Drones used by military and police - Law Report. Damien Carrick: Hi there, Damien Carrick with you, welcome to the Law Report. On our last program we focussed on the privacy and safety issues around the rapid rise in the number of drones here in Australia. On this program we look at how the military and police as well as terror groups and criminals currently use drones, and how drones might be used in the future for good or for bad. Oleg Vornik: If you have been watching the Super Bowl with Lady Gaga in the US this year you've already seen dozens of drones with lights creating quite an interesting visual effect. However, the same technology can be used to control dozens of drones at the same time with explosives or anthrax or other materials on them creating havoc. National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE- September 5, 2006. Contact: Sibel Edmonds, National Security Whistleblowers. A Brief Explanation of “Gang Stalking” 2. Introduction to the Full Explanation of Gang Stalking 3. Crimes by U.S. Law Enforcement & Intelligence. Damien Carrick: Almost every second day there are media reports of targeted drone strikes by US forces in the Middle East. The coverage focuses on who is killed: are they legitimate targets, or are they innocent bystanders, civilians? Last week, the UK parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee released a report into the drone killing of Reyaad Khan back in August 2. Sara Smyth, associate professor at La Trobe University Law School, is the author of Drone Controversies: Ethical and Legal Debates Surrounding Targeted Strikes and Electronic Surveillance. The book was recently published by Thompson Reuters. Sara Smyth: Reyaad Khan was a 2. British citizen who was from Cardiff, and he had become radicalised. He went to Syria to become a jihadist, and then he tried to recruit others on the internet using social media tools. Damien Carrick: And I understand he often posted really bloody IS videos on social media, and he boasted of killing prisoners, and he also posted images of corpses online, so a pretty reprehensible character. Sara Smyth: Yes, and in fact the UK government maintains that Khan orchestrated numerous plots to murder large numbers of UK civilians as well as those of the UK's allies. Damien Carrick: When and how did he die? President Eisenhower invites him for a state visit in Feb. Eisenhower wants to renew the lease on the Dhahran. General Assembly resolutions on Afghanistan prior to 2001: Resolutions on the Situation in Afghanistan and its Implications for International. United Nations News Centre with breaking news from the UN News Service. Policy Options Going Forward. Given the continuing difficulties, there are a variety of alternative strategies that the United States could pursue in Afghanistan. Amnesty International provides breaking news and independently researched reports on human rights around the world. Sara Smyth: He was actually killed by a drone strike. It was a precision strike that was taken in Raqqa on 2. August in 2. 01. 5, and the strike was against a vehicle in which Mr Khan and three other ISIL fighters were travelling at the time. Damien Carrick: And this was actually a first. This attack was unprecedented because it was that first time there was such an attack on a British terrorist, targeted by British forces outside of military operations, outside of a war zone. Sara Smyth: Correct. And in fact questions have been raised around whether the strike can be legally justified. Surveillance and data analysis had linked Khan to patterns of activity and behaviour that corresponded to a set of indicators for militant activity. But the broader question is whether the strike can be justified by the UK as an act of self- defence in armed conflict. Damien Carrick: So last week the UK parliament's intelligence committee released a report on Reyaad Khan's death and they said, look, we don't have enough information to decide whether or not the attack was necessary and proportionate. But they expressed profound disappointment with the lack of information given to them by government about whether or not he satisfied their questions about whether or not he posed an imminent threat and whether the attack was therefore proportionate. Acknowledging he was a threat they said 'there is nevertheless a question as to how the threat was quantified and in this instance whether the actions of Khan amounted to an armed attack against the UK or Iraq.' What's your response to that assessment and to those conclusions of that parliamentary inquiry? Sara Smyth: Well, both the US and the UK have argued that they are exercising a collective right of self- defence on behalf of Iraq. And the basis of this is because Iraq has the right to self- defence against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. It also has the right to ask its allies for collective self- defence in both countries. The US and the UK as well have been maintaining for quite some time that they are facing a ruthless sub- state adversary that has no allegiance to any particular country, that abides by no laws and that poses an imminent threat to world peace and security. And the fact is as well that terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, the Taliban and ISIS most often don't wear uniforms, they don't carry arms openly or abide by the conventional laws of war. So instead they terrorise and kill civilian populations by bombing buildings and aeroplanes, kidnapping and murdering journalists and so on. So both the US and the UK have maintained that secrecy is necessary around these strikes. So we don't have a lot of information around them. They are part of highly classified information and operations, but at the same time they are arguing that they are exercising their collective right of self- defence on behalf of Iraq. Damien Carrick: This case involved a drone killing by UK forces, but of course most drone strikes are by the US forces. Do we know how many thousands of strikes have there been over, say, the last 1. US forces? Sara Smyth: Well, historically of course drones were used to collect intelligence. However, during the last 1. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and now in Syria. And they are being used generally to target those who are deemed to be affiliated with ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and Al Shabaab. And during the last 1. Damien Carrick: But we don't have any firm figures about the number of people killed and how many of them are civilians, innocent bystanders. Sara Smyth: The US government has recently released figures around the number of civilian casualties that have occurred over the last 1. However, it's very difficult to get at the heart of those statistics, particularly given that they conflict with the reports that we've seen coming out of other human rights organisations and news organisations that would suggest that the number of civilian casualties are actually much higher than the US government has disclosed. Damien Carrick: According to the London based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, more than 7,0. Obama presidency. Of those it suggests 9. That's one list, but are they a reputable organisation, do we know? Sara Smyth: Yes, I would say that they are. Damien Carrick: There were reports last week that US drone killed three or four Al Qaeda operatives in Yemen. And according to Reuters the drone also killed three civilians. The three operatives were travelling in a car when the drone attacked, three civilians just happened to be passing by when they died. These sorts of instances are totally common, aren't they. Sara Smyth: Yes, and past experience in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan in particular tells us that the scale and frequency of civilian deaths are perhaps disproportionate to the military advantage that drone strikes offer. Not only can we point to the high number of civilian casualties, those who happen to be present or near someone who is targeted as a terrorist when the drone strike occurs, but there has also been increasing opposition within civilian populations, and thereby deepening and prolonging the conflict. Damien Carrick: And turning the population against the US. Sara Smyth: Absolutely. In fact, the killing of civilians in drone strikes has become a major inspiration for ISIS and other terrorist groups. And in fact it has been said to be the most important driving force for terrorism around the world. Damien Carrick: And then on the back of that you also have from the back in February I think one of the major figures in Al Qaeda was killed in Afghanistan and that was talked about as being a very major victory against Al Qaeda. Sara Smyth: Yes, and there's no question that the drone strikes have been effective in disabling and disbanding terrorist groups like the Taliban and like. Al Qaeda. At the same time though there are questions as to whether the strikes are necessary and proportional and appropriate, and whether the civilian deaths are disproportionate to the military advantage that drone strikes offer. Damien Carrick: It was interesting to read that following last week's Israeli strike on weapons stored near Damascus airport there were reports of a drone coming from Syrian territory crossing into Israel before it was knocked out of the sky. It's pretty unclear where that drone came from but it's quite likely it was a non- state actor like Hezbollah. So drones are now being used I guess on both sides of the conflict, can we put it that way? Sara Smyth: Absolutely. And it's true that drones have fallen into the hands of Hezbollah and they have actually been used by Hezbollah. Damien Carrick: These are incredibly complicated issues. Do you have a view about when they should and they shouldn't be used to kill people, to assassinate people? Sara Smyth: Yes, as a military weapon they can only be used in accordance with international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law. And essentially that means that the use of force can only be exercised lawfully under international law. It's not to be used against civilian populations, and states are required to minimise collateral damage and unintended injury. As well, states need to maintain certain requirements and meet certain requirements to use force lawfully in self- defence, and to be justified that needs to be carried out consistent with article 5. UN Charter. So there must first be an armed attack, although the degree of state involvement required is debated. The armed attack must actually be happening or be imminent. And third, the actions taken in self- defence must be necessary and proportionate. Damien Carrick: Very complicated issues, again, in terms of insurgencies, terrorist attacks and what have you, how do you define everything. Sara Smyth: Absolutely. Damien Carrick: When these drones are used in assassinations on enemy controlled territory, what are their dimensions?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
August 2017
Categories |