Targeted killings through drones are war crimes
Assembling a predator drone out of the box in about two hours, 2012. Wikicommons/ Sgt.Ken Scar. Public domain.It is nearly fifteen
years since the United States, followed by a few of its closest allies such as the
United Kingdom and Israel, used unmanned flying vehicles, better known as drones,
for targeted killings.
As is often the case
with new weapons and new technologies, the implications of these actions have
passed unnoticed. In a disturbing silence, occasionally broken by brave
investigative journalists and scholars, they are becoming de facto a standard practice of modern warfare. But a few moments of
reflection suffice to realise that targeted killings through drones are egregious
war crimes. They violate basic human rights and the laws of war that were established
several centuries ago.
A fresh, well-researched
and well-written book by Laurie Calhoun (We
Kill Because We Can. From Soldiering to Assassination in the Drone Age, Zed
Books, London, 2015, ISBN 978-1-78360-548-4) provides an occasion to think
about the deep implications of killing people though drones and hopefully to
act to stop this high-tech barbarian practice.
The first and rather
disturbing thing about drones’ targeted killings is the lack of rights for those
included in the “kill-list”. When a human becomes a target – supposedly because
he is terrorist, a would-be terrorist or has friends that are terrorists – he
does not receive any notification and has no possibility to defend himself from
the offences for which he is accused. The offences may be right or may be
wrong, but once he has become a target, he is sentenced to death with no appeal.
The offences may be right or may be
wrong, but once he has become a target, he is sentenced to death with no appeal.
How should we
consider the target? What is he? An enemy, a soldier, an indictee, a defendant?
Nobody tells us and the use of the word “terrorist” is an alibi to avoid responding.
If the target is regarded as a soldier, he should be given the typical
guarantees that are provided in wars, including the possibility to surrender to
the enemy.
Soldiers can, of
course, be killed in action, but this requires there to be a clearly defined
theatre of war and for the targeted soldier to in some ways be able to harm
others. None of these conditions applies in the case of a human being killed by
a drone. In the majority of cases, they are hit when they are unarmed and when
they are far away from combat.
If the target is
considered a defendant, he should have the right to a fair trial with explicit
charges and a proper defence. The accusations should be singled out. Needless
to say neither the human beings killed nor their relatives will ever know why
and who has killed them. Individuals to be ‘taken out’ will never benefit from
any further cross-examination. As Calhoun clearly argues, there is no
difference between killings carried out by drones and extra-judiciary
executions. And this becomes even more worrying in light of the fact, as it has
emerged from information recently uncovered by The Intercept, that according to the Pentagon most of the targets
are “individuals exhibiting suspicious behaviour” rather than terrorists beyond
any reasonable doubt.[1] According to the Pentagon most of the targets
are “individuals exhibiting suspicious behaviour” rather than terrorists beyond
any reasonable doubt.
The second and
surprising thing is who is responsible for making these executions, at least
those carried out by the United States. Even if using drones in other countries
is an act of war, the Pentagon is not in charge. It is the Central Intelligence
Agency who carries out these executions. In principle, we would expect the CIA
to collect information for the security of its country and that of its allies.
But in this case – and perhaps in many other cases – the CIA does not limit
itself to collecting information.
Killing through
drones has apparently become the most popular method to eliminate (i.e.
assassinate) enemies or simple suspects. The US Department of Defence is well
aware of the difference between combatants and non-combatants and when and how
the former can be attacked. It is true that the Pentagon often ignores the
distinction, especially when aerial bombing is used, and it has been
responsible for a huge number of civilian causalities. But at least the
Department of Defence is familiar with the language and the practice of the law
of war. The CIA acts as if there are no legal constraints on its actions.
Who takes these
decisions? The information recently provided by The Intercepts[2]
suggests that it is not the President of the United States, but an anonymous
chain of spies on the field and bureaucrats in Washington. Ultimately, the
selection of the targets appears to be in the hands of unknown bureaucrats. As
it happens with extra judiciary executions, the executors are unaccountable and
anonymous.
