nandu
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,913
- Likes
- 163
UN report challenges legality of drone strikes in Afghanistan
A UN report has criticised the US government's use of drones in Afghanistan. It raises some interesting points and one section 85 from the report is reproduced here.
"85. Outside the context of armed conflict, the use of drones for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal. A targeted drone killing in a State's own territory, over which the State has control, would be very unlikely to meet human rights law limitations on the use of lethal force."
The News International (Pak) claims that between 2006 and 2009 the drones killed only 6% militants and the rest 94% civilians. Another website called Pakistan Body Count reports an even lower strike rate at 2.5%. The figures as on 10 Jun 2010 according to the website were "Dead = 1332, Injured = 453, Total = 1785 and Counting"¦Success Rate of Drone Attacks against Al-Qaeeda ~ 2.5%"
Supporters of US point out that the size of missiles has been reduced for very precise attacks based on human intelligence and this has allowed for hundreds of militants to be killed. However, since the US/CIA do not discuss these strikes, the Pakistani media figures are filling in an important information gap - whether right or wrong. Many people argue that these kind of figures will inflame common people to turn to jihad/terrorism to avenge lost relatives and friends. One pro-Islam demonstration in the US supported exPak PM Musharraf's view that Times Sq bomber "Faizal Shahzad was influenced by Pak drone attacks".
NY Times reports a UN official saying that "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".
http://www.8ak.in/
A UN report has criticised the US government's use of drones in Afghanistan. It raises some interesting points and one section 85 from the report is reproduced here.
"85. Outside the context of armed conflict, the use of drones for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal. A targeted drone killing in a State's own territory, over which the State has control, would be very unlikely to meet human rights law limitations on the use of lethal force."
The News International (Pak) claims that between 2006 and 2009 the drones killed only 6% militants and the rest 94% civilians. Another website called Pakistan Body Count reports an even lower strike rate at 2.5%. The figures as on 10 Jun 2010 according to the website were "Dead = 1332, Injured = 453, Total = 1785 and Counting"¦Success Rate of Drone Attacks against Al-Qaeeda ~ 2.5%"
Supporters of US point out that the size of missiles has been reduced for very precise attacks based on human intelligence and this has allowed for hundreds of militants to be killed. However, since the US/CIA do not discuss these strikes, the Pakistani media figures are filling in an important information gap - whether right or wrong. Many people argue that these kind of figures will inflame common people to turn to jihad/terrorism to avenge lost relatives and friends. One pro-Islam demonstration in the US supported exPak PM Musharraf's view that Times Sq bomber "Faizal Shahzad was influenced by Pak drone attacks".
NY Times reports a UN official saying that "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".
http://www.8ak.in/
Last edited by a moderator:
