Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Drone Strikes May Break International Law: UN
UNITED NATIONS - US drone strikes against suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan could be breaking international laws against summary executions, the UN's top investigator of such crimes said.
According to independent reports, only 10 out of the 70 cross-border strikes in Pakistan were able to hit their actual targets. "The problem with the United States is that it is making an increased use of drones/Predators (which are) particularly prominently used now in relation to Pakistan and Afghanistan," UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston told a press conference.
"My concern is that drones/Predators are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law," he said.
US strikes with remote-controlled aircraft against Al-Qaeda and Taliban targets in Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan have often resulted in civilian deaths and drawn bitter criticism from local populations.
"The onus is really on the United States government to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary extrajudicial executions aren't in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons," he added.
Alston said he presented a report on the matter to the UN General Assembly.
He urged the United States to be more forthright about how and when it uses drone aircraft, something about which the US Defense Department and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) usually keep silent.
"We need the United States to be more up front and say, 'OK, we're willing to discuss some aspects of this program,' otherwise you have the really problematic bottom line that the CIA is running a program that is killing significant numbers of people and there is absolutely no accountability in terms of the relevant international laws," Alston said.
Since August 2008, around 70 strikes by unmanned aircraft have killed close to 600 people in northwestern Pakistan.
"I would like to know the legal basis upon which the United States is operating, in other words... who is running the program, what accountability mechanisms are in place in relation to that," Alston said.
"Secondly, what precautions the United States is taking to ensure that these weapons are used strictly for purposes consistent with international humanitarian law.
"Third, what sort of review mechanism is there to evaluate when these weapons have been used? Those are the issues I'd like to see addressed," the UN official said.
- Posted in



70 Comments so far
Show AllIt's taken them long enough to start asking the tough questions. Too bad someone didn't do that a whole lot sooner.
Or do we consider ourselves above International Law?
At long last, the appropriate authority -- the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions, Philip Alston -- has spoken. I was wondering when somebody in authority will speak up. Many good people of conscience already have -- Ray MacGovern; Chris Hedges; Naom Chomsky; Tom Engelbert; and a countless number of editorialists and activists and lawmakers in the Muslim world, but they are dismissed as 'terrorist-sympathisers'. The thought probably often cross their minds whether they themselves moght not become the targets of those drones for daring to speak up!
Anyway, I hope that President Obama takes heed (Mac Chrystal and Gates won't, nor Hillary). Otherwise, he may be in line, soon enough, to face war crime charges, along with his predecessor W.
Unfortunately the United States will not heed the wishes of the United Nations. That is for the little countries to do. The U.S. realizes that American Exceptionalism is always the rule that the rest of the world must acknowledge. The motto of this country should be Might Makes Right. Or, as George Carlin once observed, show us a third world country and we will bomb the hell out of it.
Yup. So by our actions we have set the standard that it would be OK for a foreign country to send in drones to target people within our borders that have done damage to that country.
If this is true the Big Banks in this country better hope that Iceland doesn't have any drones of their own. ;-{)
You don't have to be an expert to know that sending a robot to drop hellfire missiles on people who may or may not "Hate us for our freedom" is about as justified, understandable, or defensible as the actions of Hannibal the cannibal or Ted Bundy.
It is horrid. Words fail me. The arrogance is astounding.
What's the difference between suicide bombers and drones except that suicide bombers don't have the technology to keep themselves away from the explosions?
Well the suicide bombers make themselves "Judge, Jury, and Executioner", and they don't care about collateral damage around the targets they are trying to destroy. Our drones obviously don't do that...
(Sarcasm intended.)
Bluepilgrim:The suicide bombers are bad guys, cowards and terrorists that do not care about human life and they indiscriminately kill innocent civilians; while the drones are good guys that care about human lives because they are called collateral damage. Also, the drone commanders are very brave war heroes as they only kill the bad guys and the collateral damage is a necessary evil in order to bring the relatives and friends of collateral damage freedom and democracy.
To be a drone operator has to be the most greivous act of cowardice I can imagine.
Kent, rumor has it that the Commander of the Drone Squadron is an AF General who was originally a young National Guard Captain at Kent State --- and that he is looking to further polish his resume by using drones on "those damn protesters in the U.S." in order to have a shot at Chairing the Joint Chiefs of Staff (which Obama has promised him if he can "quiet down domestic unrest").
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
yes...drone operators bombing innocent people from thousands of miles away is certainly more cowardly than a group of police tasering aged, non-violent or already-bound individuals...well, more deadly, anyway...the cowardice may be more comparable than I originally allowed...
Yes, that's the MIC spirit,
We have to bomb them in order to save them......
