Extrajudicial killing, right to fair trial, liability and compensation for death or injury caused by drone/missile strikes, presumption of innocence until proven guilty, etc are serious human rights concerns that need to be addressed by the United Nations and the different nation states.
Such killings and/or injuring of innocent persons have been happening in many different countries, and while such acts must be condemned, the second question is one of remedy for the victim/s, their family and/or dependents - especially the innocent.
A suspect must be arrested and tried - not simply killed. Use of reasonable force is allowed in law when arresting someone. But when drones and missiles are used, surely then it will not be using of reasonable force to effect arrests - but rather it would be extrajudicial killing. And the usage of such means, would increase the possibility of the innocent being killed. Legal remedies must be available for these victims...
If there is a lack of avenues of access to justice - then, the possibility of victims resorting to other means to get justice for themselves and family members increases - 'self help'. If a policeman kills someone, and there is no apology or compensation, or even acknowledgment/explanation/justification of the 'accident' or the act, of available avenues of justice, ....it creates a 'dangerous' situation.
A suspect must be arrested and tried - not simply killed. Use of reasonable force is allowed in law when arresting someone. But when drones and missiles are used, surely then it will not be using of reasonable force to effect arrests - but rather it would be extrajudicial killing. And the usage of such means, would increase the possibility of the innocent being killed. Legal remedies must be available for these victims...
If there is a lack of avenues of access to justice - then, the possibility of victims resorting to other means to get justice for themselves and family members increases - 'self help'. If a policeman kills someone, and there is no apology or compensation, or even acknowledgment/explanation/justification of the 'accident' or the act, of available avenues of justice, ....it creates a 'dangerous' situation.
In the US, several victims of a drone attack filed a case...
The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the US court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit in Washington upheld a lower court’s finding that it lacked the authority to question decision-making by the government over the missile strike.
The
circuit judge Janice Rogers Brown, who wrote the decision, also issued a
rare separate opinion calling for greater oversight over the drone
program.
She said the legal doctrine preventing courts from reviewing the decision-making by the president and Congress in foreign policy or national security matters may be “deeply flawed” because it blocks any court supervision of the use of sophisticated new military technologies such as drones.“Of course, this begs the question: if judges will not check this outsized power, then who will?”...The Guardian, 30/6/2017
US federal court tosses out lawsuit over Yemeni men killed in drone strike
In unanimous ruling, three-judge panel says court lacks authority to
question government decision-making in strike that allegedly killed
innocent bystanders
The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the US court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit in Washington upheld a lower court’s finding that it lacked the authority to question decision-making by the government over the missile strike.
The case began in 2015 when the families of Salem bin Ali Jaber, an imam, and Waleed bin Ali Jaber, a police officer, filed a “wrongful death” suit against the US government, Barack Obama and other US officials.
They claimed the deaths were collateral damage in an August, 2012,
Hellfire missile attack by a US drone in the eastern Yemeni village of
Khashamir targeting three extremists, court papers said.
Salem had recently preached against al-Qaida and brought Waleed, his
nephew, along for protection to a meeting requested by the three, the
papers said. All five men were killed in the strike.
The families sought a court declaration that the strike violated
international and US law. The lawsuit did not seek monetary relief.
The United States has been conducting counter-terrorism operations in Yemen
for years against militant groups such as al-Qaida. In 2013, Obama set
tighter rules on drone strikes and promised greater transparency.
Monday’s ruling tossing the suit said that, based on legal
precedent, judges cannot second-guess the government’s military
judgment. It is “the executive, and not a panel of the DC circuit, who
commands our armed forces and determines our nation’s foreign policy”,
the ruling said.
The
circuit judge Janice Rogers Brown, who wrote the decision, also issued a
rare separate opinion calling for greater oversight over the drone
program.
She said the legal doctrine preventing courts from reviewing the
decision-making by the president and Congress in foreign policy or
national security matters may be “deeply flawed” because it blocks any
court supervision of the use of sophisticated new military technologies
such as drones.
“Of course, this begs the question: if judges will not check this
outsized power, then who will?” said Brown, who was appointed to the
appeals court bench by George W Bush. She called congressional oversight
“a joke – and a bad one at that”.
