One of the things U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ran into last week during her trip to Pakistan was anger over attacks by unmanned “drone” aircraft inside Pakistan and along the border with Afghanistan.
One questioner during an interaction with members of the public said the missile strikes by Predator aircraft amounted to “executions without trial” for those killed. Another asked Clinton to define terrorism and whether she considered the drone attacks to be an act of terrorim like the car bomb that ripped through Peshawar that same week killing more than 100 people.
The people of Pakistan aren’t the only ones asking that question. A top UN rights expert has swung the attention back on the drone programme, saying that the United States may be violating international law with the missile strikes.
Philip Aston, the Special Rapporteur on extradjudicial, summary or arbitary executions, said there could be circumstances under which the use of such techniques could be justified in international law, but Washington would have to show it followed appropriate precautions and accountability mechanisms.
The United States will have to be more upfront about its Predator war. “Otherwise you have the really problematic bottom line, which is that the Central Intelligence Agency is running a programme that is killing a significant number of people, and there is absolutely no accountability in terms of the relevant international law.”
There is little doubt now that targeted killing is official U.S. policy, Jane Meyer argues in a detailed piece for the New Yorker. What is worrying is that the embrace of the Predator programme has occurred with remarkably little public discussion, given that it represents a radically new and geographically unbounded use of state-sanctioned lethal force. “And because of the CIA program’s secrecy, there is no visible system of accountability in place, despite the fact that the agency has killed many civilians inside a politically fragile nuclear-armed country with which the U.S. is not at war,” Meyer writes.The drone programme, for all its successes, has stirred deep ethical concerns. Meyers quotes Michael Walzer, a political philosopher and author of the book “Just and Unjust Wars” that he is unsettled by the notion of an intelligence agency wielding such lethal power in secret. “Under what code does the CIA operate ?” he asks. “I don’t know. The military operates under a legal code, and it has judicial mechanisms. ”
He said of the CIA’s drone programe, “there should be a limited, finite group of people who are targets , and that list should be publicly defensible and available. Instead, it’s not being publicy defended. People are being killed, and we generally require some public justification when we go about killing people.”
The article is worth reading in full, but here some other parts that I found interesting :
- It took the CIA 16 missile strikes and 14 months before it killed Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistan Taliban. During this hunt, between 207 and 321 additional people were killed, depending on which news accounts you rely upon.
- During his first nine and half months in office, President Barack Obama has authorised as many CIA aerial attacks in Pakistan as George W. Bush did in his final three years, according to a study done by the New America Foundation. So far this year, the administration has sanctioned at least 41 CIA missile strikes inside Pakistan - a rate of approximately one bombing a week.
- At any given moment, the CIA has multiple drones flying over Pakistan, scounting for targets, according to a White House counter-terrorism official. There are actually so many drones in the area that sometimes arguments have broken out over which remote operators can claim which targets, provoking “command and control issues.”
- Only six of the 41 CIA drone strikes conducted by the Obama administration in Pakistan have targeted al Qaeda members. Eighteen were directed at Taliban targets in Pakistan and 15 were aimed specifically at Mehsud. The tactical shift in the U.S. strikes has quieted some of the Pakistani criticism of the air strikes, although the bombings are still seen as undermining the country’s sovereignty.
Trackback
37 comments so far
Previous | 2 | 1 | Next
[...] America’s use of Predator drone aircraft to carry out killings of terrorism suspects is again in focus with critics saying this amounts to executions without trial. Read more at http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/1 1/02/targeted-killings-in-pakistan-and-e lsewhere-official-us... [...]
- Posted by Targeted killings in Pakistan and elsewhere : official U.S. policy now ? | News Carrier!Keith:
“I assure you that the Clinton option is not off the table.”
–The best thing will be Pakistan resets its foreign policy so as not to invite US’s wrath. On 1971 blog, there was this feeling from your and Myra’s personal interactions that Pakistani retired army generals feel that terrorism was a bad decision but PA is suspected to continue this even now and Musharraf is well known for his army officers running terrorist camps (some report I saw recently). I hope Kayani reverses this failed foreign policy (or Pak leaders) and rather than saying goody-goody stuff after retirement, he does something about it while in uniform.
- Posted by rajeevRajeev,
I assure you that the Clinton option is not off the table. There have long been whispers in the hallways of buildings that matter that this is a good option for dealing with Pakistan. And I am willing to bet good money that if the mission in Afghanistan fails, the American attitude towards Pakistan will change overnight (well maybe a few nights till the last western soldier leaves the region). The frank talk from Hilary Clinton was a warning that the US is reaching its breaking point.