Big Oil Pipeline slaves and CIA poppy pickers are good people. Everybody else is a terrorist. We learned this in Vietnam. If they run they're Vietcong. If they don't run they're Vietcong.... (Oliver Stone's "Platoon")
War is Peace
Ignorance is Knowledge
Freedom is Slavery....
Screw this 1984 Nightmare we're in.
Uh Oh, gotta go. The telescreen just heard me and zipped off a report to Big Brother.
You've said it for me. Orwell Rocks!
"Uh Oh, gotta go. The telescreen just heard me and zipped off a report to Big Brother."
Don't give them any ideas. We have the technology. And it's cheap. Mandated purchases of health insurance? Mandated purchases of internet cameras for installation in every room. You'll pay a government employed installer to wire your home. Block a camera/microphone and its a $10,000 fine or one year in jail or both. Think it's not coming?
It's already here. It's childsplay to make your computer mic "hot" all the time, and to turn the camera on all the time. Solution? Mumble all the time and drive them crazy with long-winded stories about yourself.......
Or really bad singing 24/7 can drive an eavesdropper into depression or insanity.
Love it!
Stay American. Stay free. Never give up.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Suicide bombers must have courage to kill themselves and look their victims in the eyes whereas Drone operators could be playing with themselves, smoking a doobie and forgetting if it is a video game or real people.
That's a freaking big difference. The amount of harm that a suicide bomber does is significantly less than the amount of harm a drone pilot does.
What's the difference between suicide bombers and drones except that suicide bombers don't have the technology to keep themselves away from the explosions?
bluepilgrim October 28th, 2009 10:16 am -- The main difference is that drones are operated by a nation, whereas suicide bombers are at best loosely tied to some national identity.
The underlying question you don't expressly ask is whether the same moral considerations apply to both suicide bombings and drone attacks. Has the UN made any declarations on this?
By the way, for several months, especially after the chilling account of drone warfare on "60 Minutes," some on CD have argued, as have I, that a thorough analysis of the moral/ethical aspects of drone warfare is needed. Apparently the matter has been ignore by U.S. military and civilian officials, including Congress.
In the Afghan Taliban and Bathist cases they were the legitimate Government before being overthrown by the illegal USA invasions therefore I would argue they have the same legal standings of any noninvaded nation's forces.
On the otherhand all combatants are required to avoid civilian causualties.
So what? Obviously, international laws mean nothing to the U.S. If they did, we would never have overthrown Mossadegh in Iran (1953), overthrown Arbenz in Guatemala (1954), violated the Vietnam election agreement in 1956, invaded Vietnam, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Panama and Grenada, supplied weapons for the genocides in Indonesia and East Timor, helped overthrow Allende in Chile (Sept. 11, 1973), invaded Afghanistan or Iraq, used depleted uranium and white phosphorous, or tortured people.
International laws are for OTHER countries to obey, not us,
We're the United States. We're not accountable to anyone or anything.
Alston said “Secondly, what precautions the United States is taking to ensure that these weapons are used strictly for purposes consistent with international humanitarian law.”
Huh? is there any conceivable use for drones firing hellfire missiles into civilian populations far removed from active fighting that would be considered ”consistent with international humanitarian law?”
I’m pretty sure that if any other nation (except perhaps Israel) decided to take out someone they thought might possibly be a terrorist (or have once known one or someone who they thought might know one) on US soil (or anywhere else in the world) with a drone (or a remote controlled toy airplane, or by throwing rocks, etc) the US would throw a hissy fit about terrorism and blatant disregard for international law...
How tragic that our country continues to operate with complete disregard for cause and effect. ("Why do they hate us???") We've learned nothing and will pay accordingly.
Do you think this tool would be so hesitant to label these actions as "war crimes" if they weren't being done by the US? For instance, assume Pakistan or Afghanistan were sovereign nations. As part of their sovereignty, they started launching predator drone attacks against neighborhoods in the US where the zombies who operate the US predator drones are thought to live. Similiarly, the US still harbors a man convicted in Venezuela of killing dozens of people in the bombing of a Cuban airliner. Think this tool would hesitate to label Hugo Chavez a war criminal if he killed hundreds of American civilans in the course of a bombing campaign intended to execute the convicted airline bomber? Of course our actions aren't even that "legal": the presumed, alleged targets of "our" drone attacks have been convicted of NOTHING.
The bedrock of law is that it makes no distinction among persons and/or nations. When it comes to international law, that principle has been replaced by the following: if the US does it, it is legal. Remind you of any other famous sayings?
