Use of Drones Under Fire

[tekisui]

Source: UPI

WASHINGTON, April 6 (UPI) -- The legal justification for the use of unmanned aerial drones to strike targets inside countries at peace with the United States is under fire, scholars say.

Legal scholars at the United Nations and leading academic institutions question whether Washington is acting within the bounds of international law by launching attacks on militant targets in countries not at war with the United States.

Harold Koh, a legal adviser to the U.S. State Department, claims the United States is justified "under international law" to defend itself against terrorists planning attacks on U.S. national interests, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Koh was an early opponent of U.S. national security policies used by previous administrations to take on terrorist groups.

Washington may rely on legislation enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that gives the president the authority to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against the plotters of that event.

Drone attacks have increased under the current administration, notably inside Pakistan. The Central Intelligence Agency, a civilian entity, said it is acting according to the code of law.

"Without confirming any specific activity, CIA's counter-terrorism operations are lawful and precise," CIA spokeswoman Marie Harf told the Journal.

Opponents, however, worry over the implications of allowing a civilian agency like the CIA to have control over striking certain military targets.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2010/04/06/Use-of-drones-under-fire/UPI-81961270578986/

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. What's up with that?

\



Under fire? It should be under under consideration.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Uh, these are attacks in cooperation with the Pakistani government, are they not?

I mean, we would just be using regular airplanes, but the Pakistanis weren't OK with that because that would involve actual U.S. troops (pilot) in Pakistani territory vs. unmanned drones.

So international law doesn't really apply.

[tekisui]

3. They are not officially coordinated or permitted by the Pakistani government.

[cliffordu]

8. And, I wonder what kind of security clearance you need to know that.

The Pak government, corrupt and stupid as it is has no need for the Taliban or Al queda.

Lack of hollering on the part of their Prez should be an indicator for someone as smart as you are.

[tekisui]

9. I have no doubt they are actually coordinated and approved,

probably even desired, the Pakistani government. But, they publicly claim they are not involved. Every now and then they will even go public with a condemnation, but it is little more than posturing.

The problem, as I see it, is the Pakistani government is not openly supportive, the US military and government will not comment on it, it is operated by the CIA. There is no evidence that anyone supports or believes the strikes are legal, except Hoh (if I remember his name right) from the State Department.

[Enrique]

16. that's a new one to me

if the Pakistani government is ok with it, it must be ok? :crazy:

[spoony]

4. People unrec the darndest things.

Wish I could say I was surprised.

[tekisui]

5. It doesn't fit the right, noble and just message.

[CrawlingChaos]

6. K&R

[Raine1967]

7. the source is UPI, makes me question and want to dig deeper.

Why aren't those Legal Scholars willing to go on record?

Who are the opponents?

Sorry -- but this article doesn't pass me smell test. It makes Politco look good, good thing they don't really report on foreign affairs. The UPI -- SAorry I have to question them -- they are big faves at the Washington TImes... I should not have to further connect the dots.

[tekisui]

13. I found the people on record:

Washington, Apr.7 (ANI): While the Obama Administration is trying to defend the drone strikes on ungoverned tribal regions along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, legal scholars have questioned the legality of the Central Investigation Agency (CIA) operated missile hits.

Legal experts and the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur for Extra-judicial Executions have raised questions over the continuous US drone attacks in tribal areas bordering Afghanistan in Pakistan, in which over 400 to 500 suspected extremists have been killed since January 2009.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) quoted Professor Mary Ellen O'Connell of the University of Notre Dame law school describing the missile attacks as "unlawful killings" that violated international law.

Days ago, US State Department's legal advisor, Harold Koh, had underlined that the White House, under the international law, has the authority to carry out such missile attacks.

"In this ongoing armed conflict, the US has the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks," Koh had told international law scholars late last month.

However, legal experts said Koh's statement didn't answer several important questions.

"A number of controversial questions were left unanswered by Koh's speech," the newspaper quoted Jonathan Manes, a lawyer on the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project, as saying.

"The speech did not say where the government draws the line between legitimate targets, combatants and those taking part in hospitalities, and civilians, who cannot be targeted. The speech also did not set out any rules on where drones strikes can be used to target and kill individuals," Manes said.

A former National Security Council official in the Bush and Obama administrations, Brett McGurk, who is currently at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that Koh sidestepped some of the "thorniest issues" surrounding targeted killings.

McGurk categorically questioned the implications of civilian agencies like the CIA's involvement in the drone strikes.

"As a civilian agency and a non-combatant under International Humanitarian Law, the CIA is not governed by the same laws of war that cover US military personnel," the newspaper said. (ANI)

http://news.oneindia.in/2010/04/07/internationallegal-experts-question-legality-of-usd.html

[bvar22]

18. "When the President does it,....

...its not illegal."

[Forkboy]

10. If this were the Bush Admin people in GD-P would be stroking themselves over this kind of story.

It would be on the top of the Greatest page and 20 people would have started threads about why this was the death of the Bush Admin.

My sarcastic "Yay Team!" doesn't pack the same punch that it might a mere 2 years ago....though it should.

"all necessary and appropriate force"....That would make a catchy sig line, on FreeRepublic.

"Without confirming any specific activity, CIA's counter-terrorism operations are lawful and precise," CIA spokeswoman Marie Harf told the Journal.

I ask you, if you can't trust a CIA spokesperson, who can you trust?

[tekisui]

11. The double-standard and hypocrisy is what really gets me.

It used to be, wrong was wrong. Now, it is 'well, it could be wrong, but I am sure there is a perfectly reasonable explanation that will tell us why it is right'.

[stevenleser]

12. Not Really.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I never complained about the fact that we were fighting the war in Afghanistan, even when Chimpy McSmirk was in the White House.

Iraq, is a horse of a different color...

[bvar22]

14. K&R...back UP to +4

There are people at DU who don't want YOU to have this information.

[Robb]

15. Yes, it's a big conspiracy here.

All those drone threads that disappear. :D

[Jennicut]

17. There is no way to block this info as it is not delete-worthy.

Unless you count the Greatest Page as where everyone must find their info...I never go there. My link to DU is directly to this page.
Also, there are articles on the internet pertaining to this.