qaeda” - The Civilian Cost of US Targeted Killings in Yemen; examines six drone strikes in Yemen, one from 2009 and the remaining five from 2012 and 2013.

Both reports employ restrictive definitions of "combatants", and expansive definitions of "civilians", in those limited situations where the Laws of War (Laws of Armed Conflict; International Humanitarian Law) are believed by the two NGOs to be possibly applicable. In general, they prefer International Human Rights Law (i.e., the absence of an armed conflict). In any event, both reports apply standards which would be very restrictive of drone usage.

By now, this thread's readers should be more than capable of deciding between the various policy-military-legal paradigms, without need for lengthy sermons by this writer.

Regards

Mike

PS: I disagree with Ben's legal positions, which I think are ill-chosen (see prior post); but, if one chooses those positions, one would have to follow Ben's logic . The two NGO reports are "special pleadings"; in short, agitprop.