Questions over US drone attacks that President Obama needs to resolve

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/22/questions-drones-obama-resolve

Version 0 of 1.

Detailed investigations into possible war crimes arising from US drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen published jointly on Tuesday by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, pose difficult questions for the Obama administration and for close allies such as Britain which implicitly condone or acquiesce in such attacks.

Answers to these questions are urgently required, given that unmanned aerial vehicle missile strikes have become Barack Obama's weapon of choice in prosecuting the "global war on terror" – a term he has publicly disavowed while simultaneously presiding over its rapid, largely covert escalation.

<strong>1. The legal question</strong><br />The US stands accused of unlawful killing in several documented incidents, on the basis of first-hand witness evidence and official statements. The number of such incidents, in both countries, suggests they are are not "one-offs" but part of a systematic policy that appears inherently illegal.

If the US were to state that it is a party to an armed conflict in Yemen or Pakistan between the governments of those countries and terrorists, principally al-Qaida or al-Qaida-affiliated groups, its actions would be subject to international humanitarian law – the laws of war. But as Human Rights Watch points out, the US, denying the obvious, has not said it is a party to a war in either place, but is instead carrying out ad hoc operations to protect US interests.

Even if it did make such a declaration, the laws of war permit attacks only on enemy combatants and other military objectives, but not those who play a purely non-military role. Civilians are protected from attack.

Reporting on six unacknowledged US strikes in Yemen, Human Rights Watch states: "Two of these attacks were in clear violation of international humanitarian law – the laws of war – because they struck only civilians or used indiscriminate weapons. The other four cases may have violated the laws of war because the individual attacked was not a lawful military target or the attack caused disproportionate civilian harm, determinations that require further investigation. In several of these cases, the US also did not take all feasible precautions to minimise harm to civilians, as the laws of war require."

Amnesty reaches similar conclusions in Pakistan. If the US is not in a war-fighting situation in either country, then international human rights law applies, meaning that lethal force may only be used if there is an "imminent risk" to human life. This law was also disregarded in several US attacks, Amnesty said.

The US is accused of acting in contravention of Obama's own guidelines, set out in May, which emulated (but did not officially endorse) international human rights law. Obama said that to be legitimate, a target must pose an imminent risk to the US, cannot reasonably be captured, and can be attacked without putting civilians at risk. As the various cases investigated clearly indicate, these "rules" have been repeatedly and deliberately broken.

<strong>2. The strategic question</strong><br />US drone strikes have reportedly been effective in eliminating individuals plotting attacks against the US and its allies. But the negative impact on local and international opinion of the Sarar attacks (2012) and al-Majalah (2009) attacks in Yemen, for example, when dozens of civilians died, and of numerous similar attacks in Waziristan, was significant and may actually have served to strengthen support for extremists.

Human Rights Watch said: "Should the US continue targeted killings in Yemen without addressing the consequences of killing civilians and taking responsibility for unlawful deaths, it risks further angering many Yemenis and handing another recruiting card to al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). In response to these killings, AQAP has issued statements accusing the US of fighting a war not just against al-Qaida but against all Muslims."

Amnesty said: "The US has carried out unlawful killings in Pakistan in its drone attacks, some of which could amount to war crimes." Its behaviour should be condemned by its allies, or else they might be deemed complicit, it said. "The UK government [should] refrain from participating in any way in US drone strikes that violate international law, including by the sharing of intelligence or facilities, or the transfer of specialist components."

<strong>3. The moral question</strong><br />Last but not least, the strikes raise a moral question: by what right do the US president and his subordinates take it upon themselves to end the lives of those who oppose American policy and values?

Most of these people are not American citizens and do not reside in the US. They lack a vote or other normal means of challenging American policy. It must be assumed that Obama would not order the killing on American soil of Americans who do have democratic rights of opposition. So, morally speaking, how can it be acceptable to kill disenfranchised non-Americans on foreign soil?

Drone technology is proliferating. Many countries, including some hostile to the US, have or could soon acquire unmanned aerial vehicle strike capability. Obama might ask himself a question: is he creating the circumstances in which they might one day follow his example and declare themselves morally justified in launching drone strikes against American targets in the US?

Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.