US drone strikes could be classed as war crimes, says Amnesty International

[bananas]

Source: Guardian

US officials responsible for the secret CIA drone campaign against suspected terrorists in Pakistan may have committed war crimes and should stand trial, a report by a leading human rights group warns. Amnesty International has highlighted the case of a grandmother who was killed while she was picking vegetables and other incidents which could have broken international laws designed to protect civilians.

The report is issued in conjunction with an investigation by Human Rights Watch detailing missile attacks in Yemen which the group believes could contravene the laws of armed conflict, international human rights law and Barack Obama's own guidelines on drones.

The reports are being published while Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan's prime minister, is in Washington. Sharif has promised to tell Obama that the drone strikes – which have caused outrage in Pakistan – must end.

<snip>

Amnesty said it accepts some US drone strikes may not violate the law, "but it is impossible to reach any firm assessment without a full disclosure of the facts surrounding individual attacks and their legal basis. The USA appears to be exploiting the lawless and remote nature of the region to evade accountability for its violations," it said.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/22/amnesty-us-officials-war-crimes-drones

---

Note: Human Rights Watch released a seperate report today.

[marmar]

1. k/r

[Thinkingabout]

2. Would this group classifly terrorists attacks as war crimes? why would prevention of these

Terrorist attacks be classified as a war crime when it is very clear these attacks have occurred and they continue. The US can not declare war on a country since the terrorist are from different countries so I guess this groups wants to jump up and put themselves up as pawns so others will not be killed then make those arrangements. I don't buy their argument.

[IveWornAHundredPants]

3. Wars don't always stay neatly within territorial boundaries.

These strikes are part of the war in Afghanistan, declared September 14, 2001.

[Thinkingabout]

5. The targets does not stand behind enemy lines or in one territory and thus

The need to strike targets where they are.

[bananas]

8. Grandma does not stand behind enemy lines or in one territory and thus the need to strike Grandma

wherever she is.

Do you not listen to yourself?

Do you not hear what you are saying?

Why do you hate Grandma?

[NealK]

13. +1

[mallard]

23. Re:: "Do you not listen to yourself?"

They are dedicated to the 'war on terror' and seem to believe it's a matter of self-preservation. Might call it some kind of a mission, so representing others, but not saying who. Friends of the neocons, perhaps.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

26. Well, somebody has to stop them.

This one was 95. With leukemia.

[Coyotl]

15. No they are not.

[Shemp Howard]

25. Wrong.

Sorry, but this is a pet peave of mine.

Congress never declared war in Afghanistan. Just as Congress never declared war in Iraq. And in Vietnam. And in so many other places.

Congress has not declared war since December 8, 1941, right after Pearl Harbor. Every war since since then has stemmed from authorizations and resolutions.

And, yes, it makes a difference. A formal declaration of war was meant to be a solemn and serious step, to be taken only after careful thought and much deliberation.

But an authorization is just a quick and easy way out for Congress. The president can have his war, and Congress can duck any responsibility if things go bad.

[IveWornAHundredPants]

34. Fair bananas.

[Ace Acme]

36. And inevitably the policy of undeclared wars is abused

As Tom Tommorow so well put it:

"If another country attacked us with missiles but not with ground troops, we probably would not play semantic games."

Picture of missiles flying, White House under attack.

White House Voice 1: "Sir! It's a limited, tailored military thingamajig!"

White House Voice 2: "What?"

White House Voice 1: "War! We're at war!"

http://www.thenation.com/blog/176091/when-war-not-war

[bananas]

4. Drone attacks on innocent citizens could be classified as state-sponsored terrorism.

I don't know if AI would or would not classify it that way, but anyone with common sense might.

[joshcryer]

6. They'd be terrorists.

Terrorists aren't represented by the states in which they act (or the states disavow them in any event). They therefore aren't represented by the treaties which the states they are in have signed. And therefore they have zero protections under the Geneva conventions because they're belligerents. They will never have protection under international law because guerrilla warfare is a threat to states' sovereignty.

[bananas]

9. Grandmas are terrorists.

Grandmas aren't represented by the states in which they act (or the states disavow them in any event). They therefore aren't represented by the treaties which the states they are in have signed. And therefore they have zero protections under the Geneva conventions because they're belligerents. They will never have protection under international law because picking vegetables is a threat to states' sovereignty.

Do you ever stop to listen to yourself?

[joshcryer]

10. Um, I'm pretty sure all grandmas are represented by their district.

Unless they are living in DC and do not have representation.

If you kill a terrorist there's nothing protecting them, nothing.

What is a state going to do, go to the International Criminal Court on grounds of murdering a terrorist?

Then again, all those lamenting Bin Ladens death wanted something like that...

[Ace Acme]

14. If we killed him, he must have been a terrorist.

Is that your logic?

That's Obama's. They classify as "militant" any male of military age who happens to be found in a region where he's likely to be hit by a drone.

I remember that logic from the Vietnam War days, too. If we killed him, he must have been Viet Cong.

[joshcryer]

17. Nope.

I do not think drones are defensible, I am merely explaining why, say, Pakistan isn't trying to get Obama put in the Hague. There's also a reparation deal made behind the scenes to every collateral death. Blow up a wedding? No biggie, give the surviving families $50k each.

The point I was making is that terrorists don't get the kinds of protections civilians get. Civilians in the vicinity of terrorists likewise are limited by the protections that they get since the laws on "conventional weapons" can affect them. As long as you take "due care" with it, you're good. That's another reason the states where drones happen won't go to the ICC, because the US would just show the video of what happened, and like Collateral Murder, people will shrug.

It's when the big weddings happen the payouts are huge, because the US knows it can't defend that crap (a wedding is pretty damn distinct from an armed group of terrorists planting IEDs).

[NealK]

18. Sounds exactly like Bush's justifications for the use of torture.

[joshcryer]

19. The rules change once you capture a combatant.

There are rules for armies, rules for civilians, rules for POWs (which would cover captured terrorists), but none for belligerents.

Not sure why this is so controversial. If Tim McVey and his ilk actually did build a Turner Diaries inspired army I do not think that they would have any protections under international law. They wouldn't follow the law and wear uniforms, they wouldn't follow the law and leave civilians alone or respect the insignia of the Red Cross.

So they'd be fair game.

Bush did make that justification, but it was clearly illegal, as there are rules about captured individuals, and they're clear cut.

[NealK]

20. There are rules for killing civilians too.

Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits, human rights groups say

Two influential human rights groups say they have freshly documented dozens of civilian deaths in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, contradicting assertions by the Obama administration that such casualties are rare.

In Yemen, Human Rights Watch investigated six selected airstrikes since 2009 and concluded that at least 57 of the 82 people killed were civilians, including a pregnant woman and three children who perished in a September 2012 attack.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/drone-strikes-killing-more-civilians-than-us-admits-human-rights-groups-say/2013/10/21/a99cbe78-3a81-11e3-b7ba-503fb5822c3e_story.html

That's clearly illegal and immoral.

[joshcryer]

21. Yep, thanks to the Rome Statute.

Which are actually weighted in favor of the attacker because it lets the attacker decide the "military advantage" and the "anticipated civilian damage or injury." Terrorists then get no cover whatsoever and any civilians in their vicinity are screwed.

[Decaffeinated]

28. Isn't that part of the campaign?

"Civilians" associating with violent actors are placing themselves in danger merely by tolerating their proximity let alone lending support.

I remember this from when Awlaki's son caught a hellfire....

[joshcryer]

29. I dunno. Double tap is totally evil.

Let's say, indeed, that some rescuers come to a scene carrying AK's and even possibly RPGs. Hitting them again is fucking bullshit, their intent is rescue, not attack. OK, so you see armed individuals. Track them after the rescue. If they then stand around or leave, track them. If they put down their weapons and go to sleep, hit the depots where the weapons are.

