Are Drone Strikes a
Form of Extrajudicial Killing?
Updated 2_05_2013 (See below). And again 2_06_+_07_+_10_+_2013 (below).
Updated 2_05_2013 (See below). And again 2_06_+_07_+_10_+_2013 (below).
Some quite possibly are.
In this Examiner.com article by one of us (U.
S. Congress hearing on unmanned weaponized vehicles) we learn about a
hearing (11/16/2012) Congressman Dennis Kucinich had on Drone Strikes. Mr. Kucinich once again (?) offered some public
“disagreement” on drone strikes last week.
And what exactly is an “extrajudicial” killing? Extrajudicial means (1) “done outside the law”,
roughly. So an extrajudicial killing is
one that is “done outside the law”. This
is why nationally-authorized (which nation?) drone strikes can be so troubling.
As Professor James
Cavallaro pointed out in the 11/16 Briefing “that some *475 to 885 innocent Pakistanis had
been killed by these drones from 2004 to 2012”.
In
so-called ‘signature strikes’ targeting individuals claimed to have been in ‘suspicious
activity’. In essence, they may have
been denied due process – a concept as old
as the Magna Carta if not older.
Individuals who may been collaterally killed by strategic and other
drone strikes might then have been killed/judged without due process of law –
as extrajudicial collateral killings.
These strikes may thus infuriate/alienate the local peoples whom then
striking national authority may have been protecting. The argument has also been put out that this
creates further allegiance to terrorists and other enemies.
The U. S. Declaration
of Independence, like
most national law, states that we have a “right to life and liberty”
amongst other things. The absence of due
process in some drone strikes seems to be a danger to that/those concepts. That is enough reason to care about EKs and
DSs. EKs and DSs may have been obviously
illegal if (as the Examiner article reminds) first responders and civilian
rescuers had been targeted. There is a legal basis for some of this in the
United States and there is not.
The recently passed NDAA 2013 Act (H.
R. 4310) does make (funding) provisions for Counterrorism (Sub-title D)
with the following Sections:
“Sec. 1021. Extension
of authority to make rewards for combating terrorism.
Sec. 1022.
Prohibition on use of funds to construct or modify facilities in the United
States to house
detainees transferred from United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Sec. 1023. Report on
recidivism of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, who have been transferred to foreign
countries.
Sec. 1024. Notice and
report on use of naval vessels for detention of individuals
captured outside
Afghanistan pursuant to the Authorization for Use of
Military Force.
Sec. 1025. Notice
required prior to transfer of certain individuals detained at the Detention
Facility at Parwan, Afghanistan.
Sec. 1026. Report on
recidivism of individuals formerly detained at the Detention
The above Sections only cover punishments such as detention
and largely in Afghanistan borders. A review of these and later sections do not
cover the use of drone strikes and “pain of death”. Only in other nations is it “lawful” to use
lethal force against “enemy combatants”. Such
killings may be legal (for terrorists) or illegal according to U. S. Code 28 Sections
1350
and 1605A. In the US Codes 28 1350 (previous) a person
(survivors in our case) may
have remedy through a tort (statute of limitations being 10 years) and in
1605A only “a state” may not be granted immunity for terrorism or the
supporting of said terrorism (and more).
Using/interpreting the above laws it would seem that any
nation (by U.S. Code) would be engaged in extrajudicial killings if no act of
war were declared and performed against no enemy combatants. There
is a DOD
Process (same link provided earlier) for determining whether or not an individual
is an enemy combatant. These suggestions
make the “Manning/Wikileaks” case/s seem more transparent. No national laws could have been broken if “certain
records have been made classified”. That
said, for our own and your protection, we can’t support or deny the case.
For the case of due process, this must be judged by the
courts when there is a desire to extend “statutory requirements” in a “time of
war”. We wonder how the courts would
judge on the
recent killing of a Pakistani tribal leader and “good Taliban” (not
necessarily an enemy combatant?) Maulvi Nazir. Even though the Pakistani government may have
called him a ‘good Taliban’ he has been described as a ‘militant’ – but not an
enemy combatant.
For a comprehensive review on the topic of drone strikes,
see the Cornell Law report on “The
civilian impact of drone strikes”.
One of the questions raised by the CL report (per the Wired Danger Room)
is that even
the White House does not know how many drone strike fatalities have taken place. Indeed, in a White House press briefing (June 5,
2012) the 2008
killing of Abdullah Said al-Libi is mentioned very briefly. True,
while keeping such drone strike fatality information classified may protect
names, lives and missions of our military and intelligence personnel it brings
us back to a point made by *Professor Cavallaro. It is difficult to judge whether drone
strikes (fatalities) are extrajudicial killings without some sort of body
count.
Update 1_30_2013 PBS stares back at 1.8-gigapixel ARGUS drone imaging system http://phys.org/news/2013-01-pbs-gigapixel-drone-imaging.html#ajTabs Via Phys.org.