The third and
worrying factor is associated to the “collateral damage”. Since strikes by
drones are secret, there is not enough information on how many of the
individuals killed are the targeted ones and how many of them are their
relatives, friends, children or simply pedestrians that were in the wrong place
at the wrong moment. The CIA has not released any data on this particular
dimension of drone warfare and this is, by itself, a terrible sign: on the one
hand, the most sophisticated technologies are effectively used to trace, follow
and kill the targets and, on the other hand, the adverse consequences of these
actions are simply kept secret.
The independent
estimates collected by individuals that have no direct access to the official
sources estimate that individuals killed by mistake range from 9 to 25 percent,
according to the period and to the country.[3] This
seems anyhow a very high percentage, a percentage that would be totally
unacceptable in the fight against organized crime within countries.
Calhoun is not the
only American voice to complain about the use of drones. Already in 2012
President Jimmy Carter denounced the bipartisan enthusiasm for this form of
warfare, noting that “this would have been unthinkable in previous times” and
that it was contrary to the American tradition of human rights’ promotion.[4] In
spite of such an authoritative call to review and eventually terminate
killing-by-drones, nothing has happened and the Obama administration has further
increased its recourse to this method of warfare. The voices against are, so
far, too weak to counter the public enthusiasm for this new deadly video-game. [5]
In the United
Kingdom, the use of drones to kill has generated much wider concern and reprobation
than in the United States. David Cameron had to inform the public that British
drones killed individuals, and had to explain why he and his government opted
for the extra-judiciary killing rather than for other forms.[6] He
himself is risking incrimination for war crimes by the British judiciary.[7] But
any judicial constraint in the United States or Israel has yet to emerge.
What is most disturbing
is that a new military technology is going to be used long before the social,
political, ethical and legal implications are considered. Warfare is more and
more led by the technical possibilities rather than by political aims or by
ethical considerations. Warfare is more and
more led by the technical possibilities rather than by political aims or by
ethical considerations. It seems that once the new technology is available, the
targets should be created to experiment with the new toy. If targets are not
available they should be fabricated. It is not the threat that terrorists pose
to US interests and security that have created the killing drones, but rather
the technical feasibility of killing drones that has generated imagined terrorist
threats.
Also in need of
assessment is the impact of this warfare in comparison to the declared
political aims of those who use it. Have they actually helped to win the war on
terror? Have drones made the United States and their allies safer? Have they
saved the lives of Western soldiers that would otherwise be deployed on the
ground to fight the same insurgents? I do not feel competent to provide answers
to these questions. But not even an enthusiastic positive answer to all these
questions would justify a form of warfare that it is clearly illegal. Liberal
states should apply their standards even under the most uncomfortable
circumstances. And the advantages of assassinating would-be terrorists in
Pakistan or in Yemen do not justify the use of illegal methods.
The exhibition of
technological muscle and the act of power implicit in the fact that one country
could assassinate individuals without even exchanging a post-card with them is
generating perverted reactions that ultimately damage the war on terror. If
even a liberal regime such as the United States regularly carries out extra-judiciary
executions, how can we fight ISIS for the same type of crimes? What are the
lessons that we are providing to young people in the West and in the Middle
East? The only lesson that the United States is currently provided is well
explained in the title of Calhoun book: “we kill because we can”. But if this
is the lesson, why shouldn’t any desperate teenager with a knife to behave
likewise?
Dangers ahead
At the moment,
bombings are carried out by the United States, Israel and the United Kingdom. Proud
of their new technology, their governments appear satisfied to show to their
rivals that they are ahead. But, as usual, this is far from being the
definitive scenario. As the long and tragic history of arms race has shown, it
is very difficult for a nation to preserve its lead indefinitely. As already
indicated by Paul Rogers more than two years ago,[8] the
United States will not be the only country to play with the murderous toy. More
countries are developing similar technologies, and emerging countries,
including Russia, China and India, are now developing their own models. It will
not take long before other states and perhaps even non-state actors will have
their own flying killing devices. We will soon have a jungle in the sky and the
extensive use carried out by the United States will make it more difficult to
persuade new entrants to accept a common sense regulation.
