....
ACLU Seeks Accounting for Remote-Control Warfare
[youtube]unv9C2t7f5c[/youtube]
UAV Ground Control Station Operation, in the US via satellite.
The United States has used drones since at least 2001 to kill high-level terrorist operatives
abroad, particularly in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. According to various
organizations, policy forums, watchdog groups, and media outlets, the Obama administration has
significantly increased the number of targeted drone killings. In October 2009, Philip Alston, the
UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, formally asked for a legal opinion from the Obama
administration on why its drone program does not violate international law. Specifically, Alston
asserted that the use of drones by the United States, particularly absent appropriate precautions
and accountability mechanisms or when conducted by the CIA, would be considered unlawful under
international law.
On March 26, 2010 U.S. Legal Adviser Harold Koh responded, asserting that drone warfare is lawful self-defense.
Koh first stated that "U.S. targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use
of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war." He
further explained that the United States is in "an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and
the associated forces" and thus has the lawful right to use force "consistent with its inherent
right to self-defense" under international law in response to the 9/11 attacks. Under domestic law,
he stated that targeted killings are authorized by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force
(AUMF). Although he contended that these international and domestic legal grounds "continue to this
day," he also provided additional justification for current U.S. actions based on continued attacks
and intent by al Qaeda. He concluded that the existence of this "ongoing armed conflict" grants
legal authority to the United States to protect its citizens through the use of force, including
lethal force, as a matter of self-defense.
(Inside Justice - March 26, 2010)
http://www.insidejustice.com/law/index.p...03/26/p254
![[Image: 800px-081131-F-7734Q-001.jpg]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/081131-F-7734Q-001.jpg/800px-081131-F-7734Q-001.jpg)
MQ-1 Predator with two Hellfire missiles:
... the primary UAV used for attacks in Afghanistan and the Pakistani tribal areas by the CIA since 2001.
![[Image: uav4tf3.jpg]](http://baronshobbies.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/uav4tf3.jpg)
MQ-9 Reaper
... 3X as fast with 15X the ordnance of the MQ-1, used for attacks
in Afghanistan and the Pakistani tribal areas by the USAF since 2007.
![[Image: MQ-1-Predator-UAS-76.jpg]](http://www.aviationspectator.com/files/images/MQ-1-Predator-UAS-76.jpg)
AGM-114 Hellfire missile
... standard UAV ordnance, armor-piercing, designed for anti-tank warfare
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit March 16th
demanding that the government disclose the legal basis for its use of unmanned drones to conduct
targeted killings overseas. In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and
against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties and other
basic information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct
targeted killings.
"The public has a right to know whether the targeted killings being carried out in its name are
consistent with international law and with America's interests and values," said Jonathan Manes, a
legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project. "The Obama administration should disclose
basic information about the program, including its legal basis and limits, and the civilian
casualty toll thus far."
The CIA and the military have used unmanned drones to target and kill individuals not only in
Afghanistan and Iraq but also in Pakistan and, in at least one case in 2002, Yemen. The technology
allows U.S. personnel to observe targeted individuals in real time and launch missiles intended to
kill them from control centers located thousands of miles away. Recent reports, including public
statements from the director of national intelligence, indicate that U.S. citizens have been placed
on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones.
The ACLU made an initial FOIA request for information on the drone program in January. Today's
lawsuit against the Defense Department, the State Department and the Justice Department seeks to
enforce that request. None of the three agencies have provided any documents in response to the
request, nor have they given any reason for withholding documents as required by law. The CIA
answered the ACLU's request by refusing to confirm or deny the existence of any relevant documents.
The CIA is not a defendant in today's lawsuit because the ACLU will first appeal the CIA's
non-response to the Agency Release Panel.
"The government's use of drones to conduct targeted killings raises complicated questions – not
only legal questions, but policy and moral questions as well," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the
ACLU National Security Project. "These kinds of questions ought to be discussed and debated
publicly, not resolved secretly behind closed doors. While the Obama administration may
legitimately withhold intelligence information as well as sensitive information about military
strategy, it should disclose basic information about the scope of the drone program, the legal
basis for the program and the civilian casualties that have resulted from the program."
The ACLU's lawsuit seeks, in addition to information about the legal basis for the drone program,
information about how the program is overseen and data regarding the number of civilians and
non-civilians killed in the strikes. Estimates of civilian casualties provided by anonymous
government officials quoted in the press and by various non-governmental analysts differ
dramatically, from the dozens to the hundreds, giving an incomplete and inconsistent picture of the
human cost of the program. (American Civil Liberties Union - March 16, 2010)
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/ac...ne-program
Statement of Professor Philip Alston, John Norton Pomeroy Professor of Law, NYU School of Law, former U.N. Special
Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions (2004-2010), and author of a report on targeted killings
that he submitted June 2010 to the U.N. Human Rights Council:
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/st...ue-process
ACLU Seeks Accounting for Remote-Control Warfare
[youtube]unv9C2t7f5c[/youtube]
UAV Ground Control Station Operation, in the US via satellite.
The United States has used drones since at least 2001 to kill high-level terrorist operatives
abroad, particularly in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. According to various
organizations, policy forums, watchdog groups, and media outlets, the Obama administration has
significantly increased the number of targeted drone killings. In October 2009, Philip Alston, the
UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, formally asked for a legal opinion from the Obama
administration on why its drone program does not violate international law. Specifically, Alston
asserted that the use of drones by the United States, particularly absent appropriate precautions
and accountability mechanisms or when conducted by the CIA, would be considered unlawful under
international law.
On March 26, 2010 U.S. Legal Adviser Harold Koh responded, asserting that drone warfare is lawful self-defense.
