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

[jmm99]

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" has moved to a new theater of Lawfare operations.

From the Miami Herald, Group threatens legal trouble for US over drones:

.....
"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

[motorfirebox]

"It's going to be the next 'Guantanamo Bay' issue."

So it will be the subject of great outcry that falls largely silent when those who cry about it the most refuse to have anything to do with the realities of fixing it?

Not that I'm bitter or anything...

[SWJ Blog]

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.

[davidbfpo]

Added as a resource for the casualties caused by drone attacks:http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.u...ondVersion.pdf

A very short introduction:

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

[SWJ Blog]

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.

[davidbfpo]

Moderator's Note

I plan to amend the thread's title from 'The drone paradox' to 'Using drones: principles, tactics and results'. This will reflect the discussion to date better.

[davidbfpo]

Professor Paul Rogers in a wide ranging commentary, with useful links and is sub-titled:

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:

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.

[motorfirebox]

Yeah, it's gonna be hard to get any recognition for those killed by drones (righteous targets or bystanders, either one) when we're not even officially fessing up to using them, in most cases.

[jmm99]

The two pdf files:

DISCUSSION PAPER: THE LEGAL OBLIGATION TO RECORD CIVILIAN CASUALTIES OF ARMED CONFLICT, by Professor Susan Breau, Rachel Joyce (June 2011)

DISCUSSION PAPER 2: DRONE ATTACKS, INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND THE RECORDING OF CIVILIAN CASUALTIES OF ARMED CONFLICT, by Professor Susan Breau, Marie Aronsson, Rachel Joyce (June 2011)

go into some detail re: the sources on which they rely (in summary, they are):

The various sources of law drawn upon to identify this right include the Geneva Conventions; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and other human rights instruments; reports and statements of the United Nations; case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; and the principles of customary international law.

These sources are quoted or linked in the pdfs.

The conclusions (bold in the original) were:

THE CONTENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL OBLIGATION TO RECORD EVERY CIVILIAN CASUALTY OF ARMED CONFLICT

1. There are binding international legal obligations upon parties to armed conflict to:

a) search for all missing civilians as a result of hostilities, occupation or detention;

b) collect all of the casualties of armed conflict from the area of hostilities as soon as circumstances permit;

c) if at all possible, the remains of those killed are to be returned to their relatives;

d) the remains of the dead are not to be despoiled;

e) any property found with the bodies of the dead is to be returned to the relatives of the deceased;

f) the dead are to be buried with dignity and in accordance with their religious or cultural beliefs;

g) the dead are to be buried individually and not in mass graves;

h) the graves are to be maintained and protected;

i) exhumation of dead bodies is only to be permitted in circumstances of public necessity which will include identifying cause of death;

j) the location of the place of burial is to be recorded by the party to the conflict in control of that territory;

k) there should be established in the case of civilian casualties an official graves registration service.

2. These international legal obligations taken together constitute a binding international legal obligation upon every party to an armed conflict to record every civilian casualty of armed conflict whether in an international or Non-International Armed Conflict.

I'm not going to debate the merits of this proposal from I Law Academia. If they believe their proposal has so much merit, they should find a Representative and a Senator to introduce it as legislation. Or, find someone from the Obama WH to seek its incorporation as an Executive Order.

Regards

Mike

[SWJ Blog]

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.

[davidbfpo]

An article which opens with:

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:

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

[Ken White]

Proving yet again that smooth political playing in Washington is far more important for advancement to high places than is competence...

[Bob's World]

Where all combatants are civilians, when is a casualty not a "civcas"?

Far more accurate distinction is that of "combatant" vs "non-combatant"

The next sticky issue to work through is that is "liability."

Clearly an armed fighter, male or female, young or old, is a combatant, and if engaged in operatons is also clearly liable. Such personnel should be fair game.

Then there is that wonderful concept of "accomplice liability" that we do not apply in our current operations. If a white toyota pickup truck racing away from an ambush site, or toward some coalition unit is identified by a mix of radio chatter and eyes on assessment to have 5 armed anti-governmental forces on board; but also carries two unarmed females, and three adolecents;

How many civilians are there? 10

How many have direct liability? 5

How many have accomplice liability? 5

How many "civcas" if this truck is engaged by a drone or otherwise?
Under current rules: 5

Under the rules that apply fundamental concepts of Western law enforcement: 0

I am no fan of the broad use of drones to engage targets where we do not have boots on the ground, such as in the FATA. Drones are great, like an aerial sniper, for the tactical ground commander to support his troops where less accurate means of firesupport are reasonably restricted.

There is a bigger issue of how we define civcas, and that needs to be addressed as well if we are going to continue to engage in these kinds of operations.

[Fuchs]

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Under the rules that apply fundamental concepts of Western law enforcement: 0

I think you got this very wrong.

