Drone Strikes Are Legal, U.S. Official Says

[tekisui]

Source: New York Times

As my colleague Charlie Savage reports, Harold Hongju Koh, the State Department’s top lawyer (who has been mentioned as a possible nominee for the Supreme Court), last week outlined the Obama administration’s legal rationale for targeted killings using drone strikes.

Mr. Koh was speaking at the annual meeting of the American Society of International Law. The complete text of his speech can be read on the State Department’s Web site.

Mr. Koh was a human-rights official during the Clinton administration. As the dean of Yale Law School during the Bush administration, he was an outspoken critic of the government’s policies on detention, interrogations, surveillance and other issues.

As my colleague Eric Lichtblau has explained, Mr. Koh wrote in 2004 that America’s disregard for international law after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, had earned it a place along with North Korea and Iraq in “the axis of disobedience.” He also told a Senate hearing that the Bush administration had imposed “unnecessary, self-inflicted wounds, which have gravely diminished our global standing and damaged our reputation for respecting the rule of law.”

On The American Prospect’s Web site, Adam Serwer noted that Mr. Koh’s attempt to explain why the Obama administration considers the drone attacks legal came a few months after Philip Alston, the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions, said that the strikes “might violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law.”

According to the minutes of a news conference at the U.N. in October, Mr. Alston — who has pressed governments, like that of Sri Lanka, to investigate extrajudicial killing during wars — explicitly asked for an explanation from the American government:

(snip)

In his explanation, Mr. Koh said:

In particular, this Administration has carefully reviewed the rules governing targeting operations to ensure that these operations are conducted consistently with law of war principles, including:

* First, the principle of distinction, which requires that attacks be limited to military objectives and that civilians or civilian objects shall not be the object of the attack; and
* Second, the principle of proportionality, which prohibits attacks that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

In response to these remarks, Mr. Serwer wrote in a blog post for The American Prospect, “There can be a case made that the second principle Koh cites, ‘proportionality,’ might be violated by the drone attacks.” As he notes, a detailed study of the attacks — “The Year of the Drone: An Analysis of U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan” by Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann for the New America Foundation — “found that one-third of those killed by drones were civilians.” Mr. Serwer added, “The other question is whether or not the strikes themselves are counterproductive from a strategic standpoint, which some counterinsurgency types have argued.”

more: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/drone-strikes-are-legal-u-s-official-says/

__________________________________________________________________

Is this like when bush's lawyer's said torture was legal?

[ixion]

1. A Great Test for 'Legality': Would we mind if

Pakistani drones were flying over US cities?

Yes, yes we would.

Would we seek diplomatic or military solutions to such an act?

Yes, yes we would.

'Legality' refuted.

[indepat]

6. Was just wondering how the US would feel and act should some other country

unleash their drones against their perceived enemies on our soil, all the while inflicting considerable "collateral damage?" :shrug:

[hack89]

14. If we secretly supported them like the Pakistani government does

because those perceived enemies were also waging war against the US government, then I think we would do what the Pakistanis do - talk out of both sides of our faces by publicly condemning the attacks for public consumption while privately proving valuable intelligence on targets.

[indepat]

21. Thanks for a needed primer on how the real world and its lone superpower operate

:-)

[hack89]

25. Pakistan is in a tough spot

those Islamic extremists we are killing are a mortal threat to the Pakistani government. Those same extremists have the support of a large number of Pakistanis. The government says what they have to say to public while still fighting what they see as a battle for survival. I am certain that the Pakistani government thinks the drone attacks are very necessary.

[tekisui]

8. Of course we would mind.

It is a disgusting practice that Obama has greatly increased.

[zipplewrath]

10. Different than manned aircraft?

Is someone trying to make a distinction with respect to manned aircraft here? These drones aren't any different than a manned aircraft, other than the location of the operator. Or is the assertion against aerial bombing in general?

[ixion]

11. It is a US violation of sovereign nation's borders for military reasons

And that is all the test there needs to be. Distinguishing between 'what kind' of violation is irrelevant.

[zipplewrath]

13. Do we not have permission?

I thought we had permission from the local government to be there conducting these operations.

[ixion]

18. Nope, we do not

See Post #17 for link

[hack89]

15. We have permission from the Pakistanis

some of the drone bases are in Pakistan.

[ixion]

17. No, we don't...

No assent given to US drone attacks: Pakistan

Sat, 27 Mar 2010 01:52:35 GMT

A tribesman watching a US drone strike in Pakistan. Islamabad says the US has not been given assent to carry out drone attacks on Pakistani soil.
Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik says the US drone attacks in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan are carried out without the consent of Islamabad.

Speaking to reporters outside the Lahore High Court non Friday, Malik said the controversial issue of US drone attacks was to be raised with Washington during bilateral talks.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=121727§ionid=351020401

[hack89]

24. Here's a news flash - governments lie to their own people

The US was secretly flying unmanned drones from the Shamsi airbase in Pakistan's southwestern province of Baluchistan as early as 2006, according to an image of the base from Google Earth.

An investigation by The Times yesterday revealed that the CIA was secretly using Shamsi to launch the Predator drones that observe and attack al-Qaeda and Taleban militants around Pakistan's border with Afghanistan.

US special forces used the airbase during the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, but the Pakistani Government said in 2006 that the Americans had left. Both sides have since denied repeatedly that Washington has used, or is using, Pakistani bases to launch drones. Pakistan has also demanded that the US cease drone attacks on its tribal area, which have increased over the last year, allegedly killing several “high-value” targets as well as many civilians.

The Google Earth image now suggests that the US began launching Predators from Shamsi — built by Arab sheiks for falconry trips — at least three years ago.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5762371.ece

The Pakistani government is caught between a rock and a hard place - a population that sympathizes with Islamic extremists - Islamic extremists that are attacking the Pakistani government. So the government says one thing to their population and neighboring Islamic nations while providing covert support to the US. How do you think the CIA is getting such good targeting data if not from the Pakistani government?

[ixion]

26. Yeah, they do, and that goes for the US as well

which you seem to find beyond reproach.

The point is that the US would NEVER IN A THOUSAND YEARS allow Pakistan to fly drones over US airspace. Never. To argue otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

[hack89]

30. Pakistan is allowing drones because they feel it is in their interest to do so

they can stay no.

I don't know where you got the idea that I feel America is above reproach - just because I don't share your cartoonish vision of a black or white, good or evil world doesn't mean I think America can do no wrong. You are right, America would never allow Pakistan to fly drones over our country - unless we decided it was in our national interest to do so.

[ixion]

31. So you have an intimate relationship with the government of Pakistan then?

because what you say directly contradicts what their official stance is.

So tell me again who's view is "cartoonish" :eyes:

[hack89]

32. So secret drone bases in Pakistan don't intrigue you?

why would Pakistan allow the CIA to fly drones from bases in their own country unless they thought it a good idea? Perhaps their "official" stance is for public consumption while they allowed secret drone operations to continue out of sight? You do agree that covert, secret operations are common?

[ixion]

33. Uh, if you know about them

then they're not so secret.

I'm not saying that Pakistan isn't allowing covert operations.

I also don't think it has anything to do with the common good for either Pakistan or the US. And since we're making assumptions, I feel comfortable in making that one.

[hack89]

36. So you don't think that Pakistan is waging war

against the Taliban in the tribal areas? What was all that fighting in Swat about? Since it is clear that the Taliban and other extremist are activity challenging the power of the Pakistani government - killing a lot of innocents in the process, it seem perfectly reasonable to me that it is in the best interest of the government to help the US kill Taliban. It is not rocket science.

[ixion]

38. There's more to it than that...

It's hard to say exactly, because I'm not sitting in on the CIA / Pakistani meetings. I do know that it has little-to-nothing to do with "fighting extremism" since it's the extremists on both sides doing the fighting. It's about geopolitical-control of resources, and the greedy Pakistani politicians want their cut, just like the greedy US politicians.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with noble causes and making the world a better place. Of that I'm certain.

Why? Because violence begets violence, no matter what your rationale.

[hack89]

44. The deal with the devil that Pakistan made

was to support the Taliban in Afghanistan. They did this for one main reason - to ensure stability behind them as they focused on India. They also wanted to minimize Iranian influence in Afghanistan. They also had many Islamic fundamentalist, especially in the intelligence services, that truly supported the aims of the Taliban. What upset the applecart was Taliban support for al-Qaeda and 9/11. America overthrows the Taliban and pushed them and al-Qaeda into the Pakistani Tribal areas - areas where the government has never had full control. Pakistan assists the US to counter growing al-Qaeda influence in Pakistan (fund raising, training camps, etc). Al-Qaeda steps up their campaign of violence against the Pakistani government and the government finds themselves in a war of survival. They in turn assist the CIA in their drone campaign because they see it as an effective way to hurt al-Qaeda without sustaining a lot of Army casualties.


I have never said that there was anything noble about it. Necessary maybe but not noble. You can argue for ever who started the cycle of violence - it is naive to think that if the US was to pull out of the region that it would end the violence or that it would make us safer.

[ixion]

45. what's naive is to think

that we're there because a)it's 'necessary', b) to end violence, and; c) make us 'safer' (whatever that means).

I'm not saying the violence would end if we pulled out. I AM saying that -- I, We, the US taxpayer -- wouldn't be paying for it, which I am now. That's a distinct and quantifiable difference. The strife going on over there has been going on for hundreds of years, at a minimum, and will not be stopped by our presence.

Do you actually believe that US-driven death and destruction in the Middle East actually makes us safer? Where is the logic in that?

[BeFree]

48. Logic?

War is peace, don'cha'know?

[hack89]

51. I think that non-US driven death and destruction in the ME

can threaten us. It is naive to think that if we just "leave them alone" they will ignore us. You think that the violence is simply a reaction - what if it isn't? What if any one of many players in the region think they could profit by attacking American interests or economy? What if what they really want is a fundamental reordering of the global order? In that case the threat never goes away regardless of what we do. You say that strife has been going on for hundreds of years - and what do they fight over? Empires, power, dominion over others - why do you think that we would not be effected by all that?

[ixion]

53. I didn't say we shouldn't defend ourselves, or that extremist groups would ignore us

but it is most certainly true that US-sanctioned violence will only create more animosity, not less.

"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."
-- Albert Einstein.

[hack89]

54. More animosity doesn't necessarily mean a greater threat

not if the Taliban and al-Qaeda leadership are constantly being killed or arrested. Look no further than Israel - there have been no suicide bombings in Israel since they decided to decapitate Hamas. There's plenty of fanatical cannon fodder but they are much less a threat without skilled and experienced leaders, fund raisers, bomb makers, etc. The entire point of the drone campaign is decapitate the leadership and skilled positions - it is easier to defeat a bunch of inexperienced fighters. Only time will tell if it is fact increasing or reducing our security - I don't think it is a simple as you make it out to be.

[ixion]

55. wow... you support Israeli genocide

okay, I know where you stand now. Thanks.

[hack89]

57. A hell of a genocide - what with a sky rocketing population and all.

Look at the Great African War that has been raging since 1998 if you want to see true genocide - 5 million dead and still counting. But America is not involved so it is of no import to you.

Now that I see where you stand I see that there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Your inability to see beyond a cartoon world of AmeriKKKa IS EVil is laughable.

[ixion]

58. whatever...

Good day, sir.

[hack89]

60. Have a good day yourself

sorry if I got snippy - I have a tendency to go overboard at times.

[ixion]

61. thanks. and no problem

I just think the difference in our perceptions is beyond parity, so no need prolonging the debate. :)

[elias49]

43. Drones ARE different: the 'operator' is at no risk n/t

[hack89]

59. So? War is not a school yard game

does it bother you that it is not "fair" to the Taliban?

