US administration says drone strikes are legal and necessary

 On 25 March, Harold Koh, the Legal Adviser to the US State Department, in a keynote address to the annual meeting of the American Society of International Law (ASIL), addressed the legality of targeted killings and drone attacks.  His speech is the first time the US Administration has set forth its official position on the legal basis for the practice.  Lethal strikes against suspected terrorists, including those involving unmanned drone aircraft, have increased under the Obama administration and Koh argues that they "comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war".  In short, the former dean of Yale Law School and a vocal critic of Bush's counterterrorism policies claimed that there is a process, it is legitimate, and it is closely followed for every drone attack.

 

In a rare public debate on the issue that took place on US National Public Radio on 30 March, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions Professor Philip Aston said, “I think it's very good that Harold Koh has begun the conversation. I think it's good that he's outlined what he sees as the legal rationale. The first thing to note, of course, is that it's not a legal opinion, and in fact there is remarkably little law in there”. Professor Aston,who is supported by a project at the New York Law School, has consistently called upon the US to offer a public justification for its practice of targeted killings of terrorist suspects. He will be reporting to the UN Human Rights Council in June 2010 on the practice and law of targeted killings.

 

In the past, NATO and some member states, such as the UK, have reportedly distanced themselves from the frequent drone attacks in Pakistan – while continuing to cooperate with the United States on drone missions in Afghanistan. A British squadron of some 90 RAF personnel based at Creech US air force base in Nevada, for example, regularly launch drone attacks in Afghanistan.

 
Pilotless drones, or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), have now been used by the US military and/or intelligence agencies as an attack aircraft both inside a theatre of war (Afghanistan and Iraq) and outside (Yemen and Pakistan). In addition to concerns that these weapons violate international humanitarian law and national sovereignty, the technology is already proliferating and without international regulation it may also end up becoming the weapon of choice for groups like Al Qaeda. 
 
Dr Ian Davis, director of NATO Watch said, “To fight fire with fire, through the use of drones for targeted assassination, is to do terrorism’s work for it by sacrificing the very rule of law, with its underlying regard for human rights, which makes our societies worth defending”. He added “NATOshould conduct a comprehensive and independent inquiry into the military and security roles of UAVs. The inquiry should examine in particular the impact of these weapons on the civilian population, the risks of proliferation and ‘blowback’ and the feasibility of developing an international ‘code of conduct’ or agreement to regulate and limit their use”.