Legality of Drone Strikes Still in Question

[Echo In Light]

by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - While welcoming an initial effort by the administration of President Barack Obama to offer a legal justification for drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists overseas, human rights groups say critical questions remain unanswered.

In an address to an international law group last week, State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh insisted that such operations were being conducted in full compliance with international law.

"The U.S. is in armed conflict with al Qaeda as well as the Taliban and associated forces in response to the horrific acts of 9/11 and may use force consistent with its right to self-defence under international law," he said. "...(I)ndividuals who are part of such armed groups are belligerents and, therefore, lawful targets under international law."

Moreover, he went on, "U.S. targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war," which require limiting attacks to military objectives and that the damage caused to civilians by those attacks would not be excessive.

While right-wing commentators expressed satisfaction with Koh's evocation of the "right to self-defence" - the same justification used by President George W. Bush - human rights groups were circumspect.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/04/03-2

Good comments section below

[ixion]

1. There is no such thing as "pre-emptive self-defense"

that is nothing more than an Orwellian phrase trying to rationalize blatant acts of aggression.

"Pre-emptive self-defense" = Aggression and Conquest, pure and simple.

k/r

[zipplewrath]

2. That's a tad strong

You're allowed to shoot someone before they actually shoot at you. The problem really is more a case of what the other options were. You can't shoot at them if there is no imminent threat that they will shoot at you. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with drones. Drones, planes, tanks, snipers, I'm not sure what the platform has to do with it.

[ixion]

3. Platform is irrelevant. And as for "pre-emptive self-defense"

if I walk around hitting people and claiming that they "scared me", I'm not going to get very far in a court room.

And how the attack is delivered is not a concern, but the attack itself.

[zipplewrath]

4. However there is "assualt"

You don't actually have to shoot at me to allow me to shoot back. In international terms, credible military threat is a basis for a pre-emptive attack. However, just being "different" isn't the threshold.

[ixion]

6. No, sir. George W. Bush defined the concept of preemptive attack in the Bush Doctrine

prior to that, it was (is) considered a violation of international law.

This was the point that made the Bush Doctrine contentious. And because "the US did it" it gave every other tinpot dictatorship a great excuse to slaughter whomever they didn't like in the name of "preemptive self-defense", and all thanks to George Bush.

[zipplewrath]

7. his standard was bogus

There was no credible threat from Sadam. Of course there was not much of a justification for Reagan to bomb Libya either. It's been going on for centuries.

[amborin]

5. K&R

[Echo In Light]

8. Bump

[Echo In Light]

9. Bump

[Echo In Light]

10. Bump

[tekisui]

11. knr.