Drones are NOT our friends

[VelocuR]

Drones are NOT our friends

June 22, 2012

When people ask me what I do for a living, I tell them that I work for a local charity representing civilian victims of drone attacks in Waziristan. When I tell them this, the reaction, even amidst fairly educated people, convinces me that there is a lot still to be explained about US-led drone strikes in Pakistan.

There have been more than 342 drone attacks that have claimed over 3,000 lives in Pakistan.

While missiles still fall from the sky and many are in favour of them, 3,000 is a huge number.

I am here to clear some myths about drone attacks.

1. Drone attacks do not target only terrorists or those those affiliated with terrorist activity

According to estimates of independent sources, so far there have been over 342 such drone attacks within Pakistan which have killed as many as 3000 people, including women, children, humanitarian workers, the elderly and the handicapped ─ none of them were terrorists or al Qaeda operatives.

To kill the 10 people named in Mr Pirzada’s blog, many innocent children have lost their lives. There is no justification on earth for this heinous crime.

While working for a Pakistani charity which legally represents drone attacks victims - the Foundation for Fundamental Rights (FFR) - I met people who have lost their possessions, livelihood and family through a triage of drone attacks.

Most of the deceased were people quite like you and I, who really didn’t deserve this. For example, one victim mourned the death of his father who had been involved in trying to build community development centres for women.

***

2. Drone attacks are not based on reliable data and surveillance.

It has been widely reported that drone strikes in Pakistan fall into the category of “signature strikes”. This notorious modus operandi targets groups of men believed to be terrorist militants, but whose identities aren’t always known. In addition to these, local informants who serve as confirming witnesses for the attacks often intentionally give incorrect leads.

Despite the purported quality of drone footage, there are still many problems with drone surveillance. It is often pointed out that drones can only be as accurate as the intelligence that is used to identify the target.

Do you know that unmanned vehicles are being used to target mosques, funeral processions, rescue mission locations, and schools with the rapidity of an ardent teenager obsessed with his Play Station?

Reliable data – what a joke!

***
3. Drone attacks are not a legal and legitimate source of self-defence under the UN Charter.

Contrary to popular belief, drone attacks are not legal. Addressed under Article 51, an attack on a state by a non-state actor can trigger the right of self-defence.

However, as the ICJ has recognized, Article 51 only preserves an inherent right of self-defence. If a state simply provides weapons or logistical support to a non-state actor, which in turn uses force against a second state. This does not constitute an “armed attack” by the first state. Article 51 specifically requires that self-defence measures taken by states shall be immediately reported to the Security Council.

It has been reported in local newspapers that the ratio of killing by these drones between militants and innocent civilians has been a shocking 1:10 respectively. How fair is that? You do the math.

***

4. The Pakistan government can do something

The joint session of Parliament unanimously passed a resolution on May 14, 2011, wherein it was strongly asserted:

“…unilateral actions, such as those conducted by the US forces in Abbottabad, as well as the continued drone attacks on the territory of Pakistan are not only unacceptable but also constitute violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and humanitarian norms…”

There are a number of things the Pakistani government can do to protect the rights of its citizens, prominently the right to life guaranteed by Article 9 on the Constitution of Pakistan. As demanded by FFR in court in the course of its current litigation, it can provide redress for the criminal offences occurred, assert its territorial sovereignty by calling for a UN Resolution for the US to immediately cease all drone attacks in its region, use its right of reparation under the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on state responsibility, and approach the UN Human Rights Council on behalf of its victims itself.

***

Of course drones are effective in hunting down the sanctuaries of militant groups. With that many strikes, surely some are bound to hit the mark.

However, don’t you think that it is high time to stop shutting our eyes to the exact cost of this?

 

[bouncing betty]

...Reliable data – what a joke!...

Exactly !! This 'article' has NONE !! It's a BLOG !! Someones OPINION, NOT FACT !! I CALL 'BALONEY' !!!

 

[VelocuR]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/war-ag...ity-us-drone-strikes-civilian-casualties.html

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Exactly !! This 'article' has NONE !! It's a BLOG !! Someones OPINION, NOT FACT !! I CALL 'BALONEY' !!!

Actually the article does reference the various studies done by Western and Pakistani NGO's and other organizations when it details civilian casualties in drone strikes.

Perhaps you should learn to question your government's claims rather than blindly accepting every thing they state as fact, merely because those being killed are primarily 'brown skinned Mooslums'.

 

[Oldman1]

Yes I'm against Pakistan making drones!!!!

