When Drones Become Indiscriminate
JERUSALEM - The concerted effort of international human rights activists to rein in violations of laws of war was given a major impetus when Human Rights Watch researchers presented a report Tuesday on the unbridled use by the Israeli military of unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCLAV), commonly known as drones, during Israel's 22-day assault on Hamas in Gaza at the beginning of the year.
Entitled 'Precisely Wrong', the Human Rights Watch (HRW) report focuses on six cases of Israeli drone-launched missile attacks in which 29 Palestinian civilians, eight of them children, were killed. Based on cross-referenced eyewitness accounts corroborated by doctors, as well as ballistics and forensic evidence collected on the attack sites, the report asserts that "in none of the cases did HRW find evidence that Palestinian fighters were present in the immediate area of the attack at the time.
"These attacks violated international humanitarian law," the report states in unequivocal terms, following a ten-day investigation.
Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at the emergencies program of HRW, estimates that at least 87 civilians were killed in 42 drone attacks. "Israel's targeting choices are unacceptable and unlawful," he declared at a press conference in East Jerusalem, "especially (considering) that UCLAV provide the most precise platform in the military arsenal, and that Israel is the world leader in drone technology."
The report includes technical information about drones and drone-launched missiles. Israeli drones have advanced sensors, combining radars, electro- optical and infrared cameras, and lasers providing real time imaging by day and night. "Those sensors enable a drone operator to determine if a person on the ground is armed," stressed Garlasco.
In addition to these high-resolution cameras, a missile fired from a drone has its own cameras that allow the operator to observe the target from the moment of firing. "If a last-second doubt arises about a target, the operator can divert the fired missile with a joystick," the report notes.
Everything viewed by the drone operator is recorded. "There is no fog of war with such drones," Garlasco said. "Yet, the Israeli army failed to distinguish between military objectives and civilians."
According to Palestinian sources, 900 civilians were killed during the military operations, among a total of more than 1,400 killed. The HRW report says a third of the fatalities were from drone-launched missiles. Israeli sources put the civilian death toll at 300.
"HRW is not against the use of drone in warfare. Its accuracy and concentrated blast radius can indeed reduce civilian casualties," Garlasco conceded. But "drones, much like sniper rifles, are only as good at sparing civilians as the care taken by the people who operate them."
The Israeli army questions the credibility of the HRW investigation. "The report is based on anonymous Palestinian sources whose knowledge of military issues is doubtful, who are clearly not impartial observers, and who are part of the propaganda machine in Gaza," it said in a statement.
"We conducted interviews separate from Hamas activists," counters Garlasco. "If there were fighters, the interviews were stopped immediately; we just did not use them."
Garlasco acknowledges that the testimonies collected are limited. "Mistakes can happen, but here there is a clear pattern - many civilians were killed. It seems Israeli rules of engagement were very loose - keeping Israeli casualties to a minimum, valuing the lives of soldiers more than those of Palestinian civilians."
The report calls on Israel to conduct a "case-by-case investigation" into the use of drone-launched missiles. "Military or civilian personnel found responsible for committing or ordering unlawful drone attacks should be disciplined or prosecuted as appropriate."
"This report has a look to the future," says Garlasco. "It's a cautionary tell to the U.S. continued use of UCLAV in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Human rights activists have increasingly voiced their concern over U.S. reliance on a drone-launched missile attack policy. In a stinging report submitted earlier this month to the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council, UN special investigator Philip Alston charged that the U.S. has created "zones of impunity" by rarely investigating private contractors and civilian intelligence agents involved in the killing of civilians from drone attacks. Alston urged that an independent special prosecutor be charged with pursuing criminal allegations against government officials accused of wrongdoing.
"Even when you're attacking a legitimate military objective, you cannot cause civilian casualties that exceed the value of a legitimate military attack," says Garlasco. Still, the reliance on drone tactics - and the strategic cutting-edge drones increasingly provide - may surpass the power of human rights in international forums. Last week, Israel's Channel Two revealed that Israel had conditioned the sale to Russia of a dozen drones, on Moscow not selling Iran advanced anti-aircraft missile technology. Iran has sought to deploy the Russian S300 air defense missile system against a possible Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities.
Moscow became aware of a need for advanced drones during its war with Georgia last summer. Georgia operated Israeli-made spy drones, which proved highly effective. The Russians used a drone of their own without great success. Russian military officials have made no secret of their intention to use Israeli models to improve their drone development program.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
25 Comments so far
Show AllDrone weapons are cowards weapons. Get out your sword and engage in a real fight if fighting's what you're after. Drones, like bombs, assures the safety of the aggressor while killing innocent people. These drones should be outlawed.
Will you pass the same judgments on rockets?
Are you saying that firing rockets on civilians while hiding among civilians is bravery?
agreed. what does hrw mean drones are ok? And yes besides being immoral they are cowardly. twice over because it's already cowardly enough for manned aircraft to drop bombs on defenseless people.
Has anyone seen any reason to believe that anyone uses drones to reduce civilian casualties?
Why should we not believe that drones are used to give psychological impunity to the killers, who may act in increased anonymity and suffer less the trauma involved in the knowledge of their acts.
Ultimately the only way to resist drones will be to strike at soft targets - the populations engaged in manufacture.
.
bardamu: "the only way to resist drones will be to strike at soft targets - the populations engaged in manufacture."
Please explain what do you mean by saying "strike populations engaged in manufacture"?
Are you saying that the factories which manufacture drones are legitimate targets?
What about the people who work in the factories? And what about their families?
What about random killing of civilians whose only crime is living in the same country where a tiny percentage of the people work in these factories?
Will you equally legitimize killing civilians in all the countries that makes drones?
What about randomly killing civilians in all countries that make rockets? Nukes? Submarines? Warplanes? Guns? Machete’s?
Waiting for your clearification.
No, I do not mean that anyone is a legitimate target. However, I don't see that legitimacy has much to do with the response options available to the population that's attacked in this way.
If an army attacks, one may defend oneself by attacking that army.
If a thing attacks without an army, what does one attack? In this case one cannot effectively attack the drone.
If one resists nonviolently, whom does one resist?
One very small part of what King's marchers achieved, but a part that must have been multiplied millions of times, is that I remember them. Remembering my bafflement at my mother's comment that the man was "making trouble" as he remained seated, arms folded, when a policeman beat him over the head and back with a billy club and scattered his glasses across the pavement has permanently inflected my judgment. Most of my allegiances, political and otherwise, changed that evening as I sat alone.
Whom would one convince by peacefully resisting drones that are deliberately designed so that the attackers do not feel the enormity of their actions?
How much access would an attacked population have to media in the imperial nation? That has increased, but remains small. I mean, it's not like a lot of Pashtuns are tweeting US congressmen, executives, or even voters.
Let's remember this:
---- The Pashtuns never attacked the US or US allies
---- The Pashtuns have nowhere much, nowhere reliable to run
---- The Pashtuns have no one to surrender to, no request that they may grant: they have no option to accept any slavery, no matter how unjust.
Let's remember too that this kind of thing has made US policy for decades; the US just refines the technology as it goes.
Now, you ask, under these conditions, if a part of that attacked population or someone acting in support of that population attacks a civilian center in the US, killing civilians, including children, is that legitimate?
No. It is a misplaced attack.
Is it understandable?
I think so.
Is it the best possible course of action?
Conceivably. I fear that in some circumstance it may become so.
Human response, amidst all its other variation, runs on a continuum between communication and aggression. We may reveal ourselves honestly to another being and trust that that being feels and can appreciate us. Or we can "not get mad, but get even" by disabling or deterring instead of convincing.
Insofar as drones remove humans from the trigger end of the gun, they remove the person to whom one may be honest. The remaining decisions will tend to devolve to tactics and leave legitimacy aside. The US has considerable ability and motive to not escalate class conflicts in this manner. The people they attack have far less of either.
You claim, bardamu, that the Hamas, by firing rockets into Israeli targets, was responding to drones attacks. This is not true. The Hamas fired rockets into Israel before the Gaza war.