Pakistan is quickly reaching a decision point. They can make a sincere effort in the war on terror. And I mean sincere, not the selective war that they fight with some insurgent groups while letting the others go, or they can risk causing NATO’s failure in Afghanistan and becoming a pariah state on par with Ahmadinejad led Iran.
- Posted by KeithSai writes: “Time to start bombing the eastern borders with Indian drones to eliminate the terrorist camps inside pakistan.Give it under the control of RAW let them fire at will as it is Pakistan is as incapable as it has been through out its history to confront India directly in a war.If they provoke this is the last time they’ll fight,because there’ll be no one alive in pakistan to fight next time.”
This is exactly what Pakistani army wants now. India will be their biggest savior. The US is slowly exposing their hidden face. At a time like this, a war with India will unite all of Pakistan, cause a nuclear war, drive of the US and its allies from this region. They Pakistan will cease to exist. But they will be happy to see that India too won’t exist. It is allright for them to to lose both eyes. But they want India to lose at least one of its eyes. This is the time to show maximum restraint and not fall into the trap they have been laying for us. They have tried with Mumbai attacks and it did not get the desired response from India. So there will be more coming. But India should hold back somehow and resist any temptation to step into the bear trap. If India gets into a war, it will cause so much confusion that Pakistan will use it to manipulate its way out of it. So allow them to fight their own people and self destruct. Do not be tempted to jump in and get a bloody face.
- Posted by MauryanTime to start bombing the eastern borders with Indian drones to eliminate the terrorist camps inside pakistan.Give it under the control of RAW let them fire at will as it is Pakistan is as incapable as it has been through out its history to confront India directly in a war.If they provoke this is the last time they’ll fight,because there’ll be no one alive in pakistan to fight next time.
- Posted by SaiAnyone who has objections to drone attacks ought to come up with better solution also. Drones are doing a good job. I have a solution… Unilateral declaration for people not willing to fight and live peacefully gather in specially created camps and then free drone bombing all over places other than camps. Those who then oppose drone attacks should go and try to stop drone missiles in designated free drone bombing areas
- Posted by Rohit@With the amount of collateral damage from drone hits, hiring Blackwater is probably starting to look like a good option. Longer term, if the west has to pull out of the region before there’s peace, there’s always the Clinton option: declare Pakistan a state sponsor of terror and slap on the most draconian sanctions legally possible. The PA would drop off Bin Laden in gitmo in a week.
- Posted by Keith
Keith: This option will work only if US is ready to be serious. What you suggested is more like an across the table talk with pakistani establishment than begging them to pick gun against terrorists. Well 8 yrs is a longtime to learn what Pakistan really wants. What is US waiting for? I doubt US has the stomach to do so. It never could and never will because US has the habit of forgiving the criminals. Even if US has to leave in near future without finishing the business, it will come up with a story how Pakistanis have become good boys.
UN is inefficient and US has conflict of interest to honestly take care of the business. What big proof you want than the fact that while the world was supporting US in afghanistan, Bush Inc was thinking about Iraq within a week a after 9/11. Stupids took off to the deserts of Iraq. This gives pakistanis a valid reason to doubt US motives. The end game will tell how serious is Obama admn on this.
Hillary suspects A-Q leadership in pakistan and Pakistan knowing about it. How hard it is to arm twist them to get OBL/Mullah Omar/Jawahiri gang in Gitmo?
- Posted by rajeevWith regards to my previos post, if the Afghanistan mission does not succeed, then the UN should declare all NWFP and areas outside of Punjab as war zones, including Balochistan.
As a war zone, the U.S. can greatly increase its reach to destroy actionable targets, without needing permission or red tape.
After the war zones are cleared, it may be time to look at disintegrating these “war zones” away from Pakistan - Punjabistan, so that the U.S. and other western nations can effectively police these areas and the only way to do it is to annex them from Pakistan.
- Posted by GWbulletfish,
the fighters will change. the ignorant mentality won’t.. and killing ignorant people doesn’t work and never will..
you want to change people, get them an education.. it won’t work now, but will work in the next 30 years.. read the Book “Three Cups of Tea” and you will see how one man has changed entire societies in Pakistan.
- Posted by MichelMortal writes: “it’ll be a tough task to undo the damage done by decades of radicalization & widespread propaganda and to get the Pakistani people to see the true face of their military establishment. Without the support of the Pakistani people, it’ll be difficult to bring about the needed change.”
