U.N. Official Set to Ask U.S. to End C.I.A. Drone Strikes

[tekisui]

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — A senior United Nations official is expected to call on the United States next week to stop Central Intelligence Agency drone strikes against people suspected of belonging to Al Qaeda, complicating the Obama administration’s growing reliance on that tactic in Pakistan.

Philip Alston, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said Thursday that he would deliver a report on June 3 to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva declaring that the “life and death power” of drones should be entrusted to regular armed forces, not intelligence agencies. He contrasted how the military and the C.I.A. responded to allegations that strikes had killed civilians by mistake.

“With the Defense Department you’ve got maybe not perfect but quite abundant accountability as demonstrated by what happens when a bombing goes wrong in Afghanistan,” he said in an interview. “The whole process that follows is very open. Whereas if the C.I.A. is doing it, by definition they are not going to answer questions, not provide any information, and not do any follow-up that we know about.”

Mr. Alston’s views are not legally binding, and his report will not assert that the operation of combat drones by nonmilitary personnel is a war crime, he said. But the mounting international concern over drones comes as the Obama administration legal team has been quietly struggling over how to justify such counterterrorism efforts while obeying the laws of war.

In recent months, top lawyers for the State Department and the Defense Department have tried to square the idea that the C.I.A.’s drone program is lawful with the United States’ efforts to prosecute Guantánamo Bay detainees accused of killing American soldiers in combat, according to interviews and a review of military documents.

Under the laws of war, soldiers in traditional armies cannot be prosecuted and punished for killing enemy forces in battle. The United States has argued that because Qaeda fighters do not obey the requirements laid out in the Geneva Conventions — like wearing uniforms — they are not “privileged combatants” entitled to such battlefield immunity. But C.I.A. drone operators also wear no uniforms.

more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/world/asia/28drones.html

[stevenleser]

1. And control will be then passed to Military intelligence who will get input from the CIA

then everyone will be happy right?

I only wonder how long people will continue this farcical issue of the Drones.

[tekisui]

2. This farcical issue of the drones?

Why do you say it is farcical?

We have greatly increased our drone strikes in Pakistan and have killed over 1,000 people, many of them innocent civilians. There is nothing farcical about it.

[stevenleser]

3. And if we had used other methods three to five times as many would be dead.

Farcical issue.

You are either against the war, or you arent.

[tekisui]

5. I am against the war in Pakistan and the methods used.

I can be against both. Just like I can be against the war and be against torture.

[boppers]

6. That's what I got out of it, as well.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with ending drone strikes, it's a quibble about who's selecting the targets and pulling the triggers.

[stevenleser]

7. That is exactly it. That is the only question the UN has regarding legality of the drones

The people fighting this issue are not going to get what they want from this. The command and control of the drones is an issue easily rectified and then that will be the end of it from a legality perspective.

It is a HUGE waste of time for anyone who is against the war in Afpak.

[boppers]

8. Well, those against the war have a platform issue in the media.

So, for that, it has some traction.

[stevenleser]

9. I suppose there is that, but its a credibility destroyer with anyone who knows anything about

the military and military options.

[ShortnFiery]

4. Good! Those killer drones are vile. eom