[jmm99]

I get the basic facts:

If a white toyota pickup truck racing away from an ambush site, or toward some coalition unit is identified by a mix of radio chatter and eyes on assessment to have 5 armed anti-governmental forces on board; but also carries two unarmed females, and three adolecents.

but this conclusion is unclarifying:

Under the rules that apply fundamental concepts of Western law enforcement: 0

First off, what is "Western law enforcement" ? US and EU differ on some fundamentals (as the UK learned in the recent Human Rights cases involving detainees in Iraq), which cannot be bridged.

Secondly, if you are applying US law (Tennessee v Garner, etc.), I could come up with 10 civcas, 5 civcas or 0 civcas - just by supplying three different sets of underlying facts which are not supplied explicitly in your hypothetical.

I don't say you're "very wrong" - but, simply that the example and conclusions are incomplete.

[Bob's World]

First, as those who follow anything I have posted know, I am not a big fan of waging war against one's own populace and believe that insurgency is best treated as a civil emergency rather than as warfare.

Killing and controlling the populace may buy suppression of illegal action, but it will not buy resolution of the underlying grievances.

My hastily laid out example above (admittedly I see plenty of wiggle room in those facts as well) comes from a mix of my experience as a criminal prosecutor in civilian life, and my recent experience in Afghanistan where we not only kill far more "non-combatants" than we should and call that civcas; but also destroy careers and drive actions that put our servicemen at unnecessary risk over incidents that clearly involve combatants, and those who are knowingly and willingly associating with combatants over what I see as largely immaterial criteria rooted in Gender or Age over time, manner and place.

A friend of mine on a 4-man patrol as a LRRP in the Central Highlands of Vietnam in 1967 got his first two combat kills with a single burst at close range. Ducking behind cover of of a major trail to allow a VC patrol to pass, the VC stopped so that two of their members could relieve themselves. As my friend squatted, back agaist a large tree, M-16 across his chest, the two VC came around the tree and met him eye to eye. The beautiful young VC swung her French bolt action rifle down to engage him and he quickly swung is M-16 up in response. He got there first, firing a long burst through her and the baby on her back. A tragedy by any definition, civilians by any definition, but also an insurgent fighter who knowingly took her child on an armed patrol.

Fast forward to last year, a partial ODA on patrol is enagaged by 4 armed men at nightfall who then flee toward a nearby compound. The ODA aggressively follows in hot pursuit into the compound where the fire fight continues. At some point the wife of one of the fighters, standing somewhere in the dark behind a gunman in a doorway, is struck and killed by a stray round. A "civcas" event, a blackeye for the unit, and stern directives to next time stop, cordon the compound, and resolve in the morning. Perhaps a rifle company has that luxory, but not 6 guys deep in Indian country miles from any friendly support.

This is messy stuff. Our current rules are illogical and make it messier.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Under the rules that apply fundamental concepts of Western law enforcement: 0

I'm in agreement with Fuchs and Mike -- this seems awfully dubious to me.

I am no fan of the broad use of drones to engage targets where we do not have boots on the ground, such as in the FATA. Drones are great, like an aerial sniper, for the tactical ground commander to support his troops where less accurate means of firesupport are reasonably restricted.

Agreed and I predict that our rather too liberal use of the aircraft and their weaponry will have two ill effects. They and the technique will lose their net value due to that over use and we will develop some significant, legal, civcas problems...

On the issue of civilian casualties, I'm neither a law enforcement officer nor an attorney, however, I did soldier for a while and doing that I learned that this:

There is a bigger issue of how we define civcas, and that needs to be addressed as well if we are going to continue to engage in these kinds of operations.

is quite true, is extremely problematic -- and is yet another reason aside from costs and ineffectiveness such operations should be diligently avoided.

[jmm99]

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

[Bob's World]

More to the point of the thread, I think it is important that we see drones as a tool rather than as a strategy that can be applied to some problem.

In a future where we are not attempting to fix Afghanistan or artificially prop up any particular form of government that we think is best for us, drones could be a great tool to be used to support a small CT force that is focused on true transnational non-state actors with an intent to export illegal violence (rather than nationalist insurgents, who never were, are not now, and will not be, our business).

I thought the Afghan Commandos with a small SF presence (one ODA per Battalion of Commandos); supported by a host of enablers (ISR, Intel, Lift, drone support, etc) was a very effective and sustainable model from my time in Southern Afghanistan. A future regional force with a mix of Pakistani and Afghan Commandos with such enablers to work both sides of the Durrand line to me seems viable. Far more so than a large contingent of JSOC or fleet of CIA drones.

The commandos are very effective in planning and leading their own operations; and have a tremendous effect on a populace as they move through a populated area, conducting ad hoc shuras as they go; and very effectively sorting out the "bad guys" from those who just happen to live on the objective. Drones don't do that. Neither do Rangers, or Marines, or any other force of amped up foreigners dropping into some unsuspecting neighborhood on such a mission.

[davidbfpo]

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:

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:

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?