Top judge: 'use of drones intolerable'
Unmanned weapons are condemned by Lord Bingham as 'beyond the pale'
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
The use of unmanned drones as weapons of war in conflicts around the world has been called into question by one of Britain's most senior judges. Lord Bingham, until last year the senior law lord, said that some weapons were so "cruel as to be beyond the pale of human tolerance".
In an interview with the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Lord Bingham compared drones, which have killed hundreds of civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Gaza, with cluster bombs and landmines.
His comments are bound to intensify calls for new international rules to protect civilian populations from arbitrary attacks launched by the pilotless craft.
Lord Bingham asked in the interview, which addressed the issue of the state being bound by the rule of law: "Are there, for example, and this goes to conflict, not post-conflict situations, weapons that ought to be outlawed? From time to time in the history of international law various weapons have been thought to be so cruel as to be beyond the pale of human tolerance. I think cluster bombs and landmines are the most recent examples.
"It may be – I'm not expressing a view – that unmanned drones that fall on a house full of civilians is a weapon the international community should decide should not be used."
Drones have become an important weapon against the Taliban in the remote mountainous borderlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Britain has said it plans to use drones as weapons. The Army already deploys them to gather battlefield intelligence. Last month the US admitted to 26 civilian deaths in a series of drone attacks that took place in May. In those attacks Afghan officials put the death toll at 140, significantly higher than the US claims.
Last week Israel was accused of using missile-firing drones to unlawfully kill at least 29 Palestinian civilians during the Gaza Strip war.
Despite having advanced surveillance equipment, drone operators failed to exercise proper caution "as required by the laws of war" in verifying their targets were combatants, said Human Rights Watch, the New York-based monitoring group, in a 39-page report. It described six alleged strikes by remote-controlled aircraft.
Israel has a fleet of spy drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), but refuses to confirm or deny widespread beliefs that some of the aircraft also carry weapons.
International lawyers also argue that air strikes using drones are state-sanctioned assassinations where the targeted suspected terrorist has no opportunity to defend the case against him.
Last month US drone aircraft killed at least 45 Pakistani Taliban militants in south Waziristan when it fired missiles at the funeral of an insurgent commander who was killed earlier that day.
In a reference to the detention under the Terrorism Act of 82-year-old Walter Wolfgang, who heckled Jack Straw at the Labour Party conference in 2005, Lord Bingham, a former lord chief justice and master of the rolls, called on states to use anti-terror powers proportionately. He said: "Again, we probably agree that powers should be exercised for the purposes for which they were conferred in the first place, and therefore a source of obvious concern – and this would be multiplied worldwide – [would be] if a power enacted to counter terrorism is used to arrest a heckler at a party conference."
Last year in his first major speech since his retirement as the senior law lord, Lord Bingham disputed the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US, the UK and allies. He said that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was "a serious violation of international law", and he accused Britain and the US of acting like a "world vigilante".
Remote-controlled death: Unmanned aircraft
*The Predator, and its successor, the Raptor, is a remote-controlled aircraft system which first came into use in 1995. It can be deployed for reconnaissance and missile attack. The air-strike version is armed with two Hellfire missiles and has been deployed over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq and Yemen.
It is estimated that 300 people have been killed in at least 30 drone strikes since August 2008. During the initial phases of the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, a number of older Predators were stripped down and used as decoys to test the Iraqi air defences. Britain has been employing a reconnaissance version since 2006.Sometimes drones and their remote operators make mistakes and kill innocent civilians.
Two years ago a Predator fired a missile into a wedding party in Afghanistan, killing at least 30 civilians, including children. But they have proved successful in the war against al-Qai'da and the Taliban, who have both lost high-ranking leaders to the unmanned aircraft.
High-profile victims include Hamza Rabia and Abu Laith al-Libi. They have also killed Mohammed Atef, reputedly al-Qai'da's chief of military operations, and several of the group's most experienced explosives and biological weapons specialists.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch:
"HRW is not against the use of drones in warfare. Its accuracy and concentrated blast radius can indeed reduce civilian casualties"
Lord Bingbang is a senile old fart who thinks that drones kill people by "falling on a house full of civilians." He's obviously missed the part where military aircraft started firing ordnance. His expertise in the matter stops at the Punic wars. It's time for someone to take the dribbling fool away and leave him on a glacier.
There's not difference between the two and the esteem judge is missing the point. But then again, I wouldn't trust the morality of the world invading, culture busting, pretentious, queen loving "Empire" and its judges. you've got to be kidding me, right? International law? when did international law stop Hamas from firing 100's of rockets directed AT civilians only targets? Double standards, that's what you should be worried about.
Any military implement required that saves soldiers lives and reduced their exposure to harm is useful. If they were sent by their country to do a job - they must have access to all the technology available to us.
I vote to send the deal judge for a week in the front lines - see how he sings after that!