I think it's an extremely complex situation, but I know if I were to be on one of those tribunals, I'd measure not just the "threat" but the ability. If the US doesn't explain, clearly, what its ability is, then I will err on the side of the fighters. If the US does explain, clearly, and unambiguously, what it is capable of, I will 1) keep it classified and 2) support the action (if it is not overboard).

I'm unconvinced the US is acting within the Rome Statute.

But until the International Criminal Court is tasked with the issue it will not be criminal.

edit, to clarify, maybe you're a civilian and you hear a loud explosion, then a bunch of others hear it, then some fighters here it, everyone goes running to help, you don't know if it's a drone attack, a natural gas explosion, a meteorite, an earthquake triggering something, what. All you know is people are injured. Running in there to help and being hit by another drone attack is insane, it's a war crime! Unfortunately the Rome Statute gives states way more power than they should have when it comes to such a situation. If a quarter of the people coming are armed with AK's and they have maybe one or two RPGs, the entire group is done for.

[Ace Acme]

35. The rules allow people to defend their own country from illegal invasion

The claim that people resisting illegal occupation and invasion are "insurgents" is a lie.

[Lancero]

7. A little old lady picking vegatables...

Is committing a act of Terrorism?

Strikes against Terrorists I can understand, and support. But once we start killing civilians, then we are little better then the terrorists we seek to destroy.

Even worse is how many are so quick to try to justify our slaughtering of civilians. We justify the killing of civilians, saying that we have to protect our way of life from the evil terrorists. Terrorists justify their attacks much the same, saying they want to protect their way of life from the western demons.

What was that saying about hunting monsters? And about becoming what you seek to destroy?

[bananas]

12. MADOG: Mutual Assured Destruction Of Grandmothers

[Coyotl]

16. Hello. there are rules of conduct that apply to nations and persons. One does not

get to break the rules if another breaks them. That is anarchy and why the rules are needed in the first instance.

[Enrique]

27. sad to see such a lame-ass argument on DU

an argument that justifies absolutely ANYTHING, as long as it's done in the name of fighting terrorism.

[cosmicone]

31. Don't bother

Some people on this board believe that it is ok to design, plan and commit acts of terror and the only way to counter it is with traditional law enforcement of complicit countries.

Amnesty International is just a Polyanna organization doing its one-sided goody-two-shoes work. They are never objective.

[Pterodactyl]

11. Nobel Peace Prize = Get Out of Jail Free

[Shemp Howard]

22. If drone strikes are legal, then anything is legal.

n/t

[Ace Acme]

37. The Esquire article about the killing of a 16-year-old American by drones in Yemen

concluded with the observation that if Obama feels he has the legal right to order that drones assassinate people he considers terrorists, then the heads of state of other countries have that same legal right to order drones to assassinate him if they consider him a terrorist.

http://www.esquire.com/features/obama-lethal-presidency-0812-4

[BluegrassStateBlues]

24. If we started using them on Israel, I suspect AI and HRW would bring out the pom-poms. nt

[gopiscrap]

30. I agree with Amnesty.

[xchrom]

32. du rec.

[OnyxCollie]

33. AI and HRW are racists.

Goddamn Emoprog LeftBagger HATERS!

[BluegrassDem]

38. So in other words, Amnesty would rather we kill civilians with tanks and AK-47's?

I mean, war is ugly. Civilians get killed in traditional war. No telling how many civilians were killed in Iraq, Vietnam, etc. Drone is just a new way of conducting war, but civilian casualties will happen unfortunately. The alternative to drones is to launch a full scale military invasion of Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, etc. Of course, the peaceniks on here will just say we go home and do nothing anywhere.

[Nihil]

39. Nope, Amnesty would rather you stop killing random strangers around the world ...

... simply because "We're American and they aren't".

> The alternative to drones is to launch a full scale military invasion of Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, etc.

That would be ideal to the warmongers in Washington but even they recognise that there is
a point at which illegal interference in sovereign nations coupled with blatant murder becomes
unpalatable to the public (well, most of the public).

War *is* ugly.

Almost as ugly as the people who blindly support it from a few thousand miles away.