UN investigator: U.S. dodging questions on drones
An MQ-9 Reaper drone takes off Aug. 8, 2007, at Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nev. / Getty Images
(AP) GENEVA - A U.N. human rights expert accused the U.S. government Wednesday of sidestepping his questions on its use of armed drones to carry out targeted killings overseas.
Christof Heyns, the U.N.'s independent investigator on extrajudicial killings, had asked the United States to lay out the legal basis and accountability procedures for the use of armed drones. He also wanted the U.S. to publish figures on the number of civilians killed in drone strikes against suspected terror leaders in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere.
After a two-day "interactive dialogue" with U.S. officials at the United Nations in Geneva, Heyns said he was still waiting for a satisfactory reply.
"I don't think we have the full answer to the legal framework, we certainly don't have the answer to the accountability issues," he told reporters on the sidelines of a U.N. Human Rights Council meeting.
Video: CIA drone strike kills al Qaeda 2nd-in-command
Pakistan: U.S. drone kills 8 suspected militants
U.S. officials didn't explicitly mention the use of drones in the debate, but a written submission to the council cited three speeches by U.S. administration officials that discussed counterterrorism operations.
In one of those speeches, U.S. President Barack Obama's counterterrorism chief John Brennan acknowledged in April that the U.S. uses remotely piloted aircraft to conduct targeted killings of suspected al Qaeda members "in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States and to save American lives."
Brennan said the attacks were a legal, ethical and wise way of conducting sensitive counterterror operations.
But the U.S. use of armed drones has provoked anger abroad, particularly in Pakistan, where human rights groups say innocent people have been among the victims of the strikes.
The American Civil Liberties Union told the U.N. rights body Wednesday that "the United States has cobbled together its own legal framework for targeted killing, with standards that are far less stringent than the law allows."
It warned that other nations might embrace the U.S.'s justification for the use of drones and also begin carrying out airstrikes on foreign territory.
"My concern is that we are dealing here with a situation that creates precedents around the world," said Heyns, the U.N. investigator.
Popular on CBSNews.com
-
One year after Afghan massacre, villagers work with U.S. troops One year after U.S. Staff Sgt. Robert Bales was accused of slaughtering 16 Afghan civilians, the villagers in the town where the atrocity took place have joined the U.S. special forces stationed there to assist in the fight against the Taliban.
- 50th Paris Air Show 19 Photos
- Widespread protests in Brazil 23 Photos
- Celebration and devotion in India 14 Photos
- One of FBI's Ten Most Wanted nabbed in Mexico
- Afghan gov't halts talks with U.S. on security pact
- Somali militants wage deadly attack on U.N. office
- Torrential rain devastates Northern India 15 Photos
- Brazil protesters flood Sao Paulo streets for 2nd night
America never targets innocent civilians, ever!
Islamists, however, consider civilians fair game, even using them to prove a point.
Your bu****it is very non-patriotic and offensive!
People, please understand something. There is only one way to fight a war - you fight to win, with complete and utter disregard for "fairness" on the battlefield.
The terrorists that toppled WTC understood this. It took the US almost a decade to understand it - again - after apparently FORGETTING this after numerous wars.
Think Civil War - Sherman's March. It wasn't until the North waged holy hell war - stomping through the countryside and burning everything in their path - they even wrenched up the steel rails from the railroads and bent them - that the South had enough, and the war ended.
Think WWII. It wasn't until the US detonated 2 nuclear bombs in Japan that the war ended.
Failing to fight Total War was what lost us Vietnam. If we had thrown everything we had against it, N Vietnam would have lost.
Failing to invade Iraq after Operation Desert Storm made us get involved in Iraq much later at far higher cost.
At all times you should strive to avoid a fight - but if someone starts one, and you engage - you fight to win. That means using every weapon in the box.
As for civilians - well the Pakistan government has a obligation and responsibility to inform all their citizens that Al Queda is a terrorist organization and getting involved with them is hazardous to your health.
If they choose not to, and thus uninformed civilians remain in close proximity to Al Queda, their blood is on the Pakastinese government.
If however they ARE informed and yet choose to stay near Al Queda - well, sooner or later after enough of them die, the rest will get the message and tell Al Queda that "ya know guys, we love you, and want to be with you - but we just can't or we are going to be dead. So, be seeing you around, we're leaving"
The fact is that the civilians in Pakistan are the ones providing the targeting coordinates for the drones that are taking out Al Queda leaders - because they want them dead, they want them to leave, so that the drone strikes stop.
I'm not interested in my government playing war according to "battlefield rules" as if war is just a big wrestling match that we can keep clean.
I want my government's military to be regarded as so evil and nasty by the rest of the world that they decide it's better to not tangle with them.
Note that I'm not talking about treatment of prisoners or any of that - I'm not saying if the enemy surrenders to you that you should shoot them. What I'm talking about is the battlefield. And the terrorists have set the parameters of what constitutes the battlefield.