Why The Drone Wars Threaten Us All

Dispatches From The Edge

Conn Hallinan

Oct. 3, 2011

Lost in debate over whether the Obama administration had
the right to carry out the extra-legal execution of Anwar
al-Awlaki, the American-born Yemini cleric and al-Qaeda
member, is who pulled the trigger? It is not a minor
question, and it lies at the heart of the 1907 Hague
Convention, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and the 1977
additions to the ‘49 agreement: civilians cannot engage in
war.

In the main, laws of war focus on the protection of
civilians. For instance, Article 48, the “Basic Rule” of
Part IV of the 1977 Geneva Conventions, states, “In order
to ensure respect for and protection of civilian
populations and civilian objects, the Parties to the
conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilian
populations and combatants and between civilian objects
and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their
operations only against military objectives.”

What follows in the 1977 Conventions are nine articles
specifying what the general rule means, ranging from
prohibitions against attacking power plants and water
sources and spreading “terror among civilian populations”
to destroying the “natural environment.” There are many
civilian-related sections in other parts of the
Conventions, but the 10 articles that make up Chapter I,
Section I, Part IV on “Civilian Population” are the
clearest guidelines about what is allowed when civilians
are caught up in war.

The Conventions were mainly a response to the horrors of
World War II, where civilian deaths were more than twice
those on the military side. Of the approximate 80 million
people who died in WW II, 55 million of them were
civilians. In comparison, out of some 17 million who died
in World War I, seven million were civilians.

The logic behind Article IV of the Conventions is that
civilians are innocent bystanders, with no ability to
defend themselves or inflict damage on an antagonist.
However, if civilians take part in hostilities, they lose
their protected status. If the warring parties have an
obligation to protect non-combatants, civilians also have
obligations, the most important of which is that they do
not act as soldiers.

In short, if someone takes a pot shot at you, it is
irrelevant if he or she is a civilian, by their actions
they are no longer innocent bystanders.  Members of a
resistance movement may not wear uniforms or be part of a
military organization, but if they blow up your Humvee or
ambush your patrol, they are combatants.

Which is why the question of who killed Anwar al-Awlaki
(and over 2,000 people in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen
killed by drones) is relevant. If the cleric was killed as
part of a military operation—as with, for instance the
assassination of Osama bin-Laden—then the arguments are
around issues like whether we have the right to execute
enemies without a trial (the Conventions say we don’t), or
violate another nation’s sovereignty.

But al-Awlaki was not taken out by Navy Seals, he was
assassinated by a member of the Central Intelligence
Agency, the organization that runs the drone wars in
Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. CIA members are civilians.
Indeed, the new director, David Petraeus, formally
resigned his Army commission to make that point. Even if
he had not, however, the CIA is not a military
organization and is not under the control of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.

Why is this important?  Because if civilians in the U.S.
are killing combatants in another country, then those
civilians lose their protection under the Conventions.
Worse, it means all U.S. civilians become potential
targets. If a CIA employee based in Afghanistan, the
Arabian Peninsula, or Djibouti in Africa kills a
Pakistani, Somalian, or Afghan with a Hellfire missile
fired from a Predator drone, one can hardly complain if
everyday U.S. citizens are targeted for retaliation.

One could argue that, since al-Awlaki was an American
citizen, the hit didn’t really contravene the Conventions
and the arguments should be over whether you can order the
killing of an American citizen without due process.
However, others targeted by the drone war—like members of
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Haqqani Group, and the Somali
Shabaab—do not fall in this category.

According to the CIA, the drone wars have killed no
civilians. “There hasn’t been a single collateral death
because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the
capabilities we’ve been able to develop,” John O’Brennan,
the Obama administration’s counterterrorism advisor told
the New York Times.

That assertion is almost beyond ridiculous. Even a
supporter of the drone war like Bill Roggio, editor of The
Long War Journal, says the claim is “absurd.” The United
Kingdom based Bureau of Investigative Journalism found
that out of the 2,292 people killed by drones in Pakistan,
775 of them were civilians. Pakistan journalist Noor
Behram puts the total much higher, telling the The
Guardian (UK), “For every 10 to 15 people killed [by
drones], maybe they get one militant.”

The U.S. claim, however false, allows the drone war to
continue. There is nothing in the Conventions that bars
lying.

The Obama administration (and the previous Bush
administration) argue that drone war is part of the “war
on terror” that Congress mandated after the 9/11 attacks:
hence we are at “war” with at least the Taliban and its
allies, the Shabaab, and al-Qaeda. But the CIA still has
no authority to exacute a war. The last two run by the
organization—the war in Laos and the Contra war against
Nicaragua—were not only unmitigated disasters, they were
illegal.

Many countries have already stretched the Geneva
Conventions to the breaking point with regards to
civilians and the treatment of prisoners. For instance, by
using the term “collateral” to describe civilian deaths, a
country sidesteps the Convention’s stricture against
“deliberate targeting” of civilians by claiming the damage
was “inadvertent.” By calling insurgents “combatants”
rather than “soldiers,” the U.S. has water boarded people,
thus finessing both the Conventions and the 1984 UN
Convention Against Torture.

One could get cynical about this—aren’t civilians always
the victims of war? —but in their own uneven way, the
Geneva Conventions have protected civilians. Indeed, it
was the Conventions that led to what is now an almost
world wide ban on landmines and may end up eliminating
cluster weapons in the future. The fact that laws don’t
always work, or that people of ill will figure how to
contravene them, is an argument for greater adherence to
the rules, not ignoring or contravening them.

The danger is that the U.S. is blurring the difference
between civilian and military, and that is a dangerously
slippery slope. We already have a former general running
the CIA, and former CIA Director Leon Penetta heads up the
Defense Department. If we reach a point where there is
nothing to distinguish our military institutions from our
civilian ones, then all of us are fair game.

Conn Hallinan can be read at
dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com and
middleempireseries.wordpress.com

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate