2010年5月17日月曜日

米無人機は違法か

米無人機は戦争犯罪となるようだ。
米国連邦議会の公聴会で、David Glazierが、この行為は「戦争犯罪」の
罪で刑事告発される可能性があると述べた。

戦争犯罪
 無人機の操縦士は、法的には戦闘員ではない。
 戦闘地域の外では、警察が正当な法執行機関であり、警察は破壊的な
  武器を使用する前に、警告することが必要とされるのが一般的だ。

米無人機
 所有機関 CIA

最近は、サーモバリック爆薬粉を混合したScorpionと呼ばれるミサイルを
搭載して、精密攻撃をしていると報道されている。
過去に、CIAが、米国本土から、隔離部屋にこもって、殺人ゲームに興じて
いると噂が立っていたが、現実のようだ。

日本も偵察ヘリが配属された。
国外でのミッションになったら、どう言う扱いになるのだろう。

CIA テロリスト狩り


US drone attacks rise in Pakistan Al Jazeera


---陸自が無人偵察ヘリを公開 遠隔操縦で情報収集---
2010/05/14 18:14
http://www.47news.jp/CN/201005/CN2010051401000756.html

 陸上自衛隊第3師団(兵庫県伊丹市)は14日、遠隔操縦で情報収集を行う無人偵察ヘリを報道陣に公開した。上空から敵の様子を探るとともに、危険な山間部などでの災害時の情報収集でも活躍が期待されている。
 公開されたのは滋賀県の今津駐屯地に配備された機体で全長約5メートル、幅約1メートル。情報収集の強化を目的として、ことし3月に今津駐屯地と福岡県の飯塚駐屯地に無人偵察機隊が編成され1機ずつ配備された。あらかじめ設定したルートを飛ぶプログラム飛行もできるという。
 今津駐屯地の無人偵察機隊は中部方面隊の直轄部隊である中部方面情報隊に所属し、隊員は約30人。中部方面隊は東海・北陸・近畿・中国・四国の2府19県の防衛を担当する。
 機体は16日に兵庫県伊丹市の千僧駐屯地で初めて一般公開される。


---米国無人機の空爆は戦争犯罪か:議会公聴会の議論---
Nathan Hodge and Noah Shachtman
2010年5月10日
http://wiredvision.jp/news/201005/2010051021.html

 米国は、正式な宣戦布告を行なわないまま無人機でパキスタンへの空爆を行ない、「テロリストをターゲットにした攻撃」を行なっている。
 この種の攻撃は、ブッシュ政権後期から激化し、オバマ政権下でもその傾向は増大している。かつては攻撃対象となるテロリストの名前が必要だったが、現在では名前も必要とされていない。[民間人の犠牲も多いとされ、2008年以降、パキスタンでは121回の空爆で1000人近くが死亡していると推測されている。2004年から今年までの死者は1314人、うち3割が民間人で、民間人の約半数がオバマ政権下で犠牲になったという推測もある]
 米国政府はこれまで、この攻撃は合法的な自己防衛だとして擁護している。ただし、この空爆に関する詳細は説明していない。
 一方、4月28日(米国時間)に開催された米国連邦議会の公聴会では、著名な法学教授であるDavid Glazier氏が、この行為は「戦争犯罪」の罪で刑事告発される可能性があると述べた。
 Glazier氏は、現在はロヨラ法科大学の教授で、以前は海軍で水上戦の指揮官を務めていた人物だ。Glazier氏によると、遠方から無人機を操作する操縦士たちやそれを指示した人物たちは、理論上は、その攻撃が行なわれている国の法廷に引っ張り出される可能性があるという。米中央情報局 (CIA)に属する無人機の操縦士は、法的には戦闘員ではないからだ。
 また、アメリカン大学の法学教授であるKenneth Anderson氏は、米国政府が空爆について詳細な説明を行なっていないこと、およびCIAに多くを依存していることを問題視した。準備した意見書(PDFファイル)の中で、「米国政府の公式見解では、CIAによる無人機の使用を肯定も否定もしていない。この段階で、法の専門家たちが、CIAの行動を合法だと断言することにためらいを感じるのは当然だ」と述べている。
 その上、議会が話したがらないもっと重要な問題があるとAnderson氏は主張する。それは、そもそもなぜこれがCIAのミッションなのかという問題だ。「自己防衛が合法であると仮に認めるとしても、なぜ、制服を着た軍人以外の者が武力を行使しているのだろうか」
 [ただし、米空軍も無人機攻撃を行なっている。また、パキスタンでは米軍の陸上部隊も展開している]
 ノートルダム大学の法学部教授であるMary Ellen O’Connell氏は、自身の意見書の中で、さらに辛らつな意見を述べている。「戦闘用無人機は戦場の武器だ」と、O’Connell氏は委員会で述べた。「この無人機が発射するミサイルや投下する爆弾には、非常に深刻な被害を与える能力がある。戦闘地域の外で無人機を使用することは非合法だ。戦闘地域の外では、警察が正当な法執行機関であり、警察は破壊的な武器を使用する前に、警告することが必要とされるのが一般的だ」
 シラキュース大学のWilliam Banks教授のように、違法ではないと主張する専門家もいたが、Anderson氏は米国は国際団体、国連機関などの「国際的な法コミュニティ」によって合法性が問われる可能性があると述べた。[2009年10月には、国連の特別調査官がこの件について報告書を提出したと報道された]
 前述したように、政府は、無人機による攻撃を許可したのが正確には誰で、攻撃対象をどのように選択しているのか、そして空爆に巻き込まれて死亡した市民の数について、これまで一切公表していない。
 一方で、パキスタンにおける無人機攻撃は、米国の安全性を揺るがしている。5月上旬にタイムズ・スクウェアで起こった爆破未遂事件に関して、パキスタンのタリバンは声明を出し、無人機攻撃への復讐だと述べている。
{この翻訳は抄訳で、別の英文記事の内容を統合しています}


