ACLU – Drone Wars UK

As strikes continue opposition grows and broadens

21/04/201303/02/2019Chris Cole

US drones struck in Yemen and Pakistan this past week after something of a pause. On Weds (17 April) US drones hit a house in North Waziristan killing five people including an alleged commander of the Pakistan Taliban, On the same day according to Associated Press US drones undertook two strikes 100 miles south of the capital Sana’a. Five people were killed in the strikes, one on vehicle and one on a house. Local journalist Farea Al-Muslimi live tweeted the attack, and reported in an article for Al Monitor that the apparent target of the strike, Hammed al-Radmi regularly took part in meetings at the local government headquarters and thus could have been captured. A further drone strike took place yesterday (21 April ) in Yemen killing two suspected militants.

While we continue to get no details of US and UK drone strikes in Afghanistan beyond bald figures, this week Congress was notified of a $95 million sale of 500 Hellfire missiles to the UK of the ‘P’ and ‘N’ variant. The ‘P’ variant is specifically designed for use by drones while the ‘N’ variant has a thermobaric warhead and it may be, as we have previously reported that this variant too may be being use on British drones.

While the drone wars plod on, opposition continues to grow. Ten days ago a coalition of US human rights groups including ACLU, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch wrote to President Obama questioning the legal basis for targeted killing and calling for an end to the secrecy surrounding the use of drones. (full letter here) A coalition of US faith group also wrote to the President challenging the growing use of targeted killing and highlighting the danger of remote warfare. On this the letter states:

“Military trainers know that human nature itself serves as a check on lethal violence. Coming face to face with someone described as an enemy requires a deliberate choice to override a deep human instinct against killing. Remote, technical warfare removes that very human check. As a society we have not adequately considered where this development leads us as a species. The remote nature of this type of deadly violence has the potential to encourage overuse and extension of the policy to more countries and more perceived threats.”

On top of these civil society groups, the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Peter Maurer also met with President Obama this week and urged restraint on the use of drones. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that at a press conference following the visit, Maurer said ’The US is very aware… of where we disagree with the use of drones.’

Protest groups continue to demonstrate against the use of drones. In the US five people were convicted of trespass this week after blockading the entrance to Hancock Air Force base from where drones are controlled over Afghanistan. The five, who face jail time and fines, will be sentences on April 24. Brian Terrell who was jailed for six months following an anti-drone protest at Whiteman Air Force base in Missouri, remains in prison and will be releases at the end of May. Many local US peace groups are currently taking part in a month-long anti-drone campaign, with dozens of actions taking place across the US.

Here in the UK, campaigners are gearing up for a large protest planned for next week at RAF Waddington, the UK’s new centre of drone activity. Hundreds will march on the base to call for an end to drone warfare. Meanwhile a number of MPs are beginning to express opposition to the use of drones, (see for example the MPs quoted in this Daily Mail article reveling that UK company Cobham are supplying components for US Predator drones) while the the All Party Parliamentary Group on Drones goes from strength to strength.

While the continuing use of armed drones seems inevitable to the drone lobby, the breath of opposition on legal, ethical and humanitarian grounds means that the future is far from certain.

UK Drones to Double as US Court Delivers “Dangerous” Drone Decision

08/12/2010Chris Cole

During a visit to Afghanistan this week, David Cameron pledged to double the number of armed Reaper drones in service with British forces at a cost of £135m. While this seemed to be news to many, we reported that fact over a monthly ago. (Revealed: details of British drone attacks & plans to purchase more Reapers – sorry we have to blow our trumpet sometimes!) The MOD later said that these drones, to be in service by 2013, would enable three British Reapers to be airborne at the same time.

While the commitment to purchasing and developing new drones has the British military industry salivating they are also peeved that money is going to US companies, hence following written exchange from Hansard:

Mark Pritchard: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will have discussions with the Defence Manufacturers Association for the purposes of ensuring that future unmanned aerial vehicles are procured from UK manufacturers. [21701]

Nick Harvey: Our primary objective is to provide our armed forces with the equipment and support they need, at the right time, and at a cost that represents value for taxpayers’ money. We continue to believe the best approach to delivering value for money is through purchasing goods and services from the global market, in which UK companies compete, including off-the-shelf where appropriate. The Ministry of Defence has a number of future unmanned aerial vehicle requirements at different stages of development. MOD regularly has discussions about its future requirements with interested companies, trade bodies and the National Defence Industries Council.