I think you have not understood the Pakistani mindset. These people have lived at the cross roads where big powers clashed. They have survived those horrendous years by switching their colors to match with those of the victors. Betrayal or backstabbing is the only way to survive there. All are descendants of victims of such conflicts in the past. Shock and awe will really work in their case. Most Pakistanis coming from the non-Pashtun regions are very different in nature. They are used to living off repeating a lie a thousand times. Right now they are reciting the mantra taught by their military because they know where the power is. If Taliban were to take them over entirely, you will find them switch side on the flick of a finger and support Islamic edicts, quick justice etc. If the American fire power decimates their military, you will see them blame that military for all its ills. These are very emotional people and have a tendency to fall apart very quickly if shaken hard. They are way far different from those who make up the FATA and NWFP regions where life has been hard all along. And those people are used to raiding the regions which make up the rest of Pakistan today. If the US and its allies bomb the Pakistani military into submission, trust me they will switch sides immediately. That is the way of survival in that region. They thump their chests loud. But if whacked, they will be singing your favorite songs. It is possible to reset this region.
- Posted by MauryanMichael,
The last Soviet tanks left Afghanistan in 1989. Are you telling us that the Taliban today are the same ‘holy warriors’ who claimed to have brought down the USSR 20 years ago?
So men who were fit to fight in 1989 are still physically fit to fight 10 to 20 years later?
If these holy warriors could boot out the Red Army then why could they not collectively ask the USA to help rebuild the country?
- Posted by bulletfishI suppose we’d be better off if we just ignore the terrorists. Maybe they will go away.
- Posted by FrankGuys, whatever…
- Posted by samUS keeps giving the tax payers $$$ to Pakistan
Pakistan keep telling on capture of Taliban areas
Taliban keep telling its a trap for Pakistani Army
And
We all keep discussing there here….
Any progress… hmmm increase in the AID$
To the person who says, “Pakistan created the Taliban…” You don’t know your history.. America created and supported the Taliban while Afghanistan was at war with Russia.. It has always been an evil terrorist group. But they weren’t considered terrorists when they fought Russia. Once they turned the same evil they were doing against Russia toward America and the West, they became terrorists.. SOUNDS LIKE DOUBLE STANDARD.
And to the person who says “Pakistan is clearly shielding” Mullah Omar or which ever terrorist you want to name, your argument is literally stupid.. If the Pakistani government doesn’t know where the al-Qaeda leaders are, then how are they shielding them?? If I think America, France, Germany, etc. are shielding terrorists because there are obviously al-Qaeda people in the countries, then my argument is flawed, because these countries don’t know who or where they are yet..
- Posted by MichaelWith the amount of collateral damage from drone hits, hiring Blackwater is probably starting to look like a good option. Longer term, if the west has to pull out of the region before there’s peace, there’s always the Clinton option: declare Pakistan a state sponsor of terror and slap on the most draconian sanctions legally possible. The PA would drop off Bin Laden in gitmo in a week.
- Posted by Keith@Mauryan: “It is time Obama made the right call. Blast this military monster out. Until it happens, there will be no peace in the region”
Agreed. That’s certainly the right call but it’s going to be a long, hard & tenuous process. Just as the Pakistani military establishment bears a big chunk of the blame for feeding & breeding this monster of terrorism, successive US administrations, over the years bear a big chunk of the blame for feeding & breeding this monster called the Pak military. It’s quite clear that over the years this monster has become so powerful that today it controls the minds & hearts of average Pakistanis through a constant blast of their widespread propaganda machinery. I’ve seen Pakistanis point fingers at everyone & their grandmother but when it comes to their military establishment & their Generals, they just don’t wanna hear a thing. So, it’ll be a tough task to undo the damage done by decades of radicalization & widespread propaganda and to get the Pakistani people to see the true face of their military establishment. Without the support of the Pakistani people, it’ll be difficult to bring about the needed change.
- Posted by MortalWe are at war with al Queda and its leaders. The core of al Queda lives in Pakistan under Taliban protection, just as it did previously in Afghanistan. We invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, and the entire world, other than some Muslims, agree that we had the right to so in order to defend ourselves. Doesn’t that imply that we are also entitled to invade Pakistan in order to destroy the core of al Queda and to kill or capture Osama bin Ladin? The use of Predators may be wrong, but only because it is both ineffective at destroying al Queda and killing bin Ladin, and because it is secretly run by the CIA without a public legal framework. We, do in fact, have every right to use force to kill al Queda personnel, and the Taliban who extend to them a safe harbor, support and friendship, inside of Pakistan. But the use of the CIA to execute such action programs has ALWAYS proved to be fraught with counter-productive consequences. We shouldn’t do it. It would make more sense to send in troops and planes, and let the military get bin Ladin.
- Posted by scaupus