Assume ???? That Afghanistan and Pakistan were soveriegn nations ?????????? They really are but I guess your saying assume they were not being controled by the USA.
There is a big difference in the amount of control, there being much less in Pakistan.
Now that the UN recognizes them as illegal, immoral, war crimes against civilian populations abroad, we should seriously lobby for a law that would explicitly ban Predators from being used in the U.S. --- before this EMPIRE starts using them on our own anti-war, anti-corporatism, anti-banksterism, anti-FEDism, anti-CIAism, and all other domestic anti-Empire protesters.
If the British EMPIRE had Predators Americans would never have initially escaped EMPIRE and created the other form of government --- democracy.
Now that our democracy is on life support, and Dr. Global C.(orporate) Empire is trying like hell to pull the plug, we can not hand him this modern Predator/Hellfire scalpel.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
The fact that Obama vehemently criticized the recent well-reasoned Goldstone report accusing Israel and the Palestinians of war crimes (emphasis on Israel) gives us a good indication of how the US leadership will react to this new report.
Sadly, the only "ethical" consideration that the US takes into account lately is how to maximize our opponent's casualties with minimal risk to US forces. The drone attacks are merely an extension of that ethos and policy.
Imagine if our country were subjects to even one single drone attack. All hell would break loose. This killing-by-robot is a truly horrific idea that should be stopped immediately.
All this hi tech equipment is highly profitable to the MIC.
I wonder what it actually costs to build a drone, and what is the selling price to the government?
Drones can only be used in nations that do not have an air force because drones are no match against almost any modern fighter plane. That is the reason why they are used in Afghanistan. Now, Pakistan is a different kettle of fish. Its government could order its air force to shoot down every drone over Pakistan's territory but does not do so for obvious reasons. If the use of our drones breaks international laws then Pakistan's government and, incidentally, all NATO countries which have at least one combat soldier in Afghanistan even if that is a General are complicit according to the Geneva Conventions on Warfare.
"Sadly, the only "ethical" consideration that the US takes into account lately is how to maximize our opponent's casualties with minimal risk to US forces."
------------
With all due respect, I beg to differ. These assholes don't give a damn about the US forces so that ain't even a consideration.
From what I have read in news reports, these drone attacks have killed many more civilians than combatants....I believe the last time i read the report it was hundreds of civilians to about 30 combatants. This is nothing other than pure terrorist attacks by the US. The Islamic world has every reason to hate the US and to defend itself in what ever way it can from these illegal and morally bankrupt war crimes!!! How far down into the abyss of moral depravity can the US fall? I thought it had reached the bottom with Bush and Cheney, the arch criminals of our times! I guess i was wrong...here comes the Obama!!
Remember this? A cause for war against Iraqi 'terrorists'?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5385.htm
Senators were told Iraqi weapons could hit U.S.
Nelson said claim made during classified briefing
By John McCarthy
12/15/03: (FLORIDA TODAY) U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said Monday the Bush administration last year told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities.
Nelson, D-Tallahassee, said about 75 senators got that news during a classified briefing before last October's congressional vote authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Nelson voted in favor of using military force.
Nelson said he couldn't reveal who in the administration gave the briefing.
The White House directed questions about the matter to the Department of Defense. Defense officials had no comment on Nelson's claim.
Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons, notably anthrax, and it could deliver them to cities along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones.
[...]
And Grenada! Don't forget that Reagan had to invade Grenada before they invaded the U.S. to make us all communists!
Well, Kudos to Nelson for being honest but on the other hand pretty gullible.
If these Congress people would expose themselves to the real world occasionally they might be able to see through all the propaganda.
I think this class of people are often deadened by booze.
The UN Special Rapporteur has articulated the terminology by which it is possible to press for representatives to address a situation of
ARBITRARY EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS
"The onus is really on the United States government to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary extrajudicial executions aren't in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons," he added.
YOU live with the fear of being bombed even if you are innocent!
Every plane you see and hear, just may be the one meant for you!
You change your whole lifestyle just so you don't appear suspect to the drones!
The definition of terrorism is to control thought process through violence.
Everyone needs to get over to Chris Floyds' website and read his most recent entry on this topic:
Depraved Indifference: Drone Wars, Whack Jobs and Imperial
Written by Chris Floyd
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
I have often admired Jane Mayer's reportage. She has helped expose several elements of "the dark side" of America's worldwide Terror War. Her latest article in the New Yorker outlines the CIA's use of "Predator" drones to kill people by remote control in Pakistan. As the magazine notes, the Obama Administration is relying on these covert drone killers more and more, as it escalates America's military attacks in Pakistan -- ostensibly a sovereign nation allied to the United States.
