Administration Says Drone Strikes Are Legal and Necessary

[Robb]

Source: The Atlantic (blog)

Last night, the State Department's legal adviser, Harold Koh, delivered a http://www.asil.org/files/KohatAnMtg100325.pdf">keynote address to the American Society of International Law's annual meeting in Washington. He spoke in part about the administration's use of lethal force against terrorists, specifically drone attacks, and whether this was legal under international law and the laws of armed conflict. Koh's remarks were the most consequential on this subject to date, and the ripple effects will be felt throughout the Obama administration's foreign policy for months and possibly years to come.

(snip)

Said Koh:

"...It is the considered view of this administration...that targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war....As recent events have shown, al Qaeda has not abandoned its intent to attack the United States, and indeed continues to attack us. Thus, in this ongoing armed conflict, the United States has the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks....This administration has carefully reviewed the rules governing targeting operations to ensure that these operations are conducted consistently with law of war principles..."

Koh http://burnafterreading.nationaljournal.com/2010/03/drone-program-under-review-adm.php">had said recently that the administration had formed a legal basis for the controversial drone program, and that soon it would be revealed. His speech last night certainly leaves a number of questions unanswered, but this is basically the unveiling of the legal policy. ...

Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/administration-says-drone-strikes-are-legal-and-necessary/38080/

---

Interesting discussion of distinction and proportionality, which are critical issues here.

[OnyxCollie]

1. Killing people for imperialism can always be justified.

Helping people, however, is a non-starter.

[Robb]

2. Indeed.

However what has been asked lately is whether this administration has assembled a legal framework for operating drones. It begins to appear that they have.

[Moochy]

17. Post Partisan Empire

Accountability and Peace are Pre-Partisan, dontchaknow?

[provis99]

3. it is literally committing murder.

No different than the Israeli assassination squad that took out Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. If those guys are murderers, then so are the CIA people who murder people with drones.

[Robb]

4. If the same missile was launched from an F-16, what then?

This is the issue I'm grappling with. It's all killing. But where does murder begin? :shrug:

[arcadian]

10. We should start tagging the population with a smal bit of C4

When we no longer like them we can just flip a switch and they explode. How about that?

[Robb]

11. Constructive as ever.

[arcadian]

12. How is what I said any different from robots shooting lasers and missiles?

[Robb]

14. "Robots"?

You're thinking of a movie, I think.

[arcadian]

16. UAVs are unmanned machines.

[Robb]

19. So's my lawnmower.

[arcadian]

20. Really? How is that?

[Robb]

22. I'm having fun at your expense.

My lawnmower is currently "unmanned." :D

"Robot" implies autonomy, or at least a certain degree of it, by definition. These things aren't autonomous.

"Drone" as it's used here is actually a bit off, too. Drones usually fly a pre-programmed path. Predators and Reapers, which is really what we're talking about, are piloted by remote control, with very few automated functions.

As I think of it, I expect this imprecise language is part of the difficulty in talking about UAV strikes, as in many ways it's just a method to use shorter-range guided missiles from greater distance.

Morally I see it on the same ground as a sniper -- shaky ground, for certain, but not without precedent. And arguably less accurate, although that doesn't seem to be the meat of the argument against UAVs.

[cqo_000]

5. UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings

AMY GOODMAN: So, you have worked with the Bush administration and the Obama administration. Do you feel a difference?

PHILIP ALSTON: On this particular issue, no.

AMY GOODMAN: We’ll leave it there.


http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/28/un_special_rapporteur_on_extrajudicial_killings

[blindpig]

6. Well, I guess it's OK then....

fuck the civilians.

O yeah, fuck that 'hearts & minds' bullshit too.

[Robb]

7. Surprisingly, the civilians on the ground approve.

I say "surprisingly" because I was surprised. I should point out I've said several times I don't agree that the level of civilian casualties is acceptable, BTW.

[blindpig]

8. 'Some' is the operative word

You'll always have that, 'the enemy of my enemy....'. Somehow I suspect that is not representative.

[Robb]

9. Read it, it's a damn broad coalition of peace groups and others

...I don't claim it makes sense.

[spanone]

13. the lords of war always win

[walldude]

15. But it's ok.. we passed HCR.

"al Qaeda has not abandoned its intent to attack the United States, and indeed continues to attack us." THEY'RE COMING TO GET YOU!! THEY HAVE HALF ASSED SUICIDE BOMBERS WITH HALF BUILT BOMBS IN THEIR UNDERWEAR!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!!!!

Fucking pathetic.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Let's hope that the ICC disagrees and the murderers are brought to justice.

Of course, we all know that the humanitarian CIA and Pentagon never, ever, do anything illegal or immoral. :sarcasm:

[elias49]

21. The use of unmanned drones troubles me deeply

I'll be interested to hear what the legal basis is.
I remember an episode of the original 'Star Trek' series that I watched when I was a teenager. The crew of the Enterprise came upon a civilization that had computerized warfare as a more ethical(?) or moral alternative to bloodshed, and - importantly - to maintain the planet's infrastructure. So they fired theoretical weapons and if the weapon struck a city, the inhabitants of that city were compelled to report to some kind of extermination chamber. The casualties were counted, and the peolpe involved were vaporized. Virtually bloodless.
Is this a logical extension drone murder? If we sanitize warfare, we may be taking a step towards barbarism that we can barely imagine.
Consider the Vietnam war...I think it's safe to say that public opinion was largely responsible for forcing an end to the conflict, and it's because the American public saw the carnage on TV. And of course this led to 'embedded journalists' being fed the glory of victory during Iraq 1 and Iraq 2.
War. What is it good for....