 

[Safriz]

All this reasoning will fall on deaf and daft american ears until pakistan grows some backbone and starts shooting the drones.

 

[VelocuR]

Its not time to ‘move on’, Mr Panetta. Not yet

The US government continues to remain predictable and resorts to its usual clichés. Yesterday, the Pakistani state was asked to “move on”.

Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, we were not asking for closure after a cheerless breakup, rather, we are demanding some much needed accountability for the killing of our armed forces which was reasonably against all precepts of international law.

Leon Panetta, has nonetheless, predictably but unacceptably, all but ruled out an apology over an air strike last year that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers and badly set back efforts to improve US-Pakistani ties. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) airstrike that killed Pakistani soldiers was reasoned to be a “misunderstanding about the correct location of Pakistani units”; this speaks volumes about the tragic irony surrounding the continued US offense in the northern parts of Pakistan.

Their actions have claimed thousands of Pakistani lives already to which nobody has yet answered .

Then, in another signature move, the US government also asked a federal court to reject lawsuits demanding the release of documents on CIA drone strikes targeting suspected militants abroad, stating that the entire subject is “classified.”

Doesn’t this sound a little familiar though?

This reminds me of the Binyam Mohamed case where the the US had said it ‘deeply regretted’ the decision by a UK court to release intelligence details about torture of a suspect, which it insisted to be “classified”.

Meanwhile, Christof Heyns, the United Nations (UN) special rapporteur on extra-judicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions, has told a conference in Geneva that President Obama’s drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere may encourage other states to disregard years of long established human rights standards. Heyns has suggested some of these excursions may even constitute as war crimes.

They may indeed be considered as war crimes for a number of reasons.

Firstly, according to Article IV of the Geneva Convention:

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

Drone strikes in Pakistan, especially in the last two months, have targeted religious places, funeral processions, rescue aid missions, and have claimed lives of the elderly, women and children. These people were taking ‘no active part in the hostilities.” Thus, this is prima facie in breach of the article.

Secondly, the pilots that operate drones, which comprise of CIA officials, do not fall within the definition of “combatants”. This not only takes away their immunity from prosecution in countries where they have caused personal injury or damage to property, but also, the officials under whose orders they function, have committed war crimes.

Thirdly, any stance taken by the United States that the drone strikes in Pakistan fall within their right of “self defense” under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, continues to be a relatively weak one. Article 51 not only requires use of force to be both necessary and proportionate to any threat of violence, but also to be sanctioned by the UN Security Council. The International Court of Justice firmly affirmed this principle in cases such as the Legality of Threat of the Use of Nuclear weapons (1999) and Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory(2004) . The increasing number of civilian deaths as a result of the drone attacks and absence of Security Council approval may mean that the application of Article 51 to justify drone attacks is not a strong one.

As for the information regarding drones being “classified material”, not only are requests for documents explaining the legality of the raids justified under the US Freedom of Information Act, but maybe the drone operation should have never been boasted so openly and crudely in the first place.

It is worth noting here what the acting counsel to the CIA, John Rizzo had to say to Newsweek in February last year, about his role in authorising the inclusion of names on the so-called ‘target’ or ‘neutralisation’ list. Rizzo described the previously unreported ‘process’ of determining who should be hunted down and ‘blown to bits’. He mentioned that the request of inclusion in the list were written by the staff lawyers who determine whether an individual is of grave threat or danger to the United States. No information was provided as to what the criteria was to assess these requests. Rizzo stated that at any given time there were roughly 30 individuals that were targeted.

What’s intriguing is that at no point during the interview did he use the word ‘capture’.

So in light of all the information, arguments and facts, how does Mr Panetta then suggest that we move on as a nation which has been victim to heinous acts of violence?

How can we move on knowing that our country’s sovereignty and safety is in jeopardy without anybody being held accountable for it?

So Mr Panetta, know that I, and many like myself think that it is not time to “move on”.

Not just yet.

 

[Jihad]

The innocent deaths caused by these drone strikes are just as much the fault of the Pakistani government as they are America's.

We let these parasitical extremists roam inside our beloved country, and here we pay the price, with innocent blood.

The very fact that we have a weak government, and the U.S. damn well knows this, means we have absolutely no say in the matters regarding the use of Drone technology or a joint-operation with the Americans on this regard.

Perhaps the Americans might be seen as bullies, but even greater can our government & army in this regard be seen as p-ussies. (forgive my language).