Drone attacks
boosting terrorism
By: S M Hali
The controversial drone strikes by the US spy agency, CIA may have
eliminated a number of militants but simultaneously, they are contributing to
swelling the ranks of terrorists. The US and its allies have been at war in
Afghanistan since 2001 but the first drone strike was not executed till 2004.
They remained sporadic till 2008, when President Obama accelerated the number
of attacks and 2010 became “year of the drone” when a total of 118 drone
strikes were launched, resulting in a maximum number of 993 lives lost. The
controversy regarding the drone strikes is on two accounts, their legality and
the number of civilians being eliminated as collateral damage owing to the
strikes. The second aspect is being exploited by terror mongers for fresh
recruitment, urging the relatives of victims to avenge the death of their loved
ones by joining the terror organizations.
As far as the legality of the drone attacks is concerned, the American
Civil Liberties Union has taken the position that the administration`s
programme of targeted killing outside of armed conflict zones was unlawful.
Judicial experts expressing their views before a key congressional committee
opine that US drone attacks were illegal because the CIA was using civilian
contractors to launch them. Another lawyer argued before the US House
Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs that while the United
States had the right to use the drones, the CIA personnel actually launching
the attacks could be guilty of war crimes. A third expert tried to draw
parallels between the killings in Fata and targeted killings of bandits loyal
to Pancho Villa along the Mexican border in the 19th century. He insisted that
current intelligence laws “implicitly” gave the US president the power to
launch targeted killings. Renowned columnist Bill Quigley reminds that
assassination by the US government were declared illegal since 1976, when US
President Gerald Ford issued Executive Order 11905, Section 5(g), banning them.
Drone killings are acts of premeditated murder, which is a crime in all fifty
states and under federal criminal law. Quigley quotes a May 2010 report by NYU
law professor Philip Alston, the UN special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
summary, or arbitrary executions, who directly questioned the legality of US
drone killings, stating that drone killings may be lawful in the context of
authorized armed conflict (e.g. Afghanistan where the US sought and received
international approval to invade and wage war on another country). However, the
use of drones “far from the battle zone” is highly questionable legally.
Referring to Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international affairs and
politics at Princeton University, Quigley brings out that the widespread killing
of civilians in drone strikes may well constitute war crimes. According to the
current US Military Law of War Deskbook, the law of war allows killing only
when consistent with four key principles: military necessity, distinction,
proportionality, and humanity. These principles preclude both direct targeting
of civilians and medical personnel but also set out how much “incidental” loss
of civilian life is allowed. Retired US Army Colonel Ann Wright squarely denies
the legality of drone warfare, commenting in “Democracy Now”: “These drones,
you might as well just call them assassination machines. That is what these drones are used for:
targeted assassination, extrajudicial ultimate death for people who have not
been convicted of anything.”
Coming to the more ominous aspect of boosting terrorism, Gareth Porter
has carried out research on the real level of civilian casualties in US drone
strikes in Pakistan, based on data gathered by a Pakistani lawyer Shahzad Akbar
for the families of the victims of drone strikes, and the Bureau of
Investigative Journalism in London founded on their interviews with
eyewitnesses and others in the areas where the strikes take place. He concludes
that the US has been tremendously underplaying the level of civilian casualties
by as much as 84 percent. Porter also concludes that the drone war in Pakistan
has created enormous anti-American sentiment throughout the country,
particularly, in the areas where the strikes have taken place, they generate
not just anger, but the Taliban and al-Qaeda and other groups have been able to
generate more enthusiasm for support for the jihadist sentiment that they
represent. Pakistan’s repeated requests to cease the drone attacks have not
only fallen on deaf ears, but to rub salt in the wound, have actually resulted
in an acceleration of the frequency of strikes, thus aggravating the issue. The
drone attacks is thus boosting terrorism.
المشاركات
0 التعليقات:
إرسال تعليق