What can be done?
This form of
technological assassination is a shame for Liberal states. It increases the
hate of technologically less developed countries against the West and it
ultimately will fuel non-regular forms of political violence, including
terrorism. There is no proof that this is an effective war strategy or that it
is serving precise political aims. It is a way in which a group of
non-accountable old boys from CIA enjoy themselves with a cruel weapon rather
than with a joystick. It should be stopped before it becomes a standard method
to get rid of your enemies.
The first thing to
do is a direct appeal to the individuals that are using drones. These
individuals should be clearly informed that they are committing war crimes for
which they may be individually responsible. By using killing drones, they
become combatants with all the associated risks and implications. The Principles
of Nuremberg, promoted by the United States and other liberal countries nearly
seventy years ago clearly stated that “the fact that internal law does not
impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law
does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under
international law”.
The second is to
activate judicial examination of these extrajudicial killings. The Human Rights
Council has already included this form of killings in its report on
extrajudicial executions.[9] The Special
Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions should clearly
investigate the case in the United States and elsewhere and report the
information collected to the Human Rights Council.
The third is to
develop some clear guidelines on the prohibition of unmanned vehicles to carry
out extrajudicial executions. There is already a model in which like-minded
states could progress and this is the Ottawa Treaty Convention fort the
Anti-Personnel Mine Ban. Politically, the countries willing to join such a
venture might be a few, but it is likely that the number of states will
increase if, as expected, the use of unmanned killing drones continues to proliferate.
The fourth would be for
civil society to take responsibility by organizing an Opinion Tribunal devoted
to this form of crime. Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre and Lelio Basso
started this form of public denunciation for war crimes in Vietnam and the
activities have flourished since then with the Permanent People’s Tribunal of
the International Basso Foundation in Rome.[10] More
recently, an opinion tribunal has reviewed in detail the legality of the war in
Iraq and the war crimes committed by occupation troops.[11] A
similar venture should now be tried for the use of drones, with a view to
obtaining a clear and definitive banning of remote killings in international
law.
[1] See Cora Currier, The Kill Chain.
The Lethal Bureaucracy Behind Obama’s Drone War, “The Intercept”, Article
n. 3 of the The Drone Papers, Oct. 15
2015.
[2] The drone papers, The Intercepts, Oct. 15 2015.
[3] Chris Woods, Drone War Exposed –
the complete picture of CIA strikes in Pakistan, “Bureau of Investigative
Journalism”.
[4] Jimmy Carter, “A Cruel and Unusual Record” New York
Times, June 24, 2012.
[5] For a collection of critical perspectives, see Jeffrey Bachman, Drones and the Human Right to Peace,
special Issue of “Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice”, vol. 27, no. 4,
October-December 2015.
[6] Nicholas Watt, Patrick Wintour and Vikram Dodd, David Cameron faces scrutiny over drone strikes against Britons in
Syria, The Guardian, Tuesday 8 September 2015.
[7] Press Association, David Cameron
faces legal challenge over Syria airstrikes. Green party politicians join
forces with human rights group to criticise lack of clarity over government’s
‘targeted killing policy’, The Guardian, Thursday 24 September.
[8] Paul Rogers, Drone warfare: a global danger, opendemocracy, 26 September
2013.
[9] Christof Heyns, Report of the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, United
Nations, Human Rights Council, 24 April 2015.
[10] See here.
[11] Muge Gursoy Sokmen, Arundhati Roy, Richard Falk (editors), World Tribunal on Iraq: Making the Case
Against War, Olive Branch Press, Grand Rapids,Michigan, 2008.