Is killing people in foreign countries via drones

[B2G]

a war crime?

Just curious.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Seeing as how they're killing civilians? Yes.

[wavesofeuphoria]

2. +1

[jeff47]

7. Technically, just killing civilians isn't enough.

If you kill civilians as a side-effect of killing a combatant, that's legal.

For it to be a war crime, you have to know they are only civilians and then deliberately target them.

So it's legal to blow up a bus, killing 50 people, if you think one of the people on the bus is a combatant. It's going to be difficult to change that as long as war itself is legal.

[msanthrope]

9. Actually..the scenario you describe would not be legal, because the bus would have been known

to contain civilians.

If the bus was known to contain 50 AQAP members then yes.....you can legally target that bus outside a civilian population center.

[jeff47]

12. It was hyperbolic, but you don't have to be certain there are no civilians. (nt)

[msanthrope]

13. Why use poor hyperbole when there are actual examples? nt

[jeff47]

14. Largely in a poor reaction to all the people who post

that any civilian deaths at all is a war crime. Hyperbole in that direction doesn't help either - it results in trying to "fix" the wrong problem.

But it would have been better for me to not do so.

[msanthrope]

16. I understand....I hate broad-stroke questions, too. nt

[Nye Bevan]

17. How many civilians is it legal to kill, if you know there is a terrorist there?

What if a city was nuked because it was known to contain several ISIS leaders?

[jeff47]

20. If a nuke is the only weapon you have

it would be iffy, but one could probably make a case for it being legal.

You'd have to know for certain that the target is there, like watching a video feed from a drone of him walking around. And you'd have to be able to argue that the people in the city weren't noncombatants, but providing material support to the enemy. The size of a nuclear blast makes that difficult to argue in a "normal" city, but if it's some sort of base/encampment you may be able to make a case.

And if you have any other weapons that could do the job with fewer civilian deaths (such as missiles on that drone), then it wouldn't be legal.

We're supposed to be required to minimize civilian casualties, not eliminate them completely. Eliminating them completely is going to take a lot of work. We'll essentially have to get to the point where we ban war.

[B2G]

22. We are also supposed to ensure they can't be captured

In numerous cases, we haven't. Drones are so...convenient.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/22/amnesty-us-officials-war-crimes-drones

[jeff47]

23. Captured really can't be guaranteed unless you have absolute control of the area.

Which pretty much never happens - we could argue that the protests after the recent shootings demonstrate we don't have control of the US.

We definitely don't have control of territory in Yemen, or in the area held by ISIS.

I have hopes that someday we'll stop shooting at each other, but that will be a long time from now.

[Maedhros]

36. Yes - they are deploying drones despite the knowledge that up to 50 civilians are killed

for every "militant."

This is definitely a war crime, especially since this is happening in the absence of declared war.

[malaise]

3. Possibly and probably but guess what

there is no treaty signed on that one - there is no convention on that one. Torture now has been banned and we all signed on.

[Mike Nelson]

4. Yes, I think so...

...better than killing thousands in a land war - but if you're the dead civilian, that really doesn't matter.

[jeff47]

5. Nope. It has the legal fig leaf of a declared conflict.

Civilian deaths are covered by the legal fig leaf of targeting a combatant. As in "Sure, we annihilated the entire city, but there was one bad guy at the corner of 5th and Main."

[RadiationTherapy]

6. "Machines perform many actions, but they are not good or evil..."

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/24

[msanthrope]

8. Depends....name a particular person. nt

[B2G]

11. Oh, I don't know...how about any one of these guys.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-were-the-4-us-citizens-killed-in-drone-strikes/

[msanthrope]

15. None would be war crimes. nt

[B2G]

18. So it wasn't a war crime to flat out kill them

But would be had they been captured and water boarded but not killed?

I honestly don't get this.

[msanthrope]

21. Yes.### The difference is custody.

Having a person in custody activates their constitutional protections that a non-custodial combatant does not have. So yeah...while Awlaki was sending PETN bombs to synagogues in Chicago, we had the perfect right to drone strike him. But had we taken him into custody, his constitutional protections would have kicked in.


###Being a non-custodial and active member of AQAP can get you killed. That's the first three. As for Awlaki's son, he was killed during a strike on another AQAP member, and American intelligence has said they didn't know of his presence. That mistake is not a war crime.

[ann---]

10. Yes

I would say it is. And, if other countries were doing it, I'm thinking most Americans would call that a war crime.

[pampango]

19. As opposed to killing them in your own country or with a rifle, a tank or a car/aerial bomb?

Does it matter if the perpetrator is sincerely (in the eye of the beholder?) trying to accomplish a military objective while minimizing civilian casualties as opposed to the perpetrator who sees civilian casualties (and the terror they create) as a useful byproduct of a military operation or even a useful end in and of itself?

I believe the definition of a war crime is not limited to whether it occurs in your own country or another nor does it depend on what type of weapon is used.

[G_j]

24. UN Expert Challenges Foundations of US Covert Drone War

Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions

http://justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/UN-Special-Rapporteur-Extrajudicial-Christof-Heyns-Report-Drones.pdf

Summary

In the present report, the Special Rapporteur focuses on the use of lethal force
through armed drones from the perspective of protection of the right to life.
Although drones are not illegal weapons, they can make it easier for States to
deploy deadly and targeted force on the territories of other States. As such, they risk
undermining the protection of life in the immediate and longer terms. If the right to
life is to be secured, it is imperative that the limitations posed by international law on
the use of force are not weakened by broad justifications of drone strikes.

The Special Rapporteur examines the ways in which the constitutive regimes of
international law, including international human rights law, international humanitarian
law and the law on the inter-State use of force, regulate the use of armed drones. He
reiterates that these legal regimes constitute an interconnected and holistic system
and emphasizes the distinctive role of each in protecting the right to life. He cautions
against wide and permissive interpretations of their rules and standards and
underlines the centrality of transparency and accountability obligations.

-----------------------------

UN Expert Challenges Foundations of US Covert Drone War

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2013/10/17/un-expert-challenges-foundations-us-covert-drone-war

<>

In his report, Heyns blasts drone strikes known as "double-tap" strikes, ones where a second strike follows a first to target rescuers, a tactic TBIJ documented the U.S. has used in its drone war. Heyns states that this is a war crime. He writes:

Where one drone attack is followed up by another in order to target those who are wounded and hors de combat or medical personnel, it constitutes a war crime in armed conflict and a violation of the right to life, whether or not in armed conflict.

In his report, Heyns questions the international legality of these kinds of drone attacks.

References are sometimes made to signature strikes, whereby people may be targeted based on their location or appearance. This is not a concept known to international humanitarian law and could lead to confusion. The legality of such strikes depends on what the signatures are. In some cases, people may be targeted without their identities being known, based on insignia or conduct. The legal test remains whether there is sufficient evidence that a person is targetable under international humanitarian law, as described above, by virtue of having a continuous combat function or directly participating in hostilities, and if there is doubt States must refrain from targeting. Insofar as the term “signature strikes” refers to targeting without sufficient information to make the necessary determination, it is clearly unlawful.

Heyns also notes the civilian harm caused by the drone war:

Drones come from the sky, but leave the heavy footprint of war on the communities that they target. The claims that drones are more precise in targeting cannot be accepted uncritically, not least because terms such as “terrorist” or “militant” are sometimes used to describe people who are in truth protected civilians. The principle of proportionality protects those civilians who are not directly targeted but nevertheless may bear the brunt of the force used. According to this principle, it is prohibited to carry out an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

The targets of drone strikes are not brought to trial, but slated for execution. And this, Heyns writes, defies "basic notions of humanity."

Interpretive Guidance, ICRC states that it would defy basic notions of humanity to kill an adversary or to refrain from giving him or her an opportunity to surrender where there manifestly is no necessity for the use of lethal force.

He adds later in the report that

whether or not they recognize this as a legal obligation, States should capture rather than kill during armed conflict where feasible.

“This report rightly states that the US’ secretive drone war is a danger not only to innocent civilians on the ground but also to international security as a whole," stated Kat Craig, Legal Director at UK-based human rights charity Reprieve, which represents a number of civilian victims of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen.

"The CIA’s campaign must be brought out of the shadows: we need to see real accountability for the hundreds of civilians who have been killed – and justice for their relatives," stated Craig.

The UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and countering terrorism, Ben Emmerson, also submitted a report on Thursday on drones and targeted killings, and both his and Heyns' reports will be debated at the UN General Assembly on October 25, 2013.

________________

[840high]

25. Yes.

[awake]

26. War is a crime in and of its self

whether done with drones or maned bombers, "boots on the ground" or using another countries troops the act of War is still a crime on humanity it is time to find another way to resolve conflicts other than war.

[stone space]

27. Yes. (nt)

[dilby]

28. Is it a war crime if a soldier shoots a child point blank in the head?

Because if it is, then it's a war crime to kill that same child with a drone.

[stevenleser]

31. No, its not, if the drone strike intended to kill someone else who was a legitimate target

International law isn't whatever you say it is. There are specific rules.

[dilby]

32. Is this a War Crime?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-killed-my-grandson.html

Because if it's not then no soldier should ever face a war crime tribunal for shooting children point blank in the head.

[stevenleser]

34. No. This really isn't that hard to get. International law accounts for civilian casualties.

Whether it was a bomber, an errant artillery shell, machine gun fire, if there was a legitimate target, others who get caught in the crossfire do not constitute a war crime.

If you intentionally kill a civilian, who is in no way contributing to a war or criminal effort, and that is your intended target, its a war crime.

[SomethingFishy]

29. I got caught up on John Oliver's show last night

and one of the episodes was about drones. Watch it and see if you can figure out the answer to your question.

[RiverLover]

33. Wow. That's all I can say. wow. Thanks for posting. I'm going to go cry now...

[whatchamacallit]

30. As with all moral issues

it depends on how it reflects on the president.

Sincerely,
A. Boglodyte

[hugo_from_TN]

35. Yes and whoever orders it should be prosecuted.

[stevenleser]

37. Cite what international law is broken. And I'll save you time, you won't be able to do so. nt