UN report faults prolific use of drone strikes by US
June 3, 2010 07:55 am
The campaign of CIA drone
strikes against suspected militants in
Philip Alston, a
Alston acknowledged that the right to self-defense may justify drone strikes in
He also expressed concern about the precedent set by the
Alston is scheduled to present his findings Thursday to the U.N. Human Rights
Commission in
As the drone attacks have expanded, they have attracted increasing criticism
from human rights organizations and international legal scholars, some of whom
claim aspects of the program violate international law. Critics also contend
that the attacks risk a backlash in
The
“We have a way to get at dangerous terrorists operating in areas otherwise
inaccessible to the central government or to conventional military units. It’s
effective, exact and essential,” said a
In a statement, CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said: “Without discussing or
confirming any specific action, this agency’s operations are, of course,
designed to be lawful and are subject to close oversight within our government.
The accountability is real, and so is the fidelity to American policy.”
The White House deputy press secretary, Bill Burton, would not comment on the
report’s findings but said that the president “is focused on making sure that
he’s doing everything in his power to protect the security of our country.”
Alston’s report discusses targeted killings by several countries, including
“This strongly asserted but ill-defined license to kill without accountability
is not an entitlement which the United States or other states can have without
doing grave damage to the rules designed to protect the right to life and
prevent extrajudicial executions,” Alston said.
Current and former
Only a handful of attempts of any kind have been made to kill suspected
militants outside
Under President Obama, the number of airstrikes in Pakistan has increased to an
average of more than two a week, in part because the CIA was given authority in
2008 to carry out strikes against individuals deemed to be a threat to the
United States, even when the U.S. does not know their names or has only
fragmentary information about their intentions.
Such airstrikes, officials say, are one of the few viable options for going
after militants who have taken refuge in Pakistan’s remote and lawless border
region.
On Monday,
But Alston said that the secrecy surrounding the program makes it impossible to
assess whether the CIA is doing enough to prevent the killing of civilians,
either because they happen to be too close to a targeted militant or because of
faulty intelligence.
“It is clear that many hundreds of people have been killed, and that this
number includes some innocent civilians,” Alston said.
He called for greater openness, including disclosure of the identities of those
killed.
Alston called on the Obama administration to turn over responsibility for
conducting strikes against suspected militants to the U.S. military, which he
said was more accountable than the CIA and likely to be better trained in the
law of warfare.
In contrast to CIA secrecy, a
Alston’s report comes as some members of Congress and their staffers have begun
raising questions about the drone program. In late March, legal experts warned
a House subcommittee that the drone campaign could someday result in
international charges against government officials.
“I expect there to be continuing legal scrutiny and criticism of drone strikes,
especially from abroad, but I don’t expect the Obama administration to change
course in a major way,” said Matthew Waxman, a Columbia University law
professor and former Bush administration official who considers the use of
drones to be legal.
In a speech in March, the State Department’s legal advisor, Harold Koh, offered
the administration’s first explicit defense of the use of drone strikes, saying
the
latimes