Four legal issues that arise regarding U.S. drone strikes in
Pakistan are:- U.S. Domestic Law
- Transparency & Responsibility
- Appropriate Targets
- Pakistan's Sovereignty
U.S.
Domestic Law
The
most commonly cited legal basis for drone strikes is the Authority
for Use of Military Force (AUMF) law passed in 2001, just after 9/11.
Obama and Bush have claimed that this applies not only to al-Qaeda
but to any "associated forces", which the law does not
explicitly state.
Because many drone strikes are no longer targeting individuals directly involved with 9/11, AUMF should no longer be relevant. Yet even if it is applicable, not enough information is revealed to the public to prove that individuals are being identified as such terrorist suspects before assassination.
Because many drone strikes are no longer targeting individuals directly involved with 9/11, AUMF should no longer be relevant. Yet even if it is applicable, not enough information is revealed to the public to prove that individuals are being identified as such terrorist suspects before assassination.
Transparency
& Responsibility
The
International Human Rights Law (IHRL) requires nations to be
transparent in their actions and open to investigate any war crime
accusations, especially when civilian casualties are concerned.
However, the U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan are overseen by the CIA,
not the military, and the public has been kept largely in the dark.
Only recently have government officials openly acknowledged the drone
war.
Appropriate
Targets
According
to the International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which applies to armed
conflicts, factors that must be considered in determining whether use
of force is appropriate in a conflict involving non-state groups,
include the conflict's extent, duration, and the group's identity.
However, many 'signature strikes' occur, where the individual is unidentified and targeted only for suspicious behavior. Under the IHL, “civilian populations...shall not be the object of attack”. Regardless, there exists secondary drone strikes that target first-responders and rescuers, resulting in many civilian deaths.
However, many 'signature strikes' occur, where the individual is unidentified and targeted only for suspicious behavior. Under the IHL, “civilian populations...shall not be the object of attack”. Regardless, there exists secondary drone strikes that target first-responders and rescuers, resulting in many civilian deaths.
Pakistan's
Sovereignty
Though an armed attack occurred on 9/11, al-Qaeda has been restricted enough by U.S. counter-terrorism efforts that they should no longer be termed an 'imminent threat'. Many of the drone targets are no longer influential terrorists planning attacks on Americans, but mid-level militants who are likely more concerned with their own governments. Thus, the U.S. is violating Pakistan's sovereignty through their use of drones as 'self-defense'.
After
an examination of these four areas, it is evident that U.S. drone
operations are not legal, with respect to domestic and international
laws, and should be reevaluated.
I definitely don't think that the United States should continue with these drone attacks. Not only is it unethical, but it's unsafe. I feel like if the government keeps attacking strong military leaders, that haven't even been proven terrorists, then it is going to come back around to us and the United States is going to see possibly another attack as dreadful as 9/11. I also just don't think it's right. The US needs to find a better way to prove who is a terrorist before they go forward with execution. The current system is unethical and wrong. And it doesn't stand with our national idea of freedom and rights for all people. We need to find a way to give these potential terrorists the deep investigations (to prove or disprove their innocence) that they deserve, not just send in drones to finish off a potential hazard. These are people with lives, and they should be treated like it.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely that there needs to be more of a revision on who can be targeted and killed by drone strikes. However, I cannot say whether drone operations should be stopped completely. In some cases, when a real threat is posed, the use of drones can save American lives. But the important question needs to be how to identify whether there is a real threat. Too often now, drone strikes are used against mid-level militants who may not have any plans to directly threaten the US.
DeleteCurrently there is a huge debate about drone operations, but most of that focus is on whether an American citizen can be targeted on American soil. Suggestions have been made to have a court established, similar to the court used to approve wiretap operations, that would review the proposed targets for drone strikes. However, this proposal is only concerned with protecting American rights. And while I agree that that should be our priority, we should also be concerned enough to establish a similar review system to approve targets in Pakistan, and elsewhere in the Middle East.
If a revision system was put into place, secondary strikes on first-responders and rescuers would have to cease, and thus civilian deaths would become fewer. By making the drone operations more legal, they will at least become more ethical.
I recognize that these drone attacks are not supported by international law, and yes, these attacks are most probably illegal, but are they still wrong? I would argue against that. Yes, we need to clean up collateral damage, and we need to reevaluate how the drones are operating there, but I don't think we need to reevaluate if they need to operate there. They do.
ReplyDeleteWe have been at war for over a decade now in Afghanistan, and one thing about Afghanistan and Pakistan is that there is a large border between the two that goes straight through tribal territory. The border exists on maps and it exists to Kabul and Islamabad, but to the Pashtuns living there, it doesn't matter. People go across it all the time, without any government taking charge for that traffic. As such, Taliban fighters are going out of our official, sanctified zone of operations without our being able to prevent them.
This would be fine, if the Pakistani government was able to control them, but they can't, even if they are making efforts to combat it. They don't have the resources we have, so their counter-terrorist efforts are mediocre, at best. If anything, we need more cooperation from the Pakistani government, not to remove the drones altogether.
You are right that we are dealing with a situation of non-international armed conflict, where the conflict is not with an organized nation. In this case, Pakistan, the 'host state', does not have the ability to control these threatening groups. And the U.S. claims that since Pakistani authorities cannot deal with the threats, we have the right to use force, which we do. But it should have been only after a U.S. report to the UN Security Council about the actions that would be taken. While I don't think the UN should have the last say over the U.S. course of action, this would have provided at least some form of revision on the U.S.'s program, which has not existed in any other form.
DeleteBecause of the lack of revision that has contributed to its illegality, I do believe that it is wrong. It is wrong because it is illegal, not only because of the excess harm it is causing the victims, but because it is also taking away our rights as U.S. citizens to have transparency in our government and to be aware of the policies pursued under our elected leaders.
I think that if drone strikes need to be continued in Pakistan, steps should be taken to make them more legal. These could include having revision of targets occur and especially turning over the operation of drone strikes to the military, rather than the CIA, which would make information more available to the public.