Their link to the PBS Show "Rise of the Drones" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/rise-of-the-drones.html
Update 2_05_2013
Via BBC News
Even though it links to a US Government Document we cannot provide a copy of it here as it bears the imprimatur of NBC News.
The controversial phrase "imminent threat" appears on page 8 of the PDF's text. This sounds like a "battlefield term" and not easily understood by the non-military portion of public without further study. It seems like invoking the "law of war" upon an individual?
The document cites multiple references to US Laws and Codes but curiously omits the Codes 1350, 1605A and 4310 that we cited above in this posting.
Letter to Eric Holder
from Sensenbrenner and Conyers about the Draft of the White Paper (Nov. 8
2011?) http://democrats.judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/Conyers-Nadler-Scott121204.pdf
Drones: Confidential
Justice Department Memo: Targeted Killing of Americans Does Not Require 'Clear
Evidence' of Imminent Attack - @Gawker http://gawker.com/5981678/confidential-justice-department-memo-targeted-killing-of-americans-does-not-require-clear-evidence-of-imminent-attack
Update 2_06_2013
John Brennan
faces grilling over leaked drone memo as senators demand answers
http://gu.com/p/3dt4p/tw via @guardian
BBC News -
CIA operating drone base in Saudi Arabia, US media reveal http://bbc.in/XiqIkm
Drones: The
Washington Post and a Bunch of Other News Organizations Helped Keep CIA Drone
Base Secret - @Gawker http://gawker.com/5982123/the-washington-post-and-a-bunch-of-other-news-organizations-helped-keep-cia-drone-base-secret
A one-paragraph law justifies the U.S.’ 11-year war on terror. We break it
down: http://propub.ca/X3CQaT
Via @GottaLaff
It's ok to question the president. In fact, it's mandatory. He asked us to
"hold him acountable"-- http://bit.ly/YaJA3L #drones
Update 2_07_2013
Lawmakers to see classified drone memos ahead of
Brennan confirmation hearing
Fox News
|
-
|
The Obama administration plans to give
lawmakers sensitive and long-sought documents Thursday morning that provide the
legal rationale for drone strikes on Americans, in a bid to tamp down concerns
ahead of the confirmation hearing for President ...
Ken Dilanian
CNN Staff
Lesa Jansen, CNN
What is a secret drone base that's not actually a secret? The Washington Postand the New York Timesrevealed today that they were among a number of news organizations that participated in a blackout regarding the location of a "secret" CIA drone base in Saudia Arabia at the behest of the Obama...
You can't sign the Stop Drones WH
petition because it failed the 100K signed threshold https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-drone-strikes/QGjycNt4
However, via Haloefekti
However, via Haloefekti
Sign the other Stop the #drones petitions, several
like this http://1.usa.gov/WDmdBG ...(Cont http://libertweet.com/t/ES28m )
Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies http://blogs.usembassy.gov/benfranklinsblogparis/2013/02/05/reforming-u-s-drone-strike-policies/
Two children holding a sign " Drones kill innocent children like us
" #NoDrones
http://twitpic.com/c0s95c
Update 2_10_2013
Via Gawker
Drones: Is This The CIA's Secret Saudi Arabia Drone Base? - @Gawker http://gawker.com/5982850/is-this-the-cias-secret-saudi-arabia-drone-base
Update 2_10_2013
Via Gawker
Drones: Is This The CIA's Secret Saudi Arabia Drone Base? - @Gawker http://gawker.com/5982850/is-this-the-cias-secret-saudi-arabia-drone-base
Update 2_11_2013
'McLaughlin Group' Panel Debates Drone Program (VIDEO): via HuffPost http://huff.to/12jwCmF Surprise,pat Buchanan on side against the prez. Via sylvaners@Sylvaners
Push to Expand U.S. 'Kill List'
Officials Press to Mark Algerian Militant as Target for Death or Capture http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324906004578292371006607066.html?KEYWORDS=US+expands+kill+list#articleTabs%3Dvideo
Via 'McLaughlin Group' Panel Debates Drone Program (VIDEO): via HuffPost http://huff.to/12jwCmF Surprise,pat Buchanan on side against the prez. Via sylvaners
However, the 'target' in question (Mokhtar Belmokhtar) has already been given a life sentence and 2 death sentences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokhtar_Belmokhtar
Drones:
Everything You Ever Wanted to Know But Were Always Afraid to Ask http://bit.ly/ZeheGc
Eric Holder: Drone
Strike To Kill U.S. Citizen On American Soil Legal, Hypothetically
http://huff.to/13DL0v3
via @HuffPostPol
Must see jeremyscahill BookTV segment about "Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield" http://www.booktv.org/Program/14600/Dirty+Wars+The+World+Is+a+Battlefield.aspx …
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment