Tweet
As Pak fumes, US asserts drone strikes are legal
Amid renewed escalation of tensions with Pakistan, the United States has stoutly defended its drone strikes to pound terror targets, asserting publicly for the first time that the use of the use of these remotely piloted aircraft is legal, ethical and proportional.
In a strong rebuff on a day when Islamabad lodged a formal protest over a new drone strike over the weekend, US Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan said there was nothing in international law that bans the use of drones “against our enemies outside of an active battlefield, at least when the country involved consents or is unable or unwilling to take action against the threat”.
“President Obama said here five years ago, if another nation cannot or will not take action, we will,” Brennan said in an address to the Woodrow Wilson Center here. Authorised by President Obama, the talk sought to provide a detailed description and justification of the drone programme on the eve of the first anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden.
“By targeting an individual terrorist or small numbers of terrorists with ordnance that can be adapted to avoid harming others in the immediate vicinity, it is hard to imagine a tool that can better minimise the risk to civilians than remotely piloted aircraft,” said the President’s chief counter-terrorism aide.
On the sensitive issue of civilian casualties, raised by Pakistan, Brennan maintained that such casualties were “exceedingly rare” and were rigorously investigated. “We take it seriously. We go back and review our actions.”
“There is absolutely nothing casual about the extraordinary care we take in making the decision to pursue an Al Qaeda terrorist, and the lengths to which we go to ensure precision and avoid the loss of innocent life,” he said, stressing that the targeted strikes “conform to the principle of humanity by using weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering”.
Terming the drone strikes “a wise choice”, Brennan asserted that apart from eliminating the danger to US personnel, they also “dramatically reduce the danger to innocent civilians, especially considered against massive ordinance that can cause injury and death far beyond its intended target”.
In support of the drone offensive, he contrasted the option with large, intrusive military deployments that risked playing into Al Qaeda’s strategy of trying to draw the US into long, costly wars.
Amid renewed escalation of tensions with Pakistan, the United States has stoutly defended its drone strikes to pound terror targets, asserting publicly for the first time that the use of the use of these remotely piloted aircraft is legal, ethical and proportional.
In a strong rebuff on a day when Islamabad lodged a formal protest over a new drone strike over the weekend, US Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan said there was nothing in international law that bans the use of drones “against our enemies outside of an active battlefield, at least when the country involved consents or is unable or unwilling to take action against the threat”.
“President Obama said here five years ago, if another nation cannot or will not take action, we will,” Brennan said in an address to the Woodrow Wilson Center here. Authorised by President Obama, the talk sought to provide a detailed description and justification of the drone programme on the eve of the first anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden.
“By targeting an individual terrorist or small numbers of terrorists with ordnance that can be adapted to avoid harming others in the immediate vicinity, it is hard to imagine a tool that can better minimise the risk to civilians than remotely piloted aircraft,” said the President’s chief counter-terrorism aide.
On the sensitive issue of civilian casualties, raised by Pakistan, Brennan maintained that such casualties were “exceedingly rare” and were rigorously investigated. “We take it seriously. We go back and review our actions.”
“There is absolutely nothing casual about the extraordinary care we take in making the decision to pursue an Al Qaeda terrorist, and the lengths to which we go to ensure precision and avoid the loss of innocent life,” he said, stressing that the targeted strikes “conform to the principle of humanity by using weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering”.
Terming the drone strikes “a wise choice”, Brennan asserted that apart from eliminating the danger to US personnel, they also “dramatically reduce the danger to innocent civilians, especially considered against massive ordinance that can cause injury and death far beyond its intended target”.
In support of the drone offensive, he contrasted the option with large, intrusive military deployments that risked playing into Al Qaeda’s strategy of trying to draw the US into long, costly wars.
