Scholars attack programme and urge greater oversight by Congress
Is the CIA's secret programme of drone strikes against terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen a case of illegal assassinations or legitimate self-defence?
That was a central question this week as the programme came under fire from several legal scholars who urged greater oversight by Congress, arguing the attacks may violate international law and put intelligence officers at risk of prosecution for murder in foreign countries.
Four law professors offered conflicting views, underscoring the murky legal nature of America's nine-year-old war against extremists. The conflict has spread from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a complex campaign against al Qaeda, the Taleban and other insurgents worldwide.
Both the Bush and Obama administrations have defended the use of attacks from unmanned aircraft. They have tiptoed around the issue because the CIA programme, which has escalated in Pakistan over the past year, is classified and has not been acknowledged publicly by the Government. The CIA strikes are "a clear violation of international law", said Mary Ellen O'Connell, law professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School, who added that going after terrorists should be a law enforcement activity.
She said the rest of the world did not recognise American authority to carry out attacks in Yemen and Pakistan, where the United States is not involved in direct armed conflict.
CIA officers who operate the drones could be arrested and charged with murder in other countries, O'Connell warned, likening it to having the Mexican police or military bomb hotels in Arizona in order to target drug lords who may be hiding there. Others disagreed, saying enemy forces were legitimate targets, particularly when they operated out of countries that would not act themselves.
The US has long declared the legal view that as important as sovereignty is, "it is lawful to go and strike a person where a country is unable or unwilling" to control its own territory, said Kenneth Anderson, a professor at American University's Washington College of Law.
CIA spokesman George Little would say only that the CIA's counterterror operations were conducted in strict accord with the law.
Anderson's comments echoed remarks last month by State Department legal adviser Harold Koh. In a carefully worded speech, Koh said the Obama Administration was committed to following the law in its operations against terrorists. While noting that there were limits to what he could say on the matter, Koh added, "US targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war."
Anderson said the secrecy around the programme, which has been written about extensively in the media, had become counterproductive for the CIA. He said it was difficult for the Administration to give a legal blessing to something the agency did not admit takes place. An open discussion about the legal and policy issues would be more helpful, and also would provide better legal protection for the CIA and the employees involved in the strikes.
Politicians and the professors also were divided about the Administration's move to put Anwar al-Awlaki, a US-born Muslim cleric who has been linked to the recent attacks against America, on the CIA's list of terrorists to be killed or captured. O'Connell said the idea that the US could go after anyone it wants was "a fiction created by lawyers".
The US, she said, should be working with countries like Pakistan and Yemen, and not treat them like combat zones or dismiss them as unwilling or unable.
David Glazier, professor at the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, California, argued that enemy forces were legitimate targets anywhere. He said if a neutral country gave its consent or was not being helpful, it had historically been considered lawful to do limited operations in countries not directly involved in a conflict.
The US has worked with the militaries in both Pakistan and Yemen, providing training and equipment and intelligence and surveillance assistance. And, according to officials, the US has participated in strikes either at the request of the host country or with its implicit approval.
Representative John Tierney, chairman of the House Oversight subcommittee that held the hearing yesterday acknowledged that he did not expect quick answers to all the legal questions. The Democrat said, however, that Congress and the Administration needed to begin to talk about the issue more openly.
TROUBLE IN THE AIR
"Any CIA personnel who participate in this armed conflict run the risk of being prosecuted under the national laws of the places where [the combat actions] take place."
- David Glazier associate professor of law from Loyola Law School
"Restricting drones to the battlefield is the most important single rule governing their use. Yet, the United States is failing to follow it more often than not."
- Ellen O'Connell law professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School
45
Drone attacks on suspected militant targets during George W. Bush's presidency
51
Drone attacks on suspected militant targets during the first year of Barack Obama's presidency
29
Drone attacks so far this year, reportedly along the borderlands between Pakistan and Afghanistan
- AP