The other two judges on the panel, both appointed by Obama, did not join her separate opinion.- The Guardian/ 30/6/2017
Photo: Kyodo
Over the past decade,
the United States has claimed broad authority to carry out drone
strikes across the world, even in places far from the battlefield. Under
President Barack Obama, the U.S. acknowledged killing between 2,867 and
3,138 people in strikes that took place in countries like Somalia,
Yemen, and Pakistan.
Although in the waning days of his presidency, Obama took some steps
to improve transparency about drone strikes, including providing the
total estimated death toll, a new report by the Columbia Law School
Human Rights Clinic and the Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies says
that the U.S. is still lagging in providing a full accounting of its
drone program. Among other failures, the report, titled “Out of the Shadows: Recommendations to Advance Transparency in the Use of Lethal Force,” says that the U.S. has only acknowledged approximately 20 precent of its reported drone strikes — failing to claim responsibility or provide details in the vast majority of cases.
Meanwhile, the drone program is intensifying. Since President Donald
Trump took office earlier this year, the rate of drone strikes per month
has increased by almost four times Obama’s average. Yemen in particular
has been a target of many of these operations, with between nine and
11 strikes hitting the country this year, along with 81 other covert
attacks by U.S. forces, according to statistics compiled by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
The authors of the new report say that the government’s failure to
provide information or legal rationales for its strikes is making it
impossible to understand the full scope of the government’s targeted
killing program, as well as its impact on civilians.
“For years, the only way we knew anything about individual strikes
was from media reports or individual statements about strikes from
government officials,” said Alex Moorehead, of the Columbia Law School’s
Human Rights Institute, highlighting the failure of the government to
provide details about cases in which drones have been used for targeted
killings. “When we talk about official acknowledgment,
we are talking about specific information about individual strikes,
which is what matters to people who have had loved ones killed.”
The estimated number of civilians killed in U.S. drone strikes varies widely, with some independent estimates recording hundreds of civilian deaths, while the U.S. government often claims
that figures run only into the dozens. The U.S. military has also been
criticized for policies like “signature strikes,” in which individuals
have been killed based on their status as “military-age males” in areas
where U.S. drones are operating. These policies are alleged to be
responsible for cases in which weddings, funerals, and other communal
gatherings have been bombed in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia.
“There is a difference in how
Western civilians are treated versus non-Western civilians,” Moorehead
said. “Of all the civilians who have been killed in these strikes, only
the two Westerners who were killed in a 2016 strike have ever received any formal acknowledgement, apology, and compensation from the government.”
Locals in Yemen have alleged that, in recent months, drone
strikes carried out by the Trump administration killed civilians on
numerous occasions. One strike reported last month in Yemen’s Shabwah
Province allegedly targeted
a car full of men with no existing links to terrorist groups, as well
as several innocent bystanders. Despite such incidents, Trump has
promised measures that would further loosen
targeting standards for drone operators, likely putting civilians in
even greater danger. Many Yemenis say that the anger and grief inflicted
by these strikes is outweighing any perceived counterterrorism benefit —
and even driving some local people into the arms of Al Qaeda.
“The drone program in Yemen has inflicted a lot of civilian deaths
that have not been investigated, acknowledged, or even taken into
consideration by the U.S. government,” said Waleed Alhariri, director of
the Sana’a Center’s U.S. office and one of the co-authors of the
report. “In some cases weddings have been targeted, which has resulted
in a lot of public anger from ordinary people towards the United States
and has helped recruitment for al Qaeda.”
The secrecy of the drone program has made it difficult for civil
liberties organizations in the U.S. to provide a full accounting of its
impact. More importantly, this secrecy has also made it harder
for civilians directly impacted by drones to even understand why they
have been targeted. Lacking any ability to find out the details about
cases in which they or their loved ones were harmed, Yemeni civilians
are generally unable to even obtain recognition, let alone compensation,
for the life-changing consequences of these attacks. That those
targeted often come from poor and remote regions of the country only
makes it harder for them to obtain justice.
“The U.S. public is not aware what is happening in
this program. They need more transparency and they need to know the
truth,” said Alhariri. “But Yemenis who have been impacted also need to
know why they’ve been targeted. People have died, lost the ability to
work and lost family members they relied on. They’ve been ignored and
they feel helpless in the face of U.S. military policy in Yemen.”
