Amnesty International: Attacks from US Aerial Drones in Pakistan

Amnesty International USA have published a new report, As if Hell Fell on Me’: The Human Rights Crisis in Northwest Pakistan, looking at the impact on civilians of the onging conflict in Northwest Pakistan.  Describing the area as a “human rights free zone”, the report says that civilians are facing the triple threat of the Taleban, the Pakistan army and US drone attacks. 

A short chapter in the report  – mostly reproduced on the web  here – focuses on the CIA’s drone attacks in the area.   The following, looking at the legal situation,  is excerted from the report:

In March 2010, Harold Koh, Legal Adviser to the United States Department of State, set out for the first time a brief explanation of the Obama administration’s claimed basis in international law for the drone attacks.  

He asserted that “as a matter of international law, the United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qa’ida, as well as the Taleban and associated forces, in response to the horrific 9/11 attacks” adding that the USA “may use force consistent with its inherent right to self-defense under international law”. Harold Koh argued that this included “authority under international law … to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al-Qa’ida leaders who are planning attacks.“ He further stated that “whether a particular individual will be targeted in a particular location will depend upon considerations specific to each case, including those related to the imminence of the threat, the sovereignty of the other states involved, and the willingness and ability of those states to suppress the threat the target poses”, adding that the principles of distinction and proportionality under international law were adhered to in both planning and execution of all attacks.

This explanation leaves many questions unanswered. Even after Koh’s statement, the USA has not officially  acknowledged that it carries out drone attacks in Pakistan (Koh speaks only generally, of “lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles”) and refuses to provide any official information on these attacks, which is crucial to assess their legitimacy under international law and standards. These include who the targets were, what justification there was for using lethal force against them, whether non-letha alternatives were tried or even considered, what safeguards were put in place to ensure that civilians not endangered, who was killed or injured, what investigations took place in cases where violations of  international legal rules are suspected and more. Nor was such information forthcoming from the Pakistani authorities. In addition, the attacks have taken place in remote areas to which access is difficult. For these reasons, Amnesty International could not independently investigate conditions surrounding the planning, conduct, or consequences of drone attacks in Pakistan. The organization calls upon the governments concerned – the USA and Pakistan—to ensure that all their actions are in strict accordance with relevant rules of international law, and that sufficient information is made available to the public to ensure accountability.

My letter on armed drones

The Guardian has published my letter in response to the Philip Alston report calling for similar scrutiny of the British use of armed drones.

Philip Alston’s report to the UN human rights council (Report, 4 June) on CIA drone strikes in Pakistan raises issues of extreme concern for those who are just as worried about the UK’s use of armed drones in Afghanistan. The UK has launched attacks using armed drones over 80 times since May 2008, yet all requests for information on the circumstances of the use of British drones and resulting civilian casualty figures have so far been refused. The “Playstation mentality” reported by Alston is not confined to the CIA. A US military inquiry into the deaths of 27 Afghan civilians following a Nato attack in February reported this week that drone operators had downplayed information that civilians were in the attacked convoy. It seems reasonable to conclude that British drone operators, too, are susceptible to the reality that, from thousands of miles away, launching weapons at a blip on a video screen makes the choice to kill far too easy. We once again call on the government to release details of the circumstances in which armed drones are being used by British forces.

Chris Cole

Director, Fellowship of Reconciliation

Channel Four News video on armed drones

Following up Philip Alston’s report to the UN Human Rights Council, Channel Four have screened a long piece on US armed drones tonight. Sarah Smith, Channel Four’s US Correspondent visits Creech airbase and interviews drone pilots. The report is very focused on US drones – barely even mentions the fact thatthe UK also operate armed drones in Afghanistan.  However it does have TV footage of the result of drone attacks in Pakistan and says that the secrecy and unaccountabilty of the drone attacks make them “illegal”.

Philip Alston Report to UN Human Rights Council

Philip Alston

The much-anticipated report from Philip Alston, the UN’s special representative on extrajudicial execution on the use of armed drones for targeted killings is now available. Philip Alston’s report to the UN Human Rights Council will undoubtably cause much controversy over the coming days and weeks.  Alston is a known critic of the use of drone to kill alleged terrorists, particularly the use of by the CIA of drones in Pakistan.   While this report will no doubt focus on the American use of drones,  the release of information on the British use of drones following an FoI request by the Fellowship of Reconciliation caused Alston to call on the UK government to abide by international law.   No doubt there will be more on this report over the next few days.