What's new

Amnesty says US officials should face war crimes charges over drone strikes

Patriots

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
7,200
Reaction score
2
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Joint report with Human Rights Watch judges attacks in Yemen and Pakistan to have broken international human rights law

US officials responsible for the secret CIA drone campaign against suspected terrorists in Pakistan may have committed war crimes and should stand trial, a report by a leading human rights group warns. Amnesty International has highlighted the case of a grandmother who was killed while she was picking vegetables and other incidents which could have broken international laws designed to protect civilians.

The report is issued in conjunction with an investigation by Human Rights Watch detailing missile attacks in Yemen which the group believes could contravene the laws of armed conflict, international human rights law and Barack Obama's own guidelines on drones.

The reports are being published while Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan's prime minister, is in Washington. Sharif has promised to tell Obama that the drone strikes – which have caused outrage in Pakistan – must end.

Getting to the bottom of individual strikes is exceptionally difficult in the restive areas bordering Afghanistan, where thousands of militants have settled. People are often terrified of speaking out, fearing retribution from both militants and the state, which is widely suspected of colluding with the CIA-led campaign.

There is also a risk of militants attempting to skew outside research by forcing interviewees into "providing false or inaccurate information", the report said.

But Amnesty mounted a major effort to investigate nine of the many attacks to have struck the region over the last 18 months, including one that killed 18 labourers in North Waziristan as they waited to eat dinner in an area of heavy Taliban influence in July 2012. All those interviewed by Amnesty strongly denied any of the men had been involved in militancy. Even if they were members of a banned group, that would not be enough to justify killing them, the report said.

"Amnesty International has serious concerns that this attack violated the prohibition of the arbitrary deprivation of life and may constitute war crimes or extrajudicial executions," the report said. It called for those responsible to stand trial.

The US has repeatedly claimed very few civilians have been killed by drones. It argues its campaign is conducted "consistent with all applicable domestic and international law".

The Amnesty report supports media accounts from October last year that a 68-year-old woman called Mamana Bibi was killed by a missile fired from a drone while she was picking okra outside her home in North Waziristan with her grandchildren nearby. A second strike minutes later injured family members tending her.

If true, the case is striking failure of a technology much vaunted for its accuracy. It is claimed the remote-controlled planes are able to observe their targets for hours or even days to verify them, and that the explosive force of the missiles is designed to limit collateral damage. As with other controversial drone strikes, the US has refused to acknowledge or explain what happened.

Amnesty said it accepts some US drone strikes may not violate the law, "but it is impossible to reach any firm assessment without a full disclosure of the facts surrounding individual attacks and their legal basis. The USA appears to be exploiting the lawless and remote nature of the region to evade accountability for its violations," it said.

In Yemen, another country where US drones are active, Human Rights Watch highlighted six incidents, two of which were a "clear violation of international humanitarian law". The remaining four may have broken the laws of armed conflict because the targets were illegitimate or because not enough was done to minimise civilian harm, the report said.

It also argued that some of the Yemen attacks breach the guidelines announced by Obama earlier this year in his first major speech on a programme that is officially top secret. For example, the pledge to kill suspects only when it is impossible to capture them appears to have been ignored on 17 April this year when an al-Qaida leader was blown up in a township in Dhamar province in central Yemen, Human Rights Watch said.

An attack on a truck driving 12 miles south of the capital Sana'a reportedly killed two al-Qaida suspects but also two civilians who had been hired by the other men. That means the attack could have been illegal because it "may have caused disproportionate harm to civilians".

The legal arguments over drones are extremely complex, with much controversy focusing on whether or not the places where they are used amount to war zones.

Amnesty said some of the strikes in Pakistan might be covered by that claim, but rejected a "global war doctrine" that allows the US to attack al-Qaida anywhere in the world.

"To accept such a policy would be to endorse state practices that fundamentally undermine crucial human rights protections that have been painstakingly developed over more than a century of international law-making," the report said.

Amnesty says US officials should face war crimes charges over drone strikes | World news | The Guardian
 
What Amnesty can do when the country suffering from drone strike do not complaint?
 
actually it was army at the first place allowing the drones, yes i guess you're a supporter of musharaf...

Yes it was Musharraf & he was evil but now so-called democratic government is being run for 6 years .... Why don't they order to army to shoot drones ...........
 
Yes it was Musharraf & he was evil but now so-called democratic government is being run for 6 years .... Why don't they order to army to shoot drones ...........

i don't support these democratic govts either, only difference b/w musharaf and this govt is that this govt atleast got elected (though there was lot of rigging) and musharaf came un-elected using his power,
 

A recently released UN report suggests there is “strong evidence” that top Pakistani military and intelligence officials approved US drone strikes on Pakistani soil during 2004 and 2008.

6 years have been passed to approval ... I must say why have been sleeping our so-called democratic governments ??? And army Musharraf has given approval for very limited strikes ... Only 9 drone strikes have been done tilll 2008 ... So this is not army's failure ..........

i don't support these democratic govts either, only difference b/w musharaf and this govt is that this govt atleast got elected (though there was lot of rigging) and musharaf came un-elected using his power,

Then do you think that they have people's mandate...??
 
6 years have been passed to approval ... I must say why have been sleeping our so-called democratic governments ??? And army Musharraf has given approval for very limited strikes ... Only 9 drone strikes have been done tilll 2008 ... So this is not army's failure ..........



Then do you think that they have people's mandate...??

it happens like it happened in all general elections...but somewhat the mandate indeed favoured PML N, but a man assuming the charge without any process,without the will of people is absolutely unacceptable,

by the way like i said i don't differenciate or support musharaf and the previous/present govts, our policies are same since musharaf assumed the charge
 
really?

I say I should get a giraff as a pet, let's see which happens first.

As long as the US remains the sole super power, all their actions WILL go unchallenged. Even if someday, the US stops being the SOLE super power, any "evidence" would only be an excuse to do what is already planned, and not done because of it.
 
it happens like it happened in all general elections...but somewhat the mandate indeed favoured PML N, but a man assuming the charge without any process,without the will of people is absolutely unacceptable,

by the way like i said i don't differenciate or support musharaf and the previous/present govts, our policies are same since musharaf assumed the charge


SC validated to him for 3 years to rule then he conducted elections in 2002 right after 3 years ... He was not like Zia-ul-Haq ......
 
really?

I say I should get a giraff as a pet, let's see which happens first.

As long as the US remains the sole super power, all their actions WILL go unchallenged. Even if someday, the US stops being the SOLE super power, any "evidence" would only be an excuse to do what is already planned, and not done because of it.

this is why it was good to have USSR to counter balance the USA
 
Back
Top Bottom