The Jurist (jurist.law.pitt.edu)states the obvious..that the 600 or more people who have been killed by the US aerial drone attacks in Pakistan..since August 2008 may be illegal extrajudicial executions and thus violate international law. Read on...

UN rights investigator warns US drone attacks may violate international law
Amelia Mathias at 9:02 AM ET (See: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/10/un-rights-investigator-warns-us-drone.php, dl 10-29-09)



[JURIST] UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Philip Alston [official website] said Tuesday that the use of unmanned warplanes by the US to carry out attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan may be illegal. Alston criticized the US policy in a report to the UN General Assembly's human rights committee and then elaborated at a press conference [press release; recorded video]:


My concern is that these drones, these predators, are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The onus is really on the government of the United States to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions, extrajudicial executions, are not in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons. The response of the US is simply untenable, and that is that the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly by definition have no role in relation to killings that take place in relations to an armed conflict. that would remove the great majority of issues that come before these bodies right now.


Alston's report was presented as part of a larger demand that no state be free from accountability.

Alston previously raised the issue of US drone attacks in June. The US government responded that its position is that such attacks are carried out in a war zone where the UN has no role. The controversial attacks have killed about 600 people in northwestern Pakistan since August 2008, including around 400 militants. US Senator John Kerry said this week that the attacks would continue [RTTNews report], claiming that they have been successful in combatting al Qaeda and have resulted in minimal collateral damage. Also this week, a Pakistani court upheld the dismissal of a petition [The Nation report] against US drone attacks that sought to declare the US an enemy state.

The recent UN Goldstone Report concerning the actions of Israel and Hamas during the recent Gaza attacks reveal how serious (and effective) UN investigations have become--thankfully. Perhaps the present administration should take notice of Mr. Netanyahu who is presently squirming under the microscope of world scrutiny for that nation's actions during the so called "Cast Lead" operation in Gaza where more than 1000 civilians were wontonly killed.

Questions such as those raised by Mr Alston regarding the US behavior in Afghanistan and Pakistan indicate a trend--a rightous indignation that all nations should be held accountable for their actions---and could we here in the USA deny that? With that in mind such questions should certainly be part of the President's "review process" on his "new" policy in Afghanistan. Apparently one of the options considered(the Biden gambit) is an expanions and further reliance on the use of extrajudical executions by means of drones.

In regard to the US goverment position that such attacks are carried out in a war zone where the UN has no role--that is poppycock. The controversial attacks are in Pakistan --outside of the war zone and have killed more than 600 people in northwestern Pakistan since August 2008--you can refer back in this blog to some of the more horrible attacks. The US claims to have killed around 400 militants out of this total but those numbers are suspect. Any male between the ages of 15 and 55 is considered a "militant" and counted in that number. US Senator John Kerry who claims that the attacks have been successful in combatting al Qaeda ignores the anger and hatred that these strikes engender in the local population. His statment that they have resulted in minimal collateral damage is simply based on what "collateral means". When an entire family of innocent women, children and grandparents is the "collateral" that is not "minimal" but stentorian senatorial blather.


Get the picture?


rjk