Yes, we kill: Legal, ethical strikes on Obama’s drone admission

As US president defends the covert campaign, Amnesty seeks explanation.


Huma Imtiaz February 01, 2012

WASHINGTON:


In a rare, yet non-startling admission, US President Barack Obama on Monday confirmed that US drones have targeted Taliban and al Qaeda militants in Pakistan, in a programme that has escalated under his administration.


The confirmation of an otherwise clandestine programme brought to fore a host of ethical and legal questions surrounding it. Obama himself, during an interview on Monday, attempted to justify the unpopular programme that Islamabad insists causes more harm than good.

“Notwithstanding tactical advantages of drone strikes, we are of the firm view that these are unlawful, counterproductive and hence unacceptable,” Foreign Office spokesperson Abdul Basit told AFP on Tuesday.

Islamabad appeared to shrug off the confirmation’s implications though.

Justifying drones

Asked about drones in a chat with web users on Google+ and YouTube, Obama said “a lot of these strikes have been in Fata” – Pakistan’s semi-autonomous Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Afghan border.

“For the most part, they’ve been very precise strikes against al Qaeda and their affiliates, and we’re very careful in terms of how it’s been applied,” Obama said on Monday.

“This is a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists, who are trying to go in and harm Americans, hit American facilities, American bases, and so on.”

Obama said that many strikes were carried out “on al Qaeda operatives in places where the capacities of that military in that country may not be able to get them.”

“For us to be able to get them in another way would involve probably a lot more intrusive military action than the ones we’re already engaging in.”

Pakistan’s ‘limited capacity’

Obama’s justification for drone strikes was seconded at a hearing of the US Senate Select Intelligence Committee.

“Pakistan military leaders have had limited success against al Qaeda operatives, other foreign fighters and Pakistani militants who pose a threat to Islamabad,” said Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The hearing, attended by leaders of the US intelligence community, including the heads of the CIA and National Intelligence, focused on worldwide threats in 2012.

There was admission of Pakistan’s support in counter-terrorism operations, though.

CIA Director General (retd) David Petraeus said that, on the level of intelligence services, relations with Pakistan were productive and there was also communication going on.

He said that in October, they had “captured or killed” four al Qaeda leaders, which was also due to some cooperation with Pakistan. Petraeus added that while Pakistan had conducted operations in Fata and Swat, they had not pressured the Haqqani network or Mullah Nazir’s group, nor pressured those present in Balochistan.

Amnesty’s questions

“The US must give a detailed explanation of how these strikes are lawful and what is being done to monitor civilian casualties and ensure proper accountability,” said Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific director, in a press release.

“What are the rules of engagement? What proper legal justification exists for these attacks?” Zarifi asked.

US Attorney General Eric Holder will reportedly reference US legal arguments in support of such killings by drone attacks in a speech on national security in coming weeks.

Past justifications offered by US officials have invoked legal theories based on a “global war” between the US and al Qaeda, a concept not recognised by international humanitarian or human rights law.

“The US must … disclose the relevant legal and factual documentation necessary for a meaningful assessment of the lawfulness of the deliberate killings it is carrying out – simply trying to find another way to say ‘trust us, it’s legal’ will not be good enough,” Zarifi added.

(With additional input from AFP)

Published in The Express Tribune, February 1st, 2012.

COMMENTS (10)

Its (still) Econonmy Stupid | 12 years ago | Reply

World is a global village and event occuring in part of the world affect the other parts of world whether it is new emerging disease or economic disorder or breeding ground for terrorists. Pakistan can not claim to be a nuclear power and fifth or sixth largest army in the world and yet have no control over its own border or law and ordeer situation. A FM station can operate in Pakistan for years and yet no resources are deployed to locate or shut it down. If Pakistan want to be part of a civilized global village than follow th norms of the world or global village will do something about it and you may not like the solution imposed on you.

Saif | 12 years ago | Reply

@tauseef: If you meant that (innocent) civilian deaths are acceptable, then I weep for your lost humanity. I weep for it anyway.......

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