Top photo: Unmanned aerial vehicle MQ-9 Reaper at the Holloman U.S. Air Force Base in New Mexico on June 25, 2013. - The Intercept, 13/6/2017
The European Parliament,
– having
regard to the reports on the use of armed drones by the UN Special
Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions of 28 May
2010 and 13 September 2013, and by the UN Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while
countering terrorism of 18 September 2013,
– having regard to the statement made by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on 13 August 2013 on the use of armed drones,
– having
regard to the hearing of 25 April 2013 on the human rights implications
of the use of drones, organised by Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human
Rights jointly with its Subcommittee on Security and Defence,
– having
regard to its study of 3 May 2013 on the ‘Human rights implications of
the usage of drones and unmanned robots in warfare’,
– having
regard to the Council conclusions of 19 and 20 December 2013 on
preparations for a programme of next-generation European Medium Altitude
Long Endurance Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS),
– having regard to Rule 110(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,
A. whereas
the use of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS, hereinafter
‘drones’) in extraterritorial lethal operations has increased steeply
over the past decade;
B. whereas
unknown numbers of civilians have been killed, seriously injured or
traumatised in their daily lives by drone strikes outside declared
conflict zones;
C. whereas
in the event of allegations of civilian deaths as a result of drone
strikes, states are under the obligation to conduct prompt, independent
investigations and, if the allegations are proved correct, to proceed to
public attribution of responsibility, punishment of those responsible
and provision of access to redress, including payment of compensation to
the families of victims;
D. whereas
Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions states
that ‘acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to
spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited’;
E. whereas
drone strikes outside a declared war by a state on the territory of
another state without the consent of the latter or of the UN Security
Council constitute a violation of international law and of the
territorial integrity and sovereignty of that country;
F. whereas
international human rights law prohibits arbitrary killings in any
situation; whereas international humanitarian law does not permit the
targeted killing of persons who are located in non-belligerent states;
G. whereas
seven Member States (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands,
Poland and Spain) have signed a letter of intent with the European
Defence Agency (EDA) tasking it to draw up a study on joint production
of Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) craft, which can be used to
strike military targets or for surveillance of migrant boats in the
Mediterranean Sea, thus starting work on a European RPAS;
H. whereas
research and development studies associated with the construction of
drones, military and civilian, have been supported with EU funds, and
whereas it is planned that this will continue in the future;
1. Expresses
its grave concern over the use of armed drones outside the
international legal framework; urges the EU to develop an appropriate
policy response at both European and global level which upholds human
rights and international humanitarian law;
2. Calls on the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Member States and the Council to:
(a) oppose and ban the practice of extrajudicial targeted killings;
(b) ensure
that the Member States, in conformity with their legal obligations, do
not perpetrate unlawful targeted killings or facilitate such killings by
other states;
(c) include armed drones in relevant European and international disarmament and arms control regimes;
(d) ban
the development, production and use of fully autonomous weapons which
enable strikes to be carried out without human intervention;
(e) commit
to ensuring that, where there are reasonable grounds for believing that
an individual or entity within their jurisdiction may be connected to
an unlawful targeted killing abroad, measures are taken in accordance
with their domestic and international legal obligations;
(f) support
the work and follow up on the recommendations of the UN Special
Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the UN
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism;
3. Urges the Council to adopt an EU common position on the use of armed drones;
4. Calls
on the EU to promote greater transparency and accountability on the
part of third countries in the use of armed drones with regard to the
legal basis for their use and to operational responsibility, to allow
for judicial review of drone strikes and to ensure that victims of
unlawful drone strikes have effective access to remedies;
5. Calls
further on the Commission to keep Parliament properly informed about
the use of EU funds for all research and development projects associated
with the construction of drones; calls for human rights impact
assessments in respect of further drone development projects;
6. Instructs
its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the
Commission, the Vice‑President / High Representative of the Union for
Foreign and Security Policy, the European External Action Service, the
parliaments of the Member States, the UN Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the UN Special
Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, and the UN
Secretary-General. - European Parliament Website
|
No comments:
Post a Comment