<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u201cRelentless NON-humanity.\u201d This is the term I have used to describe the impact of the Predator Drone as a weapon in the Afghanistan\/Pakistan (Af-Pak) region in the U.S.\u2019s Global war on Terrorism (GWOT). It is not just that the Predator is an application of lethal force that, without warning, annihilates suspected terrorists and sometimes innocent bystanders. Rather, my concerns stem from the fact that controllers target and dispatch these deadly weapons remotely, often while thousands of miles from the battlefield. One of my law students expressed it succinctly a year ago when he described his experiences \u201cdriving the Predator\u201d for the previous seven years. \u201cWhere did you do that, Jonathan?\u201d I asked him, to which he quickly replied, \u201coutside of Las Vegas, and sometimes when I got off duty, I wandered into town to play the slots.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This is not Star Wars. This is the real thing. And, in my view, it is why drone warfare is increasingly, if mistakenly, compared by observers to the terrorist activity it seeks to suppress. Most scholars who sought to define terrorism unite on the basic principle that terrorism is hostile action designed to achieve a political goal by intimidating a civilian population, but not ultimately to defeat a state as Germany and Japan were defeated in World War II. It is to destroy the population\u2019s morale, their will to resist, and to bring them into compliance with the wishes of the terrorist. What I am suggesting is that drone warfare has a similar goal. It is fighting fire with fire, terror with terror.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Recognizing that the Government of Pakistan will never allow U.S. troops on Pakistani soil to pursue the Taliban in the disputed regions of the North-West frontier and Afghanistan, the U.S. has been able to strike the Taliban effectively with Predator drones guided from two continents away. In fact, the U.S. gained access to Pakistani airspace by helping the Government of Pakistan eliminate an Al Qaeda leader in the North-West frontier that the Pakistanis had spent years trying to chase down. The predator\u2019s distinguishing characteristic is its ability to hover indefinitely over a given target area and when it catches sight of its target to strike instantly and without warning. Nobody is certain of the precise numbers of bystanders who have been killed in the drone attacks but because there is no warning of its presence, innocents are bound to have been included. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>This was not in the mind of the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) when he purchased six Predator drones from the General Atomic Corporation in 1997. DCI James Woolsey was buying a sophisticated surveillance device with a negligible radar profile, powered by a golf cart engine that could hover endlessly and silently over a remote target, sending precise images back to its control. Soon thereafter, the U.S. Military fitted the Predator with a Hellfire missile, turning it into a formidable killing machine!<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Its use in the Af-Pak region has been game changing. CIA officials have <\/span>stated<\/span><\/a> that the Predator has decimated the Al Qaeda command structure in both Afghanistan and Pakistan with a minimum of casualties on the U.S. side. This is a formidable achievement. But as desirable as it may be as a military goal, it recently became an issue in and of itself.\u00a0 <\/span>It is almost too effective a weapon. <\/span>According to the international media,<\/span><\/a> it has excited strong opposition among citizens and tribals in the entire Af-Pak region, ostensibly because of civilian casualties but really because of its effectiveness, what I call its \u201crelentless non-humanity.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Is the Predator drone a \u201clegal\u201d weapon under the laws of war? U.S. Government lawyers <\/span>defended<\/span><\/a> its use under the President\u2019s authority to use all military force at his disposal to pursue and kill the 9\/11 attackers \u2013 the \u201cAuthorization to Use Military Force\u201d (AUMF) of September, 2001. Until recently, the President\u2019s primary international lawyer, adviser to the U.S. State Department, and former dean of Yale Law School, Harold Koh, prominently defended use of the Predator drone in the Af-Pak theater. Recently, however,<\/span> he and others<\/span><\/a> raised questions about usage of the Predator for \u201ctargeted killings\u201d in the region. Mr. Koh and some of his colleagues are now on record demanding a more transparent process for authorizing drone strikes that target suspected Al Qaeda operatives and U.S. citizens.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\nBy Frederick P. Hitz<\/span><\/h1>\n
Adjunct Professor, University of Virginia School of Law; Senior Lecturer, Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy; Former Inspector General,\u00a0 <\/span>CIA, 1990-98.<\/span><\/h2>\n