Legal justification: Obama asked to give criteria for drone strikes
Congressman Dennis Kucinich and ten members of the US House have asked the President Barack Obama to provide the targeting criteria for signature strikes aka drone strikes and the legal justification for them.
The letter, being circulated by Democratic House of Representatives member Dennis Kucinich, expresses concern at the use of signature strikes against suspected militants by the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).
In a press release, Congressman Kucinich said, “These drone strikes are being conducted in the name of our national security and yet Congress and the American people have not been provided with the legal justification for such strikes.
The use of drones must be subject to the same legal constrains and oversight as any other weapon. “These attacks undermine the morals, values and the strategic goals of the United States. The fact that they are conducted with complete impunity and with no accountability threatens to set a dangerous precedent that could unravel the very laws and international standards the US helped to create.”
The letter, says that “as members of Congress, we are deeply concerned about the full impact of drone strikes.” It asks the President to provide the “targeting criteria for “signature” strikes; mechanisms used by the CIA and JSOC to ensure that such killings are legal; the nature of the follow-up that is conducted when civilians are killed or injured; and the mechanisms that ensure civilian casualty numbers are collected, tracked and analyzed.”
The letter follows an article published in The New York Times earlier this week that stated that the President not just signed off on drone strikes, but also had a kill list.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 1st, 2012.
COMMENTS (8)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1732344836-0/BeFunk_§_]__-(37)1732344836-0.jpg "israeli attack targets hospital killing seven medics in lebanon")
Lets not forget the Drone program was NEVER a successful one, and was on the books for a veryy long time, and for good reason too, it's target capability was/is weak, and rarely ever hits its targets, usually schools, madrassahs, families, weddings, funerals are bombed. So why should ANY country put up with such terror espousing tactics that will only give legitimacy to what the militants are fighting for? Has militancy in Pakistan not increased directly in proportional to American intervention and terror tactics? As an American, I am ashamed that my government is lying to its people, and blindly killing our Muslims just because they can.
No one has the right to play remote controlled video games and take the lives of our people in a blink of an eye, entire families are made shaheed with just one click of a button, Obama says every target is authorized by him after close scrutiny? Well that's not saying much when the hit and miss target is 95% off the mark, when more children are killed, than any 'militants' as long as it's not American lives on the line who cares about third world Pakistanis?
Forget drones, this whole WoT is illegal that has rocked the Muslim world, and given rise to militancy in Pakistan, today the US has forced Pakistan into a battlefield between its own people, the sooner Pakistanis leave this war, the BETTER, insha'a Allah.
There's no justification to allow any terrorist (previously good guys in USA, NATO, Arab Financiers books) to use Pakistan soil for any such activity, surely no one will deny this. With the same token Drones bombartment is also agaist International Law, And USA or that matter none other country has any right to create, design n propagade it's sinister plans by justifying in any manner. Such barbaric act has opened new avenue to others nations who may use the same tactics in future. Mirza's earlier comments comparing Apple with Oranges reflect his limited knowledge. USA claim to be world leader, main military power, claiming to be the champions of saving human race n what not, USA is failing tremendously to ask other nations to follow it's policies. We have over 185-countries in this world n it's a naive concept in 21st century to claim 10-percent of the nations of this planet as a free world (in other words rest are slaves).
It's embarassing for Barack Obama that he's being attacked by a group of Congressmen led by Dennis Kucinich, a colleague from his own party. It's true that these extrajudicial killings do raise profound legal and moral questions. That the U.S. flouts the international law, poses also a a threat to global law and order.
@John B You dont see any problem with this becasue you are fed by the the war on terror's media bombardment. I am not sure how much you know about the areas under these attacks. But the general survey of US public shows there is very little understanding about the drone attacks and the people being killed by these attacks. What you dont understand now, and will understand promptly when it will be too late as usual, is that USA's meddling in Afghansitan and Pakistan is a bigger idicity and crime than what they did in Iraq. Fighting your war on other people's lands using other people's children is a crime in US constitution. You must know this?
The US Congress on September 14, 2001, authorized the US President to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the 9/11 or who harbored said persons or groups.
Only one Democratic congressman from California voted against it.
Obama administration finished those "planned, authorized, and committed" 9/11 phase and is now focusing on those "aided and harbored said persons and groups".
I don't see any violation of constitutional authority of congress.
Is it a great country or what? There would be open discussion and hearings on drone attacks and their legality. Can anybody in Pakistani parliament ever ask let alone discuss "how OBL was living so comfortably and what was he doing in Pakistan, who brought him and why nobody is held responsible for his presence"? I do not see any suo motu on this issue, as if it never happened. Memo is dangerous and imp but the presence of the worst terrorist is not.