Love ‘Em, Hate ‘Em

Ben Emmerson (above) is a prestigious lawyer, a Queen’s Counsel, if you will. He is a United Nations “Special Rapporteur” on counter-terrorism and human rights. He was also asked by the UN in late January to begin looking into the legal and national sovereignty issues that surround the use of drones from one nation that invade the airspace of another to conduct surveillance or to attack and kill enemies of the launching country. Pretty clearly, the major focus of his examination will, of necessity, be the United States and its use of cross-border drones to attack targets in the Tribal Districts of Pakistan, al Qaeda operatives in Yemen, Somalia, etc.

Just looking at Pakistan alone, American attacks have mounted significant casualties: “Between 2004 and 2013, CIA drone attacks in Pakistan killed up to 3,461 people - up to 891 of them civilians, according to research by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism… [Emmerson’s] inquiry will study the impact of drone strikes in five places…. Twenty-five attacks will be examined - in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, the Palestinian territories and Somalia… Mr. Emmerson told journalists in London that the increasing use of drones ‘represents a real challenge to the framework of international law.’ … If unregulated, he said, the use of drones would continue to grow.

“The inquiry will assess the extent of civilian casualties, the identity of militants targeted and the legality of strikes where there is no UN recognition of a conflict… Defenders of drones say they minimise civilian casualties, but opponents say drone strikes can constitute extra-judicial killing and point to data suggesting hundreds of civilians have died in such strikes.” BBC.co.uk, January 24^th. 

In the United States, a leak of a Justice Department memo in early February presents the legal case for using such cross-border drones to execute American citizens who are fighting for the other side. It’s a matter of self-defense if such U.S. operatives are plotting attacks against America or American targets. Drones are increasingly America’s weapons of choice in dealing with terrorists.

In a deficit impaired time in recent American history, where our military expenditures are being cut of necessity (we still spend 41% of the world’s total military budget), the use of drones is touted as a budget-based effective way to pinpoint and attack strategic targets without risking U.S. pilots and narrow-focusing the targets so as to minimize collateral damage to nearby innocents. But let’s face it; the countries where such drones are deployed without permission are very angry at their use. Pakistan is threatening to cut off all forms of cooperation with the United States as long as we insist on using such cross-border attacks to take out targets within Pakistani borders. Most ordinary Pakistanis are enraged at such violations of their national integrity, even if the targets might also be hostile to the Pakistani government. U.S. drone strikes are mightily unpopular in Pakistan these days.

On the other hand, the American electorate and our politicians seem to love this weapon… almost as much as they love the excitement of a well-planned mission of Navy Seals, much like the operation that took out Osama bin-Ladin. But boy do we love dem drones! “A February 2012 Washington Post-ABC poll showed that eight in ten Americans (83 percent) approved of the Obama Administrations use of unmanned drones against suspected terrorists overseas — with a whopping 59 percent strongly approving of the practice. Support for the drone attacks was also remarkably bipartisan. Seventy six percent of Republicans and 58 percent of Democrats approved of the policy…

“It’s not just Post-ABC polling that suggests the use of drones is widely popular with the American public. A September 2011 Pew poll showed that 69 percent of people said that the increased use of drones was a good thing while just 19 percent said it was a bad thing… The reason drone strikes are popular? Because they are perceived to be effective in reducing the threat of terrorism without endangering American lives. (Polling on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has, for several years now, suggested that a majority of the public believes neither was worth fighting almost certainly due to the losses of American lives.) In a September 2011 Post-ABC poll, three-quarters of the public said drone strikes against suspected terrorists in Yemen and Pakistan had been either ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ effective to reduce the threat of terrorism.” Washington Post, February 6^th.

The issues that seem to linger in everyone’s mind are exactly what the process is to determine targets and what are the relevant standards of proof that must be generated? The administration claims it is an “agonizing” process and a decision of “last resort,” but won’t say much more.

And what happens if the United Nations finds such drone usage to be violative of national sovereignty, particularly in the absence of a declared war or conflict between the relevant nations? What if this attack system is found to be tantamount to murder? Will we pull back in light of the popularity of this effective form of attack on terrorists? After all, why do terrorists get to have rules to protect them while they have no restrictions on them from attacking us and our civilian targets? And if terrorists are extra-territorial – operatives without a nation or national borders – how exactly does national sovereignty come into play? On the other hand, how would we like drone strikes from Mexico against cartel members operating in New Mexico, Arizona or Texas… particularly if a few ranchers were killed along the way?

I’m Peter Dekom, and this is a very, very touchy issue!