Mayer's article relates a chilling story of suburban killers -- many of them stateside, firing their missiles from comfortable cubicles before heading home for dinner with the family -- operating in a secret program outside all traditional lines of legality and accountability. (Even the extremely low levels of legality and accountability that weakly adhere to the business of wholesale slaughter and destruction known as war.) For example, part of the program has been "outsourced" to private companies, who are killing people -- including hundreds of innocent civilians -- for profit, with American tax money.
The New Yorker's website has now published an interview with Mayer expanding on the original story. It too is chilling -- but not only for the further details of this state murder program. What is equally disturbing is the bloodless consideration of this bloody enterprise, based on the assumption that there is nothing essentially wrong with such an assassination program (with its inevitable "collateral damage"), as long it is more transparent, with the "legal, ethical and political boundaries" of the death squads clearly drawn.
The very first question gives us a glimpse into the bizarre, depraved moral universe of the American establishment:
How has the use of Predator drones by the United States changed the situation in Pakistan?
Well, there’s good news and bad news. According to the C.I.A., they’ve killed more than half of the twenty most wanted Al Qaeda terrorist suspects. The bad news is that they’ve inflamed anti-American sentiment, because they’ve also killed hundreds of civilians.
What is astonishing about this is that the interview doesn't end there, in a roar of outrage from Mayer and her interviewer: "They've killed hundreds of civilians!" Hundreds of Pakistani civilians, men, women and children with no involvement whatsoever in war or terrorism; just ordinary people living their lives as best they can -- just like your neighbor, just like your mother, just like you...or just like the people killed on September 11, whose deaths are used as an eternal justification for war and bloodshed on a global scale by the American state.
But these drone-murdered Pakistanis -- these human beings, these fathers and mothers, these grandparents, these toddlers, these brothers and sisters -- their lives are just statistics to be coldly weighed in the calibrations of imperial policy. The "bad news" about their deaths is not that they were murdered, not that these utterly defenseless men, women and children were blown to shreds without warning, without the slightest chance of escape, by flying robots controlled by unseen hands a world away; no, the "bad news" is that these that these killing might possibly hamper America's "counterinsurgency program":
How does the continued collateral damage from Predator drones square with General Stanley McChrystal’s order to the military to lay off the air strikes in Afghanistan and avoid civilian deaths?
Well, you could argue it either way. There is less collateral damage from a drone strike than there is from an F-16. According to intelligence officials, drones are more surgical in the way they kill—they usually use Hellfire missiles and do less damage than a fighter jet might.
At the same time, the fact that they kill civilians at all raises the same problem that McChrystal is trying to combat, which is that they incite people on the ground against the United States. When you’re trying to win a battle of hearts and minds, trying to win over civilian populations against terrorists, it can be counterproductive.
It can be counterproductive. When you kill hundreds of innocent people, it can be counterproductive. "Say, boys, how's my campaign shaping up these days?" "Well, Mr. Mayor, we're getting some negative feedback in the polls about your habit of machine-gunning people to death on the street every week. We've talked to some of our top PR people, and they say this kind of thing can be counterproductive."
And of course, this little passage also highlights the absurd hero-worship of our major "liberal" media toward the military chieftains who are increasingly dominating American policy, with increasing openness. Once again, as with the simpering hagiography offered up by the New York Times recently, we see the saintly image of noble Stanley McChrystal trying his darndest to avoid civilian casualties -- as he calls for 40,000 more troops (or "warfighters" as the Pentagon likes to call soldiers these days) to pour into the occupied land, spreading through the countryside and cities with bristling ordnance, backed always with close air support to provide "force protection."
...
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1865-depraved-indifference-drone-wars-whack-jobs-and-imperial-terror.html
It is even worse, one USA general said the kill rate for drones is 90% civilian, hard to believe F-16 do worse.
Rachel Maddow said there were 15 drone strikes before Mesud was hit, is that 15 strikes on non combatants?
And of course dirty Blackwater is servicing these drones in Pakistan.
The Drones are flown from Las Vegas, Cannon AFB New Mexico, Northern Virginia and possibly Colorado.
And here's what Amy Goodman had to report on DemocracyNow! on the subject:
US Drone Attacks in Pakistan Rise Dramatically under Obama
Investigative reporter Jane Mayer of The New Yorker magazine reveals the number of US drone strikes in Pakistan has risen dramatically since President Obama took office. During his first nine-and-a-half months in office, Obama authorized as many CIA aerial attacks in Pakistan as President Bush did in his final three years in office. At any time, the CIA now has multiple drones flying over Pakistan, scouting for targets. Mayer writes, “there is no longer any doubt that targeted killing has become official US policy.” David Kilcullen, a former adviser to General Petreaus, says that the propaganda costs of drone attacks on civilians have been disastrously high. He recently wrote, “Every one of these dead non-combatants represents an alienated family, a new revenge feud, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially even as drone strikes have increased.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/19/headlines#3
She also did an expose a while back on how they are recruiting high school kids to 'man' these drones and it's right down sickening!
