The United States Use of Drones in the War of Terror: Tthe Legality of Targeted Killings under International Law - Coursework Example

Lecturer “The United s’ Use of Drones in the War of Terror: The (Il) Legality of Targeted Killings under International Law” ByMelina Sterio Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Vol. 45 (2012) Introduction In this International Law review; Melina Sterion (2012) explains that the government of the United States of America started applying drone use against al-Qaeda terrorists’ targets around the world. According to reliable media reports two drone programs were developed in United States; one program was operated by the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), and the other program was managed by the US military; it has been difficult to identify the legal framework on the CIA drone project, due to the secrecy involved. This paper explains that current and future US governments, should use military drone programs which ensures rule of law and public scrutiny. Summary The background of the drone program started in the US administration of George Bush, in the aftermath of the September 2011 terrorist attack. As the Commander in Chief, of the US armed forces, he authorized drone use on al-Qaeda leaders; drones have the mechanism of targeting and killing targeted enemies. Reports explain that the US government has two types of drones; small drones which carry out surveillance activities, and bigger drones which carry missiles used for attacking targets. Drone attacks have been carried out by both the CIA and the US military (Marco 16). The military drone program is public knowledge and it operates in warzones of Iraq or Afghanistan; however, the CIA program operates in areas where the US military is not based. Hence US operate drones in other countries like Yemen which are not designated as war zones, but al-Qaeda targets have been identified and killed. Many international community members have criticized the use of drones against al-Qaeda targets worldwide; but the Bush Administration insisted that the drone program is in line with the International Law. President Obama has followed this approach, and expanded the drone program in the war against terror. In addition legal official in the Obama Administration continuously justify the drone program legality. The legal Advisor to the State Department, Harold Koh, supported the drone program at the annual meeting (March 25, 2010) of the American Society of International Law. He stressed that the targeted killings are in line with the laws of war; and even referred to the International law and domestic law to prove his point. The United States engages in targeted strikes following principles proportionality and distinction, so as to minimize damage and ensure target legitimacy. Harold Koh gave four justifications for the legality of targeted killings. To begin with, al-Qaeda leaders are legitimate target because the group is at war with the United States of America. Secondly, drones are the most appropriate equipments for the war on terror because their use follows the laws of war. Next, enemy targets are identified through appropriate state procedures hence legal process is not required. Lastly, targeting state enemies does not break any domestic law. Leon Panetta, who is the Director of the CIA, is on record supporting the drone program. An American citizen was killed by a drone operated by the CIA, September 30th 2011, in Yemen; Anwar al-Alwaki was accused of being a high ranking member of the al-Qaeda, and the drone action was authorized or supported by President Barrack Obama. This assassination is historical because it is the first time an American citizen has been targeted and killed abroad, without the determination of guilt through judicial proceedings (Marco 174). Despite the justifications, legality of the drone program has been questioned many times. Philip Alston; who is the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions, has raised concerns that drones are operated in a framework which does not adhere to the international human rights Law and the international humanitarian law. The laws of war apply if the United States is engaged in war against terrorist forces like Taliban or al-Qaeda. The laws of war allow targeted killings if major jus ad bellum requirements are met; for example if force application is proportionate and / or necessary. A country using force should prove that the force decision is as a result of an attack, and that the force is needed to prevent such armed attacks. It can be argued that al-Qaeda and other terrorist attacks in United States warrants application of force against the groups. However, it can also be argued that force cannot be used against al-Qaeda because it has not engaged in a full military action on America. Another challenge in this aspect is that al-Qaeda is not a country or state; the international law only allows one state to launch military action against another state. However, arguments have developed that use of force for self defense against non – state organizations should be allowed, especially if the non – states bodies possess military power. Also, countries resorting to military force must demonstrate that force is proportionate to military action’ objective. CIA effects secret drone program in Pakistan, hence it is impossible to determine proportionality test. Another legal question involves use of drones on targets. If United State follows laws of war then legal combatants must be identified. Lawful combatants are military members of the states participating in a military conflict. Al-Qaeda members can only be targeted if the meet the qualification of lawful combatants. If they are not legal combatants, then they are regarded as civilians and given protection over military action; civilians are only targeted if they engage in direct military actions. Other opinions view al-Qaeda members as unlawful combatants because they do not follow rules of war, and they are neither civilian because they engage in military activities. There are also challenges in interpreting legality of drone strikes. In the laws of war the necessity principle ensures that military action should be within stated objectives; hence measures which will defeat the enemy within minimum time and resources should be adopted. Proportionality principle ensures detailed analysis of expected civilian death or injuries and damage to civilian properties (Keler 29). Distinction principle requires that warring parties take into consideration differences between civilians and the combatants, and also identify protect civilian properties. The humanity principle aims at minimizing unnecessary sufferings for both civilians and the military. Another issue which is challenging concerns the identity of drone operators and their operation location. If the drone operators are members of the United States military, then they are protected by the Geneva Conventions as lawful combatants. CIA operators are considered as unlawful combatants hence not protected by Geneva Conventions; they are considered as civilians or illegal enemy combatants. Locations of drone operators pose further legal questions; reports indicate that drone operators are located in United States hence far away from battle fields. Critics argue that the remote battlefield location has turned warfare into a type of computer game drones attack is by clicking a button. Reaction This law review has given me a clear understanding on are where the drone program are legal or illegal, in the United States of America. To begin with, the drone program is legal and conforms to the laws of war if it is operated by members of the Armed Forces of the United States; this is because the military are well trained on the appropriate methods of effecting military action force. Also, drone program is lawful if location of the operators ensures that they witness the impact of the drone strike; this is to avoid the moral question of whether remotely located computers can make life or death decisions of combatants. In addition, drone action is lawful if the military action is between states or countries; the geographical location of the battlefield should be identified and vague terminologies like global warfare should be avoided (Keler 62). Finally drove attacks are legal if only lawful targets are identified; targeting civilians is unacceptable in the laws of war. This review has also enabled me to understand areas of illegality in the American drone program. Firstly, a non-military body, the CIA, has been given the mandate of managing a section of the drone programs; this is contrary to the laws of war because CIA personnel are considered civilians hence should not participate in military action. Also, drone action used against American Citizens is unlawful; civilians who may pose threats to the nation should be subjected to the court process in United States. The United States declaring war on a non-state party like al-Qaeda unlawful because it does not adhere to the laws of wars; military action is between one state and another. Drone program is legal if it is subjected to scrutiny by members of the public or public organizations; the drone program conducted by the CIA cannot be considered lawful due to the secrecy involved. Lastly; al-Qaeda members do not meet standards of lawful combatants according to the laws of war; hence classified as civilians, military drone action on the therefore is illegal. Conclusion The application of drone action s by the United States in remote territories globally, experience challenging legal questions. The legal questions are not easy to answer as the CIA engages in secretive drone program. However, the United States can use drone action in accordance to the international law, in cases where applied military force is against terrorist groupings like al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab or Taliban. Future US governments should install military drone projects which allow public scrutiny so as to adhere to rule of law. Works Cited Marco Sassoli, Use and Abuse of the Laws of War in the “War on Terrorism,” 22 Law and Eneq, 195, 208 (2004) Keler, Hellen. A Tight Rope Walk between Legality and Legitimacy: an Analysis of Israeli Supreme Court’s Judgement on Targeted Killing, 21 Leiden J. Int’l. L. 185, 207 (2008) Read More