In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: drones

29 May

...our current involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is this what it takes to win? And, if so, isn't this a price worth paying to get rid of one of the worlds first serious terrorist organisations? The Sri Lankan government shelled the last remaining Tamil positions, we send unmanned drones into Pakistan, and Israel send rockets through people's bedroom windows. The ius in bello does not necessarily forbid "indiscriminate shelling", if that is indeed what they did. It forbids deliberately targeting civilians, and beyond that disproportionate attacks, but even if there...
29.05.09 | |

06 May

...the international system will see it corrected. I would suggest, however, that we are watching the opposite occur. The US military operational strategy, in using drones and special operations forces to make targeted killings of individuals associated with specific terrorist organizations in a number of disparate geographical locations seems to me to be founded on the proposition that the US is currently engaged in a noninternational armed conflict with these specific terrorist orgaizations. As clumsily done as it has been, the message from the US national security establishment is unambiguously...
06.05.11 | |

03 Nov

Steve Groves LOL on #5, Julian. I agree with you, though it would help even more if the Alaska Senate seat goes to Miller. And don't count on a "President Palin" to push for LOST, even though she's from Alaska ... Jordan Response... Re: targeted killing, likely to expand to include more targets in Yemen? and some in Mexico (drones fly along parts of the border now and Secretary Clinton remarked that the narco-terrorist-organized criminals are acting "like" insurgents)? On propriety of targeting, even a U.S. national in Yemen outside...
03.11.10 | |

09 Jul

...justification. From the beginning, however, this enemy has been treated as "the worst of the worst" criminals and terrorists, to be treated as harshly as sentenced felons. Trying to have it both ways, logical contradictions are inevitable. Since Hamdi, the detention of enemy combatants has been authorized under the laws of war. The AUMF may be a trigger, but it is not the source of the authority. The AUMF does not contain any language about dropping bombs or using Predator drones against targets in Pakistan. Once you start an armed...
09.07.09 | |

08 Jul

...U.S. soldiers while one is unprivileged -- one merely does not have the privilege to do so and is subject to being prosecuted under a relevant domestic law for murder. I realize that the GTMO milt. comms. apparently do not understand this. Regarding the CIA fliers of drones, May Ellen and I, among others, have pointed out that they would not be combatants under the laws of war (unless they were also members of the regular armed forces of the U.S.), but I had written that practice and opinion seems...
08.07.14 | |

16 May

...a simplistic and uninformed view of how international humanitarian law developed, which was as a constraint on permissible measures of war. Just as international humanitarian law nowhere affirmatively sanctions the use of tanks, planes or machine guns, or even of drones or guided missiles, it does not exhaustively prescribe other permissible measures of war. Rather, it permits any war measures potentially helpful to defeating an enemy armed force that it doesn't prohibit or delimit. As you correctly note, Marco Sassoli calls this military advantage. The U.S. calls it military necessity....
16.05.14 | |