To drone (as in launching unamanned aerial attacks on suspected terrorists, or, sometimes on areas where suspected terrorists are suspected to be); or not to drone?
That is, so far, NOT the question being asked by the Obama administration, the military or most of the Beltway media mavens.
As Wired News points out, “With a wink and a nod from Pakistan, the US government has been carrying on a clandestine drone war over Pakistan for nearly two years. Now the question is whether those operations may expand to include drone strikes to the southern province of Baluchistan, where the Taliban’s Quetta Shura maintains a leadership base.”
Today, as the administration according to news reports, debates the military and political merits of escalation of drone attacks against suspected Taliban enclaves, what’s also not being asked nearly enough is what the moral and legal implications of conducting a covert war on terror by remote control.
Although the conventional wisdom is that drone strikes are a surgically clean, acceptable tactic of counter-terror with minimal “collateral damage”, the reality is quite other-wise, Max Kantar, a human rights investigator and activist, writes, in an important paper titled International Law: The First Casualty of the Drone War.
“The United States,” Kantar argues, citing ‘relevant and uncontroversial legal precedents established by the International Criminal Court”, is “in violation of international law on several counts in regards to its bombings of Pakistan.” Kantar writes:
For nearly four years, the United States has been using unmanned aerial vehicles, also known as “drones,” to repeatedly bomb targets in Pakistan.[1] The drone strikes, operated primarily by the CIA, are reportedly launched with the intention of killing top al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders and holding the Pakistani government accountable. Since the Obama administration has taken office, the U.S. campaign of drone strikes in Pakistan has markedly intensified, consistent with the trends established in the final eight months President Bush’s second term. Although the bombings of Pakistan fall into a much broader strategic U.S. policy in the region, it is the purpose of this analysis to focus solely on the legal implications and human costs of the drone strikes in Pakistan.
First I will review the existing reports entailing the legal status—combatant or noncombatant—of those killed in U.S. attacks. Secondly, I will provide a brief and basic overview of the laws of war and their immediate applicability regarding the protection of civilians and noncombatants in international armed conflicts in accordance with the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Additional Protocols of 1977, and customary international law. Third, I will examine several case studies of various U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan in order to determine whether or not international law is being observed by United States. Fourth, I will briefly evaluate the fundamental legal credibility underlying the attacks using both the existing analyses provided by legal scholars and rights groups and well-established principles of law rooted in the Fourth Geneva Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Fifth, using the available body of documentary evidence compiled by independent journalists, human rights groups, strategic analysts, media reports, and legal experts, as well as taking into consideration the basic tenets of international law in the context of the U.S. attacks, I will juxtapose the substance of U.S. actions with fundamental American legal standards with the purpose of establishing an appropriate technical classification for the United States’ drone policy in Pakistan. Lastly, I will conclude this analysis with a few final remarks addressing unanswered questions while also making some basic recommendations.
Phil Leggiere is a journalist who has published widely in national and trade publications including Wired, Salon, TimeOut NY, Bill of Rights Defense Committee blog and many others.
December 21st, 2009 in
International Law,
Law,
Pakistan,
U.S. Politics | tags:
Bombs,
Civilian Casualties,
Drones,
International,
International Law,
Pakistan,
Politics |
No Comments
Further, the Supreme Court invalidated the appointment of the PCO judges. ROLI is currently in the process of briefing the Supreme Court’s decision and will soon provide further analysis. This is great news for Pakistan and the rule of law! In the meantime visit the News and Dawn for more information.
ROLI strongly condemns the state of emergency imposed on the people of Fiji, the attack on Fiji’s constitution and the entire judicial system. On April 9, 2009, Fiji’s Court of Appeals ruled that Commodore Frank Bainimarama’s 2006 military coup, the declaration of a state of emergency and removal of the democratically elected Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase was unconstitutional. The Court ruled, pursuant to the 1997 constitution that the sitting Parliament should be dissolved and new elections scheduled.
In response, President Ratu Josefa Iloila suspended the constitution, sacked the sitting judiciary, declared a 30-day state of emergency, curtailed domestic and international media and reappointed Commodore Frank Bainimarama as Prime Minister for five years.
The Public Emergency Regulations 2009 suspends freedom of speech, assembly and association, and equal protection of the law, all of which are guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Further, the regulations give the military the power to close roads, order pre-emptive arrest, and censor the media.
ROLI supports the Fiji Law Society’s efforts to resist President Ratu Josefa Iloilo’s abrogation of the Fiji Constitution and the sacking of the judiciary. Specifically, the Fiji Law Society has called for the sacked judges to remain on the bench and to boycott all judges who swear allegiance to the military regime.
ROLI urges President Ratu Josefa Iloila and Commodore Frank Bainimarama to abide by the Court of Appeals ruling and respect the 1997 constitution. ROLI further urges all international donors, including the United Nations and the China Development Bank to discontinue all aid to Fiji and encourages the Pacific Island Forum and the Commonwealth to suspend Fiji’s membership until the state of emergency is lifted, the constitution is no longer suspended, and elections are promptly held.
Now that we are recovering from the euphoria of restoration, it might be an opportune moment to dwell on the logical follow-up required to fix our constitutional structure and deformed jurisprudence. The principled restoration of the deposed judiciary through an executive order is the first formal acknowledgement by the government of Pakistan that General Musharraf’s actions of Nov 3, 2007, were unconstitutional.
Read the rest of this entry »
I have lived on the lip of insanity, wanting to know reasons, knocking on a door. It opens. I have been knocking on the inside.
Jalaluddin Rumi
Read the rest of this entry »
The Rule of Law Institute celebrates your historic and successful defense and restoration of democracy in Pakistan.
