Drones Strikes:
Unequal, Unethical and Unwise (The Nation, Pakistan)
"With lots
of ifs, ands and buts, in claiming that drone strikes are 'legal ... ethical ...
(and) wise,' the White House is trying to stretch the interpretation of a Justice
Department memo that allows the United States to kill not just foreign nationals,
but even its own. ... As the memo states, the source, 'an informal high-level
official,' is not likely to find favor with national or international jurists,
even if the assumed terrorist is a U.S. national. ... Wisdom and
far-sightedness demand that such violations are immediately brought to an end."
With lots of ifs, ands and buts, in claiming that drone
strikes are "legal ... ethical ... (and) wise," the White House is trying
to stretch the interpretation of a Justice
Department memo that allows the United States to kill not just foreign nationals,
but even its own, if they are found to be operating as terrorists in another
country.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney put up this defense
of using these killer flying machines on February 5. The memo, first reported
by NBC, doesn't give the CIA blanket
permission to use the drones and there is certainly no mention of non-Americans.
It unambiguously relates only to U.S. nationals. The memo maintains that killing
them would not violate the Constitution if they are "senior leaders of
al-Qaeda or an associated force," if they pose "an imminent threat"
to the United States, and their arrest is "infeasible."
While these precautions, if taken, may prove an attenuating
factor for a U.S. administration defending the targeting of American nationals,
the source that would have to be relied upon to establish such facts may not. As
the memo states, the source, "an informal high-level official," is
not likely to find favor with international jurists either, even if the assumed
terrorist is a U.S. national.
Understandably, American media has severely criticized the
contents of the memo. On the other hand, Mr. Carney, while rejecting the
criticism, said that the administration took great care in deciding to pursue al-Qaeda
terrorists to "ensure precision and to avoid the loss of innocent life."
But these remarks by the White House press secretary cover all drone strikes,
not just those directed at U.S. nationals. In addition to the media, the
American Civil Liberties Union has also cast doubt on the legitimacy of the memo,
which describes a program in a "democracy built on a system of checks and
balances," and described it as "profoundly disturbing."
Posted By Worldmeets.US
On the same day - Tuesday - Pakistan Ambassador to the United
States Sherry Rehman was quoted
by The Washington Post as saying
that the drone attacks are "a clear violation of our sovereignty and ... of
international law ... (and are) operationally counterproductive." And she
emphatically denied the widespread impression that they enjoy the tacit
approval of Pakistan.
"Let me assure you that since we have been in the
government, there is no question of quiet complicity. There is no question of a
'wink and nod.'" She also spoke of a "parliamentary red line" -
the resentment the drone attacks create within society and the repercussions in
the form of the easy recruitment of tribesmen into the fold of militancy.
Although Ms. Rehman kept up the facade
of an "upward trajectory" for Pakistan-U.S. relations, continued
drone attacks cannot but leave a bad mark on the minds of people who, in the final
analysis, formulate government policy - both domestic and foreign. Wisdom and
far-sightedness demand that such violations are immediately brought to an end.