Israel was responding to Hamas attacks on Israeli civilian targets, and not the other way around.
If the Hamas would have chosen to adopt a live and let live policy, and decide NOT to fire rockets into Israel - there would be no war and no drone attacks.
Worked in Dresden and all over Germany and Japan.
Yeah, we bombed the bejabbers outta Dresden, Hiroshima, Tokyo, Calais (as a diversion), and everybody on earth loves the U.S. Maybe if we kill a few MORE civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other powerful nations kill civilians where they need to be killed, we'll be more loved.
So it's technologically advanced but can't distinguish between military and civilian personnel.
In WWII they were called buzz bombs.
Flechette munititions, white phosphorous, cluster bombs, head shots to kill young Palestinian girls venturing too close to check points, the American peace activist shot in the face with a tear-gas grenade, Rachel Corrie, these beasts kill for sport and pleasure. They are self-righteous cowards hewing to the demands of a demented and vengeful "god" fabricated in a 2000 year-old fairy tale. I, for one, look forward to the day that catastrophe befalls the whole bunch of them.
The face of modern war.
If there are any values at all in war, which I suppose can be argued, they are courage, loyalty, and sacrifice. Killing soldiers from miles, if not thousands of miles, away using flying robots negates these martial values and is a cowardly way to make war. Killing civilians from flying robots is a particularly cowardly way to make war but has become the way we fight wars these days.
Like it or not, Israel is just following the lead of its big brother and protector. The US gets away with it, so why not Israel? That, at least, is going to be their argument. So if we do it, why not Israel? Or Russia, China, Iran - and on and on. Ethically, we're cornered by our own behavior.
I agree with everthing you say except I hardly think you can call it war. This massacre was completely one-sided, enabled by US-supplied munitions. More like shooing fish in a barrel.
Had it occurred to you that there would be no war if the Hamas had not started to fire rockets and mortar bombs on Israeli targets?
Not to initiate another of the endless shit fights that occur over this subject, but had it occurred to you that there would be no war if Israel had not been carved out of palestine and the inhabitants driven out, or failing that Israel had tried to integrate into the area with their neighbors instead of conquering, and occupying their land (following US history)? To Hamas, Israel is an occupying force. Ask yourself what your response would be if where you live was occupied by forces that treated you like like all occupying armies treat their prisoners. Would you fight back or just take it? Well some palestinians take it and some fight back.
According to the Hamas, Israel, at any border, is an occupation, which gives the Hamas natural right to randomly kill Jews. This is what they publically say (They call it "natural right for all forms of resistance.") If you want to call random killing of people - a legitimate fighting, that's your choice, but don't come crying when your victims fight back and kick your ass, especially not when you're stupid enough to attack a much stronger neighbour.
The question if Israel truly is an occupation depends on your point of view.
The Hamas wants to turn the clock back to 800AD (Time of the Arab Caliphate).
Jews in Israel see themselves as people returning to their homeland after many years in exile.
The fact remains – The Gaza strip itself was not under Occupation when the Hamas initiated the war.
HEADLINE...Letto's mouth erupts with gigantic stream of bullshit.
So you admit that the Israelis were targeting civilians?
No. I said that the hamas was targeting civilians.
Drones killing clones...what a strange day that will be...
"My drone was so good with the children, then, one day, it just turned on us..."
Just say no to drones...
Apart from taking out a personal watercraft factory, is there anything conducted remotely from the air that should *not* be considered a war crime?
I know that our shooters based in some base in Nevada are totally indiscriminate at who they shoot with the drones. When war has become a video game, it is time to stop all wars.
Just outside Las Vegas there is an air force base named Creech. It is there specifically to train "pilots" to guide drones. This I, and I am sure other warriors consider cowardly. New ways of conducting wars that continually remove the killer further from the deed. The air force has names for these killing machines. The Predator, the Reaper and now a new one the Avenger. Young troops who are in love with the video games are brain washed to believe this is honorable? Such insanity!
"'Yet, the Israeli army failed to distinguish between military objectives and civilians.'"
Failed? More like "refused."
q