Your Success
You have endured economic and financial pressures on your legal practices, intimidation and violence by state authorities, the arbitrary detention and house arrest of your leaders, and the potential co-optation of a democratic election deposing a despised dictator. Now – two years after first taking to the streets to defend judicial independence – you have achieved a breathtaking vindication of grassroots democracy, inspiring legions across the world through your example.
The achievements include establishing a new ethical standard for lawyers around the world. Beyond representing the interests of our respective clients, our profession defends our societies’ most cherished notions: habeas corpus; due process; access to unbiased justice for all; and democratic checks & balances among independent powers. You have demonstrated and filled a momentous responsibility of the profession, and our world will be better when your peers around the world accept the same burden.
Your Continuing Aims
We understand that while the restoration of Chief Justice Muhammad Iftikhar Chaudhury represents a major milestone in the restoration of democracy, it remains a single stone on the path. During the period of the Chief Justice’s unconstitutional removal, the Court was expanded from 16 to 29 Justices. Despite his impending return to the bench, the executive continues to hold a controlling interest on the Court through Justices politically beholden to it.
Until the judges of the Apex Court are removed, the work of the lawyers’ movement in Pakistan will continue. And the Rule of Law Institute will stand with you in the U.S.
The Implications of Your Triumph for the Broader World
Among the least explored implications of your recent success is the victory it portends in the struggle against extremism. As you have pointed out throughout your campaign, the Musharraf dictatorship – and Zardari regime – have built a dismal counterterrorism record.
Terrorists cultivated, trained and supported by the ISI continued to receive assistance from the Pakistani military under Musharraf’s control. The Pakistani military establishment defrauded the U.S. out of $10 billion since 2001, much of which apparently went into the pockets of military cronies and extremists, rather than efforts – like yours – to oppose them. And, perhaps most exasperating of all, Musharraf, and Zardari after him, sheltered the architect of the world’s most pervasive nuclear smuggling ring.
Their tenure was devastating to Pakistan, as well as U.S. interests in the region. Musharraf’s assaults on judicial independence and habeas corpus not only undermined Pakistan’s and America’s rhetorical commitment to democracy, but also represented a massive loss in the ongoing battle for the hearts & minds of individuals recruited by violent extremists. And by attempting to politicize the Court’s election law decisions, Zardari has followed Musharraf’s lead.
In contrast, the restoration of impartial justice could undermine extremism, in several ways.
First, an independent judiciary will build allegiance among people whom Pakistan and the U.S. most need to cultivate. The Court’s evisceration of the justice system vitally eroded the government’s legitimacy on the ground. In the face of unchecked arbitrary rule – whether that of government officials or militants who have gained control over territory – the strongest weapon against lawlessness is an unbiased and legitimate means of resolving disputes peacefully.
Second, your victory helps align political interests throughout Pakistan. Your supporters around the country can now focus their energies on the struggle against extremism, rather than the struggle against totalitarianism.
Finally, you represent a brave new model of international partner for the United States. For too long, our nation has forgotten its once-lauded role as a champion of democracy & freedom. Yet your movement’s ultimate interests are closely aligned with those of the U.S. over the long-term: you favor access to justice for all, an expansion of opportunity, and the development of robust civil society. If, by taking note of your achievements, the United States learns the value of supporting indigenous movements for democracy in other countries, the impacts of your work will multiply.
On the one hand, Washington has continued to bomb targets inside Pakistan under the Obama Administration. However, the administration now appears willing to consider supporting democratic reforms and independent institutions. As we wrote after investigating the martial law imposed by General Musharraf in November 2007, the U.S. “should dedicate itself to advancing the values of democracy, rule of law and human rights over repression and autocratic rule. This view compels shifting U.S. policy…towards support of independent indigenous institutions that hold the greatest promise for building genuine democracy….” But it was your work that proved the viability of winning popular support by advancing democracy, opening the space for Washington’s consideration of options beyond the military aspects of “The War on Terror.”
As you continue rebuilding democracy in Pakistan, we stand at your side in the United States. And, around the globe, we celebrate your remarkable achievements together.
In solidarity and heartfelt thanks,
The Rule of Law Institute (ROLI)
www.ruleoflawinstitute.org
Shahid Buttar, Esq.
Ryan Hancock, Esq.
Devin Theriot-Orr, Esq.
Will he confirm the rumor of the reinstatement of the Chief Justice? Of course, the devil is in the details.
ROLI is currently gathering information on all persons who have been arrested, detained or placed under house arrest in connection with the Long March. Specifically, ROLI is seeking the following information:
Read the rest of this entry »
The second long march in support of the rule of law movement has begun. The march is scheduled to culminate in a sit-in on the Constitutional Avenue in Islamabad, and is to continue until the judges deposed on Nov 3 are restituted to their constitutional offices. Has an overwhelming majority of our nation been rallying behind the movement merely to seek the reemployment of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry? Is the rule of law movement now a partisan movement seeking the replacement of the Zardari-led PPP government with one dominated by PML-N? Should the long march be denounced because the apprehension of disorder must override any concern for rule of law? Can democracy thrive under a depraved governance structure that engenders a dichotomy between the twin concepts of law and order – that go hand in hand in all civilized societies – and the excuse of instilling order is actually used to thwart the law?
Read the rest of this entry »
March 14th, 2009 in
Direct Action,
Law,
Op-Ed,
Pakistan | tags:
Babar Sattar,
Chaudhry,
Direct Action,
Long March,
Pakistan,
restoration,
rule of law,
Zardari |
No Comments