Military of China, force comment.
Military of China, force comment.

“Global Hawk” is the most important active-duty U.S. military unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, ground forces can provide near real-time high-definition live images.

“Global Hawk” is the most important active-duty U.S. military unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, ground forces can provide near real-time high-definition live images.

United Nations Special Rapporteur Philip Alston is scheduled for next week to report to the UN Human Rights Council, urged the U.S. government authorized the CIA to stop the use of unmanned aircraft against terrorist suspects.

media statement by the United States, the United States increasingly rely on unmanned aerial vehicles in the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan, launched counter-terrorism operations, Alston is expected to give Barack Obama the government action “clogging.”

“not responsible”

Alston, 27, told the U.S. media, said the U.S. drone in Baa border control “right to life or death “But by the regular armed forces, unmanned aerial vehicles that Zhu’a U.S. military, such intelligence command rather than the CIA.

which United Nations officials said that in Afghanistan, if the air raid killed civilians, the U.S. military will at least respond to the outside world, such as site surveys sent, access to surveillance video, released survey results. But in Pakistan border region, a CIA drone launched air strikes on civilian casualties and completely “irresponsible.”

“mistaken bombing Afghanistan after the U.S., you may not be fully explained from the Department of Defense, Department of Defense started to see the most appropriate accountability, and accountability for these acts explain quite a lot in the number of The whole process of non-phono. “

” However, if the CIA mistaken bombing civilians, they obviously would not answer questions outside world, will not provide any information without any accountability act … “

Alston said the CIA to gather intelligence with unmanned aerial vehicles is a “fair share of things,” but cleared of terror suspects with a UAV is not bound by international law as the military, intelligence agencies “should not be entitled decided to air time and air objects. ”

Alston, the UN Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur. He is scheduled for June 3 in Geneva, Switzerland to the Human Rights Council session.

lost much popular support

Paula La Weisi CIA spokesman said in response, the CIA by the White House and congressional oversight, not “not responsible.”

“Although we do not talk publicly about specific actions or confirmed, but the bodies in the legal framework and government oversight actions,” Weiss said, “that the CIA is not responsible for wrong.”

U.S. think tank, “the New America Foundation,” Statistics, Obama took office, the CIA gradually increased the number of unmanned air; By early May, the CIA launched unmanned air 34 times this year, an average of less than 4 days there once.

Pakistan as a base for the CIA to Afghanistan to combat cross-border implementation of civilian casualties and lead to very unhappy. But the U.S. State Department legal adviser Harold Koch in March of this year, this strategy argued that these actions the spirit of “self defense” principle, belong to the “base” organization and the Taliban military strike is not illegal.

CIA drone air strikes are usually out at night to hide the alleged terror residential targets.

Alston said that those who provide shelter for terrorist suspects at civilians are often intimidated, caught among the Taliban and the government, a dilemma. In view of the future will continue to increase the number of unmanned air strikes, such action will result in the United States in counter-terrorism operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the loss of people, “eventually lost (Afghanistan) war.”

He said the report submitted to the Human Rights Council, the CIA drone air strikes will lead to detailed discussion of the legal dispute, may be able to exert more pressure on the U.S. government to seriously look at.

look “based on”

Alston, said the report does not identify the CIA to use unmanned air strikes are war crimes. But the United States, “New York Times” reported that the CIA drone air strikes are in breach of international law is increasingly subject to international attention.

U.S. State Department and Defense Department hired a barrister who quietly in recent months as the UAV air raids and detentions, Guantanamo detainees tried to find a legal basis, trying to prove that this type of strategy against terrorism does not violate “the Geneva Conventions.” .

under “Geneva Convention”, regular people can not because of enemy soldiers killed in combat by the prosecution. The United States stressed that the Guantanamo detainees are not dressed in uniforms of the regular army, not prisoners of war, protected by international law.

However, manipulation of drone air strikes in Pakistan’s CIA is not a soldier.

“New York Times” reported that, in order to avoid self-contradictory, the U.S. Department of Defense Military Commission at Guantanamo now busy to modify the relevant provisions of Code of Practice, to avoid giving others a handle when you hear Guantanamo detainees.

the Bush administration under George W · Military Commission in 2007 issued a Code of Practice, the military court can be “violating the laws of war”, “murder” charges the prosecution of those armed men. But State Department legal adviser Koch, who found that the outside world according to this definition to those accused of manipulating the CIA UAV is a war criminal.

revised Code of Practice requirements, not “the Geneva Conventions’ protection of combatants and the implementation of” murder “, according to a similar espionage offenses. Spy offense violation of domestic law, but does not violate international law.

“New York Times” analysis, although in theory, Pakistan’s judiciary can prosecute those CIA espionage, but allies of the United States can argue that the CIA drone air strikes does not violate the laws of war .