Meanwhile in the US, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)’s legal suit on behalf of the father of Anwar al-Aulaqi, a Yemeni-born US citizen who is on a kill-or-capture list of terrorists, has been dismissed. The targeting and execution by armed drone of a number of terrorist suspects has been questioned by many including the UN Special R on Extra Judicial Killing.

In a surprising decision, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said that the court “ lacked the jurisdiction to review the targeting of a U.S. citizen abroad for death”.

“This Court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion – that there are circumstances in which the Executive’s unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is . . . judicially unreviewable. But this case squarely presents such a circumstance.”

Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, said it would be “a profound mistake” to allow the government “unreviewable authority to carry out the targeted killing of any American, anywhere. It would be difficult to conceive of a proposition more inconsistent with the Constitution or more dangerous to American liberty.”

In response to the decision Human Rights Watch have written to President Obama asking him “to clarify [the] legal rationale for targeted killings, including the use of Unmanned Combat Aircraft Systems (drones), and the procedural safeguards it is taking to minimize harm to civilians”.

Drone wars: As the lawyers argue, manufacturers get on with it

01/09/2010Chris Cole

The growing use of unmanned drones in armed conflicts around the world seems set to continue into the future despite calls for restraint and regulation. As legal groups in the US file lawsuits to try to prevent the drone assassination of a US citizen in Yemen, arguing that the US must stick to international law, weapons manufacturers like Raytheon are pressing ahead and designing new lighter weapons specifically for drones use. Robert Francois, vice president of advanced missile systems and unmanned systems at Raytheon told Flight Global, for example, that they are developing three new missiles specifically for drone use:

The Small Tactical Munition is about 10cm (4 inches) in diameter, 61cm long and weighs in at 5.9kg (13lbs) with GPS/inertial navigational system (INS) and a semi-active laser (SAL) seeker for targeting personnel and light vehicles.

The 15kg Griffin is a short-range, air-to-surface missile is tube launched, also featuring GPS/INS and SAL guidance and is smaller and lighter than the Hellfire.

Filling in the 45kg gap is Monsoon, for targeting buildings, trucks and personnel, with GPS/INS, otnal SAL and an 18kg warhead.

Meanwhile at the USAF Academy in Colorado, cadets are also being encouraged to design weapons for future drone wars. Ideas that have been presented to a recent gathering of UAV experts in Denver include drones spraying each other with acid and drones shooting nets to try to capture and down other drones.

Far from being a future phenomenon, however, drone proliferation continues apace. Just this week, the UK placing a further $5m order with Lockheed Martin for additional Desert Hawk III surveillance drones for use in Afghanistan. A condition of the order is that the drones must be delivered in the Autumn.

But many would argue that the proliferation of drone wars urgently needs to be stopped. A recent article in Foreign Policy Journal makes the interesting point that Mossad (and others of the ilk) cannot have failed to contrast the international furore around the assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in a Dubai hotel with the virtual silence that surround the US drone assassinations and drawn the conclusion that if the US can do it silently with drones, so can they. The FPJ article goes on to call for a debate on drones that

“should engage authoritative policymakers scholars, legal experts and other people with knowledge and understanding relevant to carry out an informed and beneficial discussion aimed at the introduction of international rules that would identify constraints, introduce a well-thought out supervision, and define sanctions helpful in dealing with uncontrolled proliferation of this new form of warfare.”

The US lawsuit launched yesterday (31^st August) in the US by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) argues that the US does not have the authority under international law or the constitution to carry out extrajudicial killings outside declared wars. They also reiterate the well made point that

“targeting individuals for execution by drone who are suspected of terrorism but have not been convicted or even charged – without oversight, judicial process or disclosed standards for placement on kill lists – poses the risk that the government will erroneously target the wrong people. In recent years, the U.S. government has detained many men as terrorists, only for courts or the government itself to discover later that the evidence was wrong or unreliable.”

Current lawsuits not withstanding, it is highly likely that drone wars and drone assassinations will continue until public opposition grows, and they are specifically outlawed. In the recent past anti-personnel landmines and cluster bombs have been outlawed despite the best efforts of, and huge oppostion from, military planners and the defence industry. For campaigners, it’s time to get back in the saddle.