Koh first stated that "U.S. targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use
of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war." He
further explained that the United States is in "an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and
the associated forces" and thus has the lawful right to use force "consistent with its inherent
right to self-defense" under international law in response to the 9/11 attacks. Under domestic law,
he stated that targeted killings are authorized by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force
(AUMF). Although he contended that these international and domestic legal grounds "continue to this
day," he also provided additional justification for current U.S. actions based on continued attacks
and intent by al Qaeda. He concluded that the existence of this "ongoing armed conflict" grants
legal authority to the United States to protect its citizens through the use of force, including
lethal force, as a matter of self-defense.
(Inside Justice - March 26, 2010)
http://www.insidejustice.com/law/index.p...03/26/p254
MQ-1 Predator with two Hellfire missiles:
... the primary UAV used for attacks in Afghanistan and the Pakistani tribal areas by the CIA since 2001.
MQ-9 Reaper
... 3X as fast with 15X the ordnance of the MQ-1, used for attacks
in Afghanistan and the Pakistani tribal areas by the USAF since 2007.
AGM-114 Hellfire missile
... standard UAV ordnance, armor-piercing, designed for anti-tank warfare
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit March 16th
demanding that the government disclose the legal basis for its use of unmanned drones to conduct
targeted killings overseas. In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and
against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties and other
basic information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct
targeted killings.
"The public has a right to know whether the targeted killings being carried out in its name are
consistent with international law and with America's interests and values," said Jonathan Manes, a
legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project. "The Obama administration should disclose
basic information about the program, including its legal basis and limits, and the civilian
casualty toll thus far."
The CIA and the military have used unmanned drones to target and kill individuals not only in
Afghanistan and Iraq but also in Pakistan and, in at least one case in 2002, Yemen. The technology
allows U.S. personnel to observe targeted individuals in real time and launch missiles intended to
kill them from control centers located thousands of miles away. Recent reports, including public
statements from the director of national intelligence, indicate that U.S. citizens have been placed
on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones.
The ACLU made an initial FOIA request for information on the drone program in January. Today's
lawsuit against the Defense Department, the State Department and the Justice Department seeks to
enforce that request. None of the three agencies have provided any documents in response to the
request, nor have they given any reason for withholding documents as required by law. The CIA
answered the ACLU's request by refusing to confirm or deny the existence of any relevant documents.
The CIA is not a defendant in today's lawsuit because the ACLU will first appeal the CIA's
non-response to the Agency Release Panel.
"The government's use of drones to conduct targeted killings raises complicated questions – not
only legal questions, but policy and moral questions as well," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the
ACLU National Security Project. "These kinds of questions ought to be discussed and debated
publicly, not resolved secretly behind closed doors. While the Obama administration may
legitimately withhold intelligence information as well as sensitive information about military
strategy, it should disclose basic information about the scope of the drone program, the legal
basis for the program and the civilian casualties that have resulted from the program."
The ACLU's lawsuit seeks, in addition to information about the legal basis for the drone program,
information about how the program is overseen and data regarding the number of civilians and
non-civilians killed in the strikes. Estimates of civilian casualties provided by anonymous
government officials quoted in the press and by various non-governmental analysts differ
dramatically, from the dozens to the hundreds, giving an incomplete and inconsistent picture of the
human cost of the program. (American Civil Liberties Union - March 16, 2010)
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/ac...ne-program
Statement of Professor Philip Alston, John Norton Pomeroy Professor of Law, NYU School of Law, former U.N. Special
Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions (2004-2010), and author of a report on targeted killings
that he submitted June 2010 to the U.N. Human Rights Council:
Quote:The United States' assertion of an ever-expanding but ill-defined license to commit targeted killings against individuals(ACLU - August 3, 2010)
around the globe, without accountability, does grave damage to the international legal frameworks designed to protect the
right to life. Targeted killing -- defined as the intentional, premeditated, and deliberate use of lethal force, by a
state or its agents acting under color of law, against a specific individual who is not in the perpetrator’s custody --
is permitted only in exceptional circumstances. Targeted killing is usually legal only in armed conflict situations when
used against combatants or fighters, or civilians who directly engage in combat-like activities, and international law
requires that any state that uses targeted killing must demonstrate that its actions comply with the laws of war.
To comply with its accountability obligations, the United States should disclose when and where it has authorized its
forces, including the Central Intelligence Agency, to kill, the criteria for individuals who may be killed, how the U.S.
Government ensures killings are legal, and what follow-up there is when civilians are illegally killed. Disclosure of
these basic legal determinations is the very essence of accountability, but the United States has so far failed to meet
this requirement. Instead, it has claimed a broad and novel theory that there is a 'law of 9/11' that enables it to
legally use force in the territory of other States as part of its inherent right to self-defence on the basis that it is
in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and undefined ‘associated forces’. This expansive and open-ended
interpretation of the right to self-defence threatens to destroy the prohibition on the use of armed force contained in
the UN Charter, which is essential to the international rule of law. If other states were to claim the broad-based
authority that the United States does, to kill people anywhere, anytime, the result would be chaos. The serious
challenges posed by terrorism are undeniable, but the fact that enemies do not play by the rules does not mean that the
U.S. Government can unilaterally re-interpret them or cast them aside. The credibility of the U.S. Government's claim
that it has turned the page on previous wrongdoing and seeks to uphold the rule of law in its actions against alleged
'terrorists' is called into question by its targeted killing policy.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/st...ue-process
...
)
![[Image: hmm.gif]](http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/rr217/darkside_999/hmm.gif)
![[Image: smile.gif]](http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/rr217/darkside_999/smile.gif)