Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Problemi di diritto bellico

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/rafia-zakaria-are-drone-attacks-legal
Are drone attacks legal?
By Rafia Zakaria
Wednesday, 31 Mar, 2010
On March 25, Harold H. Koh, legal adviser to the United States State 
Department, delivered the keynote address to the American Society of 
International Law.
In his speech, Mr Koh who was dean of the Yale Law School during the Bush 
administration, laid out the Obama administration's approach to the use of 
force specifically in relation to UAV or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in the 
targeted killings of combatants.
The speech came in the footsteps of a congressional hearing by the 
Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that began on 
Tuesday. Prof Koh argued that drone attacks meet the legal principles set 
out in the law of war because they fall under the larger doctrine of 
'self-defence'.
In an "ongoing armed conflict the United States has the right to use force 
including lethal force to defend itself including by targeting persons such 
as high-level Al Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks".
Koh held that the attacks are legal because they meet the principles of both 
'distinction' in that they are designed to target specific individuals in 
response to intelligence and 'proportionality' - that is, they do not cause 
excessive loss of life in relation to the military or strategic goals that 
are sought to be achieved by them. In response to the critique that targeted 
killings are never legal Koh argued that no legal process is required to 
inform those planning attacks against the United States.
However, Koh failed to address several key questions that have been raised 
in relation to the issue. First, he failed to address the issue raised last 
October by UN Special Rapporteur Richard Alston that if the targeting of 
individuals was considered prima facie valid simply under the basis of 
self-defence then the war in Gaza (documented in the GoldstoneReport) and 
hostilities against civilians in Sri Lanka, Congo etc would not need to be 
discussed by the relevant UN bodies.
Simply put, if all extra-judicial targeted killings were so easily justified 
based on the premise of self-defence then any nation could be allowed under 
the flimsiest of pretexts to encroach on another's territory to kill 
individuals they believed were involved in hostile acts against it.
The speech also failed to address another argument raised by several other 
legal experts regarding the CIA's use of drone attacks. Prof Gary Solis, 
formerly a West Point scholar on the laws of war and currently at Georgetown 
University, wrote recently in the WashingtonPost that in engaging in combat 
as civilians "CIA agents are like the unlawful combatants that they target".
In his article Prof Solis argues that because they are unmarked military 
personnel "without uniforms or insignia" directly participating in 
hostilities they are equivalent to civilians who directly participate in the 
activities of non-state groups and hence are unprotected by the laws of war.
Solis refers also to the latest guidance of the International Committee of 
the Red Cross that CIA operatives who take part in drone attacks may have 
"continuous combatant status" that would make them legitimate targets 
wherever they may be found. Legally speaking, a CIA agent providing 
intelligence to operate a drone or doing so himself in operating beyond the 
law is no better than a fighter delivering ammunition to the Taliban on the 
frontlines. Neither accepts any legal regime that would determine or 
constrain their actions during combat.
While all these debates take place in Washington D.C. (such that even a 
conservative think tank like the New American Foundationreports that over a 
third of those killed by drones are in fact Pakistani civilians), the 
discussion in Pakistan is focused not on the illegality of these attacks or 
even their morality. Rather it is focused on whether they are politically 
popular or tactically valuable.
Worn down over the years by the extra-judicial actions of their own 
intelligence agencies that kill and detain with impunity Pakistanis are 
perhaps loath to point fingers at the CIA that is increasingly defining 
itself as immune to international law. A much-touted study forwarded by the 
Aryana Institute posits that interviews of Pakistanis in the tribal areas 
suggest widespread support for drone attacks as a means of defeating the 
Taliban.
This direction of the debate, foisted as it is on the refusal to engage the 
drone debate on the premises of international law, is indicative perhaps of 
a larger societal disinterest on the legality of wartime actions and of a 
singular concentration, instead, on their tactical value or popularity as a 
means of annihilation.
Judged on this basis, it is hardly surprising that those afflicted by the 
scourge of the Taliban in the tribal areas are likely to support drone 
attacks given the fact that no alternative is offered by the Pakistani 
government to eliminate those who are ravaging their homes and villages. In 
addition, given that re-tribalisation and the empowerment of tribal elites 
is the end game in the region, it is unsurprising that those awaiting their 
own rise to power would support any tactic that hastens their own ascent.
The need for Pakistan to engage in the legal debate over drone attacks is 
crucial for the following reasons. If democracy and the rule of law are to 
be defended then the tactics used against terrorists must not undermine the 
democratically mandated rule of law that is being fought for. International 
law, however weak or defunct, provides Pakistan a realm in which to 
safeguard its sovereignty and protest against hundreds of its citizens being 
unthinkingly labelled as collateral damage.
The current wrangling over the legality of drone attacks marks the beginning 
of the development of the legal regimes that will govern warfare in a new 
era. In standing up for the sovereignty of smaller nations Pakistan can 
ensure that the existence of borders is not a superfluous exercise noted by 
superpowers only when convenient, and disregarded when strategic interests 
dictate otherwise.
The writer is a US-based attorney teaching constitutional law and political 
philosophy.
rafia....@gmail.com
 

 activities of non-state groups and hence are unprotected by the laws of war.
Eh, questo lo davo per assodato. Anzi, lo e' da sempre: le spie non
hanno i diritti dei soldati, e chi combatte senza uniforme o con
un'uniforme non sua commette un crimine. Ma questo, lo ripeto, è
pacifico. E' invece capzioso usare questo argomento dibattendo della
legalità dell'uso che gli yankeee fanno degli UCAV. O meglio,
l'argomento si puo' applicare al limite agli operatori di droni che
appartengono alla CIA, mentre la la maggior parte di questi velivoli
appartiene alle FFAA, ovvero viene operata da combattenti piu' che
legittimi. Non credo che sia un problema fornire di status militare
gli operatori di droni della CIA, fermo restando che le "spie"
classiche restano sostanzialmente dei fuorilegge.
PP
PP

 actions during combat.
*STRONZATA*.
-Stefano

 Ne segue che il caro Prof. Gary Solis e' *UN COGLIONE*.
#_Suvvia pataccona, non urlare! Stai calma che diventi brutta quando 
t'incazzi e i clienti scappano spaventati.
_Si sa che l'esercito richiede l'Intelligence Service di quei coglioni 
della CIA, altrimenti come farebbe poi, ciascuno, a giustificare tutti 
gli sbagli fatti dall'altro?