[Echo In Light]

2. Of course

[ConcernedCanuk]

3. " one-third of those killed by drones were civilians." - ah but it's the USA doing it

.
.
.

from half-way across the globe no less.

"Home of the "BRAVE" "

I think not.

[Echo In Light]

5. .

[ConcernedCanuk]

7. 'Zactly

.
.
.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Yep

[Individualist]

20. and it's all peachy keen because there's a Democrat in the oval office.

[ConcernedCanuk]

23. Ya might wanna get an opinion on that from someone who LIVES in the Middle East

.
.
.

I wonder why they call the USA "the Great Satan"?

. . might have something to do with the tens of thousands that have lost relatives and friends courtesy of the USA's bombs and bullets . . .

ya think???

:freak:

I don't think that Obama is the "change" THEY were hoping for.

BUT

I also don't believe that the President of the United States really runs the country

JFK tried . . . .

'nuff said.

[Robb]

34. Two things, one perhaps nitpicky

...Afghanistan is Central Asia, not the Middle East. Pakistan, where the drone attacks are happening, is South Asia.

But to the point: people who actually live in North and South Waziristan, where the drone attacks are taking place, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x229576">support them. It's exactly what they want to see happening, as a start. The second part is what we're starting to see with Pakistan regular army moving in on the ground -- something we wouldn't have seen, probably for decades or ever, if the aerial targeting hadn't taken place.

This does not, by the way, excuse the still unreasonably high apparent level of civilian casualties. Of course the peace groups in the above link claim there aren't any innocents left in Waziristan, but that's doubtful to say the least.

[ShortnFiery]

47. The people are just as dead. Using them on OUR soil? Legal against US suspected terrorists?

"Afghanistan is Central Asia, not the Middle East."

Uh, so what? It's still EXECUTION without arrest, charges or a trial.

[alarimer]

37. Drones are a particulary chickenshit way of waging war.

It make it too antiseptic and too easy to use, thus exponentially increasing the chances they will be used.

[Cid_B]

49. I have never understood that...

You would feel better about it if they had managed to take out a few US military just to even it out?

You think we should go back to revolutionary times. We can all line up in big rows, face each other and shoot until attrition wins?

Stupid... If I can acccomplish my goal ( killing the enemy ) with little to no chance of taking a hit on my side thats a big W.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

52. If you find yourself in a fair fight... your tactics were flawed. (n/t)

[leftstreet]

4. K&R

[Forkboy]

12. So take THAT, dead innocents!

[tekisui]

16. Shut your mouths and bury your dead. It was legal.

[Solly Mack]

19. K&R

[unhappycamper]

22. I am speechless. n/t

[dkofos]

27. Until WE get hit. Then it's an act of WAR.

[polly7]

28. War the easy way.

Like playing a video game and never having to see the actual targets, or civilian children, women, men.

Now that takes BRAVERY.

[Ignis]

29. K&R. Bad Things aren't when done by the Good Guys, right?

:banghead:

[alarimer]

35. Any President can hire any lawyer to tell him anything is legal.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Of course in this regard Democrats are no different than Republicans and the difference is getting smaller by the day.
So much for change.

[KoKo]

42. That appears to be the truth of it. "New Boss/Same as Old"...why did we all bother?

:shrug:

[scarletwoman]

39. Of course they are. "Legal" is whatever the hell we say it is.

Just like the Bush Administration said, "We're an Empire, we create our own reality."

[EFerrari]

40. Yes, it's just like that, tekisui. n/t

[KoKo]

41. It's hard to know what to make of this except...

:eyes: :crazy:

[ShortnFiery]

46. Yes, Summary EXECUTIONS without Arrest, Charges or Trial. No muss! No Fuss!

Absolutely VILE and against any semblance of a sound moral compass.

[tekisui]

50. Shame on us.

Shame on Obama.

[harun]

56. No one should have the right to simply push a button and end someones life

without trial, justification, declaration of war or accountability.

[conspirator]

62. Well at some point terrorists will have access to unmanned technology

it's just a matter of time. Then they will call it terrorism.