US government refuses to lift lid on drone strikes

US government asks a federal court to reject lawsuits demanding the release of documents on CIA drone strikes.

GENEVA/ WASHINGTON: The US government has asked a federal court to reject lawsuits demanding the release of documents on CIA drone strikes targeting suspected militants abroad, saying the entire subject is "classified."

Shortly before a midnight deadline on Wednesday, US government lawyers filed a brief to the district court in New York defending the veil of secrecy around the drone campaign, which has killed numerous al Qaeda figures and associates in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

"Whether or not the CIA has the authority to be, or is in fact, directly involved in targeted lethal operations remains classified," the government brief stated.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the New York Times had filed lawsuits after having requested papers on the drone bombing campaign under the Freedom of Information Act.

The organizations had requested documents explaining the legal basis for the raids and the killing of terror suspects who are US citizens, such as the US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaqi who was taken out last year in a drone strike.

The government not only ruled out releasing documents related to the drone strikes, but argued that merely referring to the number or categories of documents posed a threat to national security.

"Even to describe the numbers and details of most of these documents would reveal information that could damage the government's counterterrorism  efforts," it said.

The ACLU called the government's argument "absurd," saying the drone war was an open secret that government officials have boasted about to reporters.

"Senior officials have discussed it, both on the record and off. They have taken credit for its putative successes, professed it to be legal, and dismissed concerns about civilian casualties," Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, said in a statement.

"The public is entitled to know more about the legal authority the administration is claiming and the way that the administration is using it."

The Obama administration's brief to the court acknowledged the use of lethal force is "undoubtedly of the utmost public concern" but said it had to take into account legal prohibitions against the release of classified information.

To inform the public, the White House had organized a series of speeches by top officials, including President Barack Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, that have "set forth for the American people the legal analysis and process involved in the determination whether to use lethal force," the government said.

US officials say the strikes by armed, unmanned aircraft have decimated al Qaeda's core leadership and saved American lives, but the raids have caused an unknown number of civilian casualties and sparked outrage in Pakistan.

UN terrorism expert warns US to come clean on drone strikes

A UN expert urged the United States on Thursday to demonstrate that its drone attacks are legal, warning that the United Nations may be called on to investigate if Washington fails to act.

Unless the United States puts in place mechanisms to investigate its drone attacks, "the recommendation will be that the UN does," said special rapporteur Ben Emmerson told reporters on the fringes of the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

"Each and every (US) attack will be investigated. Somebody needs to do right by these victims."

Describing drones as "rather like leaving a loaded gun around and waiting for someone to fire it", Emmerson said that the international community was "extremely concerned about the use of targeted killings".

Emmerson, the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, said that 300 drone strikes took place in Pakistan between 2004 and 2012.

Similar drone attacks have also struck Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan, he added.

The UN expert said that at least 42 countries now use drone technology, "a clear and stark warning" of the need to ensure that international legal tools are put in place to prevent future abuses.

In international humanitarian law, targeted killings are sanctioned in armed conflict. In principle, they can only be used as long as there is evidence of a serious threat in a conflict situation and where no other solution is available.

Syria also came in for criticism from the special rapporteur for using his own call for states to protect their people as a justification for shelling civilians.

"Using victims of terrorism as a pretext for violating the human rights of civilians and non-combatants is a grave and unconvincing distortion of the (Emmerson) report and a misuse of the principles of international law," he said.