Oh wait... he's never left his office, right? He just comments on papers.... how noble
Really? ANY implement? Cluster bombs that wound and kill civilians years after the conflict is over? Land mines? How about depleted uranium weapons that cause birth defects for years afterwards?
All too often, international law gets ignored by Hamas, Israel, the US, the UK, and other nations or organizations that believe they are powerful or marginal enough to get away with it. But that's no reason to ignore the illegality of their actions. Nor do the illegal actions of one side justify the illegal responses of the other. Or do you want to live in a lawless world where might makes right (we are already there, but it it seems that you would welcome this)?
You seem to imply that only those with military experience are qualified to have an opinion on such matters as the rule of law. Bingham may well be an ermine-trimmed establishment figure far removed from ordinary people. But his comments should be heeded.
Good point - note that at the receiving end, they are all Muslims...
Its going to have a kick-back effect.
What started off as a invasion for resources and control of the Middle East is ending as a war between Muslims and Christains (with Zionists in the Christian driving seat in the USA).
However whilst I also accept that all human life is equal unmanned drones actually reduce the potential for people to be killed since those who are allied to the drones are far less likely to be killed than if they were actually physically present during the attack. Being selfush since the drones in Afghanistan are on our side fewer allied personnel are being killed.
Yes, but the context in which this is happening is Afghanistan. Like in Irak, the US/UK invaders have no way of telling who is a Afghan going about his business and who is a Afghan who may perhaps harbour an extreme prejudice against the US/UK invaders. The humanoperator of an armed drone can only see from a distance Afghanis. or villages or a group of people. The idea that this operator miles away looking at a TV monitor can be a judge of who shall live and shall be blown to pieces is absurd and evil. It is just another of the numeropus lies of war. Any Afghani with the least national, or more likely tribal pride is going to resent being invaded by a bunch of armed foreigners - many of them have had a cousin or brother killed by the US/UK forces, all they want is for them to leave and so they meet and discuss and plan and beofre they know it, they have been labelled 'Taliban' and can be murdered at a distance by a killing machine by a white bloke for Norwich who has total legal, moral and civil impunity. THIS IS A CRIME. If these 'taliban' have commited crimes they should be taken to a court and tried for that crime but the UK policy is KILL THEM.
Does he think that the pilot of a bomber checks to see if a building contains civilians or combatants before he releases his weapons? Does he think that the operator of a mortar checks to see if a building contains civilians or combatants before he fires his mortar rounds? Does he think that a man with a gun checks to see if his target a mile away is a civilian or combatant before he pulls the trigger?
Of course not, if fire is coming from a building you assume that the occupants are combatants. If there are non-combatants there as well, which was frequently and possibly invariably the case when rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel, that is unfortunate.
They shoot at you. You shoot back at them. Your intelligence says that there are combatants in a building, the drone operator fires a missile at it.
That is not nice, but that is the reality of war. I suggest that people who know nothing about it, including this not-very-learned judge, should keep their mouths shut rather than attempting to tie up our servicemen in red tape
The general point seems to be the remote nature of this type of weapon. There is a big difference in seeing your enemy face-to-face compared with the use of remote weapons.
Seeing the looks on the face of the enemy when you put the blade in, the sound of the blade scraping past bones and having to apply additional pressure to cut through tough sinew, and seeing the expressions of fear in face of the enemy when he knows the he has been fatally wounded and then look into your eyes as he is gasping for his last few breaths. This type of combat effects all who participate in the war - it shows the ugly side of war.
In the case of drones, its a clinically clean computer room full of operators. What happens many miles away makes the killing of humans an exercise in operating a bit of kit - resulting in just another statistic. A drone is a sniper weapon - somewhat useful but inhumane all the same but doesnt kill one person, kills a group of people.
"HRW is not against the use of drones in warfare. Its accuracy and concentrated blast radius can indeed reduce civilian casualties"
Frankly, the world has had up to here of pompous cobwebby toff gasbags ventilating on shit they know absolutely dick about and can't even properly read & comprehend an HRW report. The HRW report criticizes the Israelis operating the drones, not the drones themselves.
Of course it isn't.
It's entirely expected that military forces use some form of judgement before they use their weapons; otherwise why even bother having troops? You might as well just drop a lot of bombs and hope that wins the war.
This is why we have a code of conduct and laws defining what is, and isn't acceptable in an arena of combat. Ever heard of a war crime? Ever thought that almost every single ones of those could have been avoided if the troops involved, or their commanders had paused and thought to consider their actions?
Just because you have a gun and someone else fires at you, does not give you any form of automatic right to simply fire back and hang the consequences.
You, sir, and most of your fellow commentators just spout ill-thought out, childish nonsense, which I'd castigate my children for saying.
They are capable of analysing a situation, so I would imagine you can too, once you get over your excitement that guns=fun, and to hell with someone who might be in a church, in their home, or in a shop at the same time you decide that there's an enemy in the same area.