It will be interesting to watch what may happen when Mr. Obama is up to collect his Nobel. Will there be demonstrations? Will the Norwegian police allow demonstrations? Will Mr. Obama go or send his wife? Will drones be flying over Oslo to aim at potential disturbers of his peace?
Mcoyote
Empire Burlesque is one of the best leftist sites on the Internet. Unfortunately that site is also one of most fickle because when one attempts to post a comment the comment does not always end up being viewed on that blog.
Re: Empire Burlesque
I wondered about just that point. I admit I'm paranoid about comments being deleted or access revoked under questionable circumstances, because I've been burned a few times-- without recourse, or even the courtesy of an explanation. ...
[coughing fit]
... Pardon ME! So I backed away from Floyd's site after my comments failed to manifest. I assumed I was inexplicably running afoul of a moderator again. Glad to know it might not have been that "personal".
· Yr Obd't Servant
The site simply has a cumbersome and technically inferior discussion apparatus. The discussion itself is pretty well un-moderated and unfettered. Try again I'd say as the newer version is slightly better though it's still not up to the standards it could be IMO.
Chris Floyd's site is also one of the most hacked and sabotaged sites of all the truly 'left' blogs for precisely that reason. Obviously many people would just as soon see Chris Floyd 'disappeared' or totally run off the internet.
His stuff usually takes it all to the 'next' level and keeps it there. Although Floyd cross references people like Glenn Greenwald, he makes Greenwald's blog–as good as it usually is– seem in comparison like centrist pabulum and an establishment echo chamber.
Whether or not the certainly odd 'behavior' of the Comments section is due some quirky editorial prerogative, or simply poor site technology is anyone's guess. I have always found it odd how few people actually post there. The commentary seems almost artificially truncated, which is strange given the undeniable quality of Chris Floyd's work.
I had always assumed "Empire Burlesque" functioned as more a 'stand alone' blog which could only service a limited number of comments due to technical limitations. One would hope that censorious editorial motives are not at play here.–(Jill Bains)
---According to the C.I.A., they’ve killed more than half of the twenty most wanted Al Qaeda terrorist suspects.---
We know what THAT'S worth; we have already killed the '2nd in command' of Al Qaeda some -- what? -- a dozen or two times? And we know we had all those hundreds of 'worst of the worst' in Gitmo -- until we let them go. We don't even have to think about how many more join the Al Qaeda or similar groups: just think about how totally bogus the reported justifications and victories are. That vegetable stand vendor --- yup, he was an Al Qaeda mastermind....
And that's the 'good news'. And that's how they sneak in the little lies which accumulate into the big ones. What's the real number of resistance members or terrorists killed? Maybe five, maybe one -- maybe none at all. Who could tell? How could one know?
mcoyote October 28th, 2009 1:43 pm -- Interesting post, well-stated. I wonder if you would comment on some proposed guideline for use of drones.
First, it seems logical that international bodies like the U.N., NATO, etc., have a role in determining the use parameters of these weapons. I believe such international consensus applies to other weapons that are banned or controlled, such as atomic weapons and biological and chemical agents. But the U.S. must not wait for international opinion to develop. It's more than obvious that the drones have worsened world-wide hatred toward the U.S. This makes action to forbid improper use of the weapons mandatory.
The very idea of legitimate use of weapons like this is abhorrent. However, we should be realistic in expecting that the best result would be strict control of their use. It seems to me we might require that their use be limited to destruction of infrastructure found by rigorous investigation to be havens for the enemy. But each attack should be preceded by warning that at some time, the attack will occur. Removal of non-combatants should be made a high priority. I think, consistent with the thoughts of UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston, that assassinations must not be allowed. On the other hand, surveillance might be allowed.
Would rules such as these be a start?
not hard to imagine drones over my neighborhood...we already have the black helicopters at night...
class has been brought up on a couple of threads recently...I live on top of a ridge that overlooks Puget Sound...neither I nor my immediate neighbors have view properties, but those properties are not more than 1/4-1/2 mile away...it would be difficult to bomb many of the poorer around here without getting a number of the richer, too...
pull the power plug on these drones and their 'masters'...
Global Start Date: September 22, 2012...no more industry, no more electricity...acoustic, agrarian living...local governance...