In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: drones

07 Mar

...was a publicity stunt, and that he posed a dumb question: . There are about a hundred interesting and difficult questions to pose to the administration about targeted killings and drones. Sen. Paul started with one of the least interesting: Can the government kill an American with a drone domestically? It’s about as interesting a question as, say, asking whether the Air Force can conduct air strikes against targets in Chicago. In fact, it’s the exact same question. And the answer to it is exactly the same: the Air Force...
07.03.13 | |

04 Jun

...with the rules of IHL, which prohibit or restrict certain means and methods of warfare." Further (relevant for the U.S. in terms of who operates the unmanned drones and does the shooting), that "IHL neither prohibits nor privileges civilian direct participation in hostilities. Therefore, such participation does not in itself constitute a war crime. However, civilians having directly participated in hostilities can be prosecuted for any offence that they may have committed under domestic law even if, in doing so, they did not violate IHL." Howard Gilbert The Alston article...
04.06.09 | |

05 Feb

...this is Orwellian. The caption of that case was Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, it was a lawsuit against the Secretary of Defense. Why would anyone think the Hamdan decision-- or for that matter the Rules of Land Warfare-- apply to CIA piloted drones when only uniformed members of the Armed Forces have combatant's privilege? Craig Martin I think Kevin's analysis here, on the central importance of the "organization" component of the Tadic test and the memo's failure to address it, is spot on; and it is a helpful contribution to the...
05.02.13 | |

16 Sep

...these same voices admit that the Taliban would be justified droning over the U.S, dropping bombs, killing dozens and claiming they were "insurgents" and "terrorists." I cannot say one way or the other whether we are really thwarting active threats agains the U.S. But the cloak of "its proper under law" is utter rubbish. It is only proper under the "law" of the powerful. We regularly violate the borders of sovereign countries in our perceived self-defense, but we would not let, for example, Mexico use drones to assainate drug lords...
16.09.11 | |

24 Mar

...International Court of Human Rights, where all individuals can sue all states, using at least the non-derogable articles in ICCPR, CAT and maybe some other treaties. For instance El-Masri should be able to sue U.S. in such a court. You would want that all those killed by drones (or their relatives) could challenge the U.S. legal argument in such a court. You would want that the guys on Guantanamo could sue U.S. in such a court and demand a fair trial or to be released. (2) You would want a...
24.03.12 | |

26 Jul

...to deliver a second salvo against the Golani infantrymen as they scattered for cover. An Israel Defence Force source said Hizbollah is fighting a Vietcong-style tunnel war in the scrub-covered hills around Bint Jbeil, using a network of underground routes and bunkers dug up to 130ft below the surface to move unseen and unscathed. "They know we have reconnaissance drones and satellite surveillance of the area, so they have taken to shifting squads around the sector by tunnel to avoid the risk of attracting airstrikes or artillery fire," he said....
26.07.06 | |

26 Mar

...don't think that the questions give sufficient background information to give a responsible answer. Also, I don't agree with her description of the law of proportionality in the preface to her survey. Jordan Moreover, from merely a moral perspective I believe that their "multi-faceted" set of criteria are useful. In "Operationalizing Self-Defense," the following is offered (see http://ssrn.com/abstract=2459649 ): As noted in another writing with respect to nuanced and contextually attentive application of the principles of reasonable necessity, proportionality, and distinction during use of drones for self-defense targetings, one should...
26.03.15 | |

27 Mar

...have firmly declared on earlier occassions that the U.S. is 'at war' with Al Qaeda, so Koh's reiteration of this position is not really a surprise. However, it looks to me that this administration is not really THAT convinced that they are actually fighting a 'war' against Al Qaeda (see for instance Holder's and Obama's statements on the civilian trial of KSM, the christmas day's bombers Miranda rights controversy etc.), but when the war-logic of the previous administration comes in handy (no habeas for Bagram detainees, legally defending drones etc..)...
27.03.10 | |

15 Jun

JordanPaust Response... "Stab...in the back" is appropriate. And why a private lawsuit involving private plaintiffs and private defendants should be dismissed if the U.S. could not be held accountable by a foreign state is simply incredible. To pretend that that was "the legislative purpose" is beyond belief. There is no direct proof of such a legislative intent. Several professors have started to wonder whether Harold Koh has abandoned human rights (I had not thought so with respect to use of drones) and they will surely continue to wonder, since human...
15.06.12 | |

14 Apr

Giorgi Nar Mr. Kenn, Thanks for updated information about the drones, this is a very interesting issue in the IHL today. Please, can you write more about the Virginia symposium, what's going on there and may be there website as well. I am very interested in this problem and want to get thorough information. Thanks in advance....
14.04.10 | |

17 May

Mihai Martoiu Ticu Can individuals attack states in preemptive self-defence as well? Let's say that the Iranians expect the US to attack them in the near future, or any private individual in a country with important natural resources can expect the U.S. to invade sooner or later. Or the Pakistani's might expect that U.S. drones blow up their wedding parties. Considering that the U.S. invades or bombs a country every two years, such wars are highly probable. Or is this preemptive self-defence only an U.S. privilege? [insert here] delenda est...
17.05.11 | |

03 Aug

...And what if he is about : 10 minutes , half day , one day interval , and what if : One week before , you take him out , knowing for sure his intention , and while preparing the explosives , you do eliminate him ( like the Israelis does with drones , or the US , or compare the elimination of Imad Mornia , responsible according to the US , to endless loss of life , in terrorist attacks in Iraq ) . So , First of all...
03.08.15 | |