It's no wonder us in the West are despised by those we are allegedly bring democracy and freedom too.
Wait till these drones are controlled by AI and played like some video game and all sides have one, that time is coming soon.
www.millarcrime.com
I lodge a complain,who will hear?
Is it not the fact that the residents near the Heathrow Airport complained, complained, complained, some died of heart shock as the planes were near the roofs, some could not sleep for night they became the big train robbers, some produced more babies as thy had plenty of time and sex was the only time pass the balloons far, far, far away. No time. Honest I feel so bad.
I thank you
Firoali A.Mulla
Banning a particular weapon only seems to influence the definition of its use - look at white phosphorous for example. It can't be used against personel but there seem to be an awful lot of "accidents" in which it comes into contact with human flesh.
Banning the use of poison gas did not stop regimes that could not afford to develop more sophisticated weapons of mass destruction.
As always, wars will be fought with the most foul weapons that can be devised. The whole point is to overcome the enemy with any means at your disposal.
The efforts of so-called civilised countries to sanitise war are doomed to failure because of the nature of war itself. While there is the illusion that war can actually settle anything at all then war will still be waged with anything from sticks and stones to ICBMs.
If the answer is no to these questions he should be quiet and let the guys doing the job get on with it, after all what would he say if someone told him how to run his court I am quite sure he would lock them up, enough said.
I would like to confront this so called wise judge and give him a piece of my mind.
Snipers in the hills around former Yugoslavian cities, as well as the odd US bomber pilot, infamously described their attacks as being "like playing a videogame". Well, an advertiser might say that drones "take the videogame experience a step further"?
It is a step further because those sending them in aren't even there.
After 9/11 the rules changed. Why are there so many conspiracies about that? Simply to try and remove the justification for retalliation. Afghanistan harboured Al Quaida and the Taliban were an atrocious government persecuting its own people and especially their women. I don't care what happens to them.
The reason some people are upset about these weapons is because they do not agree with the conflict itself - a view I have some sympathy with, but it is an entirely different issue.
If the conflict is a just and proper one then the way to win it is to kill as many of your enemies as possible - and how you do that doesn't matter.
What, you may ask, about civilians? The answer is that, regretably, they, too, are justifiable targets, as they provide the back up and support which armies need (civilians work in munitions factories, for instance). In the second world war this was understood and no-one objected, because everyone approved of that war.
The fact is that war is a terrible thing, but the more you sanitise it the more you make it acceptable and, therefore, prolong it.
Strange as it may seem the best way to prevent war is to make it so utterly ghastly that no-one will engage in it. That was the theory behind the Mutually Assured Destruction principle of nuclear deterrence, and it worked!!
Uh, oh, wait a minute. Wasn't there some character called Menachem Begin?
They do it to sway small minds against the military. It seems to be working on here.
And the real motive for the condemnation of these drones is the fact that it gives these people yet another excuse to issue yet another one-sided condemnation of Israel. Any thing besides acquiescing to the terror groups who run the Palestinian territories is deemed objectionable by these anti-Israeli groups who try to hide their anti-semitism with token one-sentence condemnations of the terrorist mass-murderers in Gaza. Any time the Israeli's, in an attempt to defend themselves against suicide bombers and Hamas terrorists, are considered morally equivalent to Hamas and Hezbollah by an inaptly named group like Human Rights Watch, I take it as a sign to disregard yet another one of their horribly and laughably biased hit pieces that strains to draw parallels between a liberal democracy and a terrorist oligarchy.
That ol chap has a point. Tis a bit unsporting of us to make war in such a manner. Any good gentleman knows that you line up the Queen's men on one side of the open field under the Union Jack, and the Mohammadans line up on the other side under their banner and we have a go at it. Might unsporting to do it otherwise.
These idiots apparently have NEVER read the Laws of Land warfare under the Geneva convention.
The Civilians in the World Tade Center could have used a little prior warning on 9/11. Al qaeda didn't show ANY hesitation on slamming loaded jet liners into skyscrapers. Nor did they give any warning to the Spaniards travelling on the trains. Nor did they give any Brits ANY warning that a bomb was about to go off, or even pick a different target. I have no problem if a pred hellfire's a house with muj in it, even if it has muj's family. That's just too bad. Papa muj should learn to keep work and home seperate.
Al qaeda is lower than pond scum and whale shit. I'm sorry, but my care cup is empty. In Iraq predators typically get IED layers regularly..how will lord senile try to spin that?
The predator is a LIFESAVER. It can loiter on station in Afghanistan for almost a full day and find Muj and kill him. The actual number of dead from the use of predators is MUCH higher than 300. If a toyota truck with muj in it explodes in the middle of the desert.... Landmine.
"International lawyers also argue that air strikes using drones are state-sanctioned assassinations where the targeted suspected terrorist has no opportunity to defend the case against him."
I completely lost it and spewed mountain dew over my screen. This lord whoever can't be serious?
Lcpl Mckinley