---米軍:無人機爆撃の功罪 エリック・マシューソン大佐/ゲーリー・ソリス氏---
毎日新聞 2010年4月30日 東京朝刊
http://mainichi.jp/select/world/news/20100430ddm007030030000c.html

 「テロとの戦いの流れを変えうる素晴らしい技術」と米空軍が自賛する無人航空機。だが、「人間を超える力」が称賛される半面、最先端技術への過信と依存が、戦場をより説明責任から遠ざけ、「現場」を独走させるとの危惧(きぐ)もある。軍人と元軍人に、その功罪を聞いた。【ワシントン大治朋子】
◇体の負荷、恐怖感じずに操作--米空軍無人航空システム・タスクフォース代表、エリック・マシューソン大佐
--無人航空機と有人機を操縦するうえでの違いは。
◆F15戦闘機のパイロットを務めた後の10年間、無人機を操縦した。有人機の操作では、加減速時の負荷が体にかかる。広い視界の中に、小さく目標が見える。雑音の中で(敵の攻撃などの)恐怖を感じながらの作業になる。無人機の操作にはそういう問題はない。カメラのカラー映像は、テレビのように鮮明だ。武器を持っているかどうかも見える。そのぶん注意深く、客観的になれる。
--無人機を使うメリットは。
◆人間では限界があるところに使える。例えば24時間の偵察業務なら、有人機では交代用に複数のパイロットが必要になり(金のかかる)大型機が必要になる。無人機ならコストは安く、パイロットの疲労を心配する必要もない。我々は無人機を「瞬きしない目」と呼ぶ。地上軍が助けを求め、天候が悪く有人機だと出せない状況でも、無人機なら墜落の危険性を覚悟で出せる。対テロ戦略には完ぺきなシステムだ。
--無人機は非人間的で、安易な攻撃につながるとの声がある。
◆その意見には同意しない。無人機はむしろ人間的だ。映像は鮮明で、ライフルで狙う時に近い。アフガン戦争で、私の操縦する無人機が対空砲火を浴び、自分が撃墜されたと感じた。
--無人機による空爆で多くの市民が犠牲になっています。
◆5メートル以上目標を外した場合は誤爆とするが、その正確性は約95%。誤爆の原因の大半はミサイルやレーザーの故障、(悪天候などの)環境問題だ。個人の意見でいえば、市民の被害は最小限だ。非常に注意深い職務をしている誇りがある。
 ◇市民と戦闘員、画面で区別困難--元米陸軍士官学校教授(戦時国際法プログラム代表)ゲーリー・ソリス氏
--無人機の活用が進んでいます。
◆兵士の命を救う、低コストの無人機は、兵器としては素晴らしい。だが、問題はその使い方。ターゲテッド・キリング(標的殺害)で、多数の無実の人々が殺されているのは明らかだ。
--国際人道法違反の指摘もありますが。
 ◆無人機による標的殺害は、ジュネーブ条約第1追加議定書の文民と戦闘員を区別して攻撃するよう定めた規定(48条区別原則)や、過剰な民間人被害を禁じた規定(51条均衡原則)に反する疑いがある。米国は議定書を批准していないが、それ以前に成立した慣習法などを条文化したもので、国際社会が従うべきものだ。
 市民と戦闘員の「区別」を、無人機のモニター画面だけで判断するのは非常に難しい。過去の戦争では、敵は戦闘服を着ていたが、現在は武装勢力と市民が同じような服装をして、市民も(護身用に)銃を持つ。「均衡」の判断も難しい。仮に敵を区別できても、10人の市民に囲まれていたらどうか。全員を巻き添えにしてもよいのか。何人以上の被害なら「過剰」なのか。基準はない。司令官が現場で判断しているのが現状だ。
--殺害の対象も根拠も不明です。
◆その説明義務は米軍にはない。無人機は便利で、攻撃を安易にしやすい。米国内なら行き過ぎがあれば警察官でも裁かれるが、司令官には、誰も口をはさまない。だが、国際世論という「裁判所」はある。昨年9月、アフガニスタンで駐留ドイツ軍の要請を受けて米軍が空爆したケースでは、多数の民間人が死傷し、独国防省の幹部らが辞任した。国際社会やメディアからのプレッシャーは、戦場に説明責任を持ち込むことを可能にする。


---U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee Hearing:
“Drones II”
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Rayburn House Office Building
Written Testimony Submitted By
Kenneth Anderson
April 26, 2010
http://www.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/subcommittees/NS_Subcommittee/4.28.10_Drones_II/Anderson_Statement.pdf

Honorable Chairman and Members:
1. Introduction
2. My thanks to the Subcommittee, the Chairman and Members for inviting me to return to offer further testimony on the subject of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and “drone warfare.”
3.My name is Kenneth Anderson. I am a professor of law at Washington College of Law, American University, Washington DC, and a member of the Hoover Task Force on National Security and Law, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford CA. My areas of specialty include the laws of war and armed conflict, international law, and national security law. (A brief biography is attached to this statement.)
4.This testimony follows on earlier testimony that I offered to this Subcommittee on March 23, 2010, on the general strategic and legal issues surrounding the use of drones by both the US military and the CIA in counterterrorism operations worldwide. That earlier testimony, which I do not repeat here, is available at the Subcommittee website.1 (In addition, two additional background documents on this topic - an article in the Weekly Standard, “Predators Over Pakistan,” and a policy chapter in a Brookings Institution volume, “Targeted Killing in US Counterterrorism Strategy and Law,” are also downloadable at SSRN.com.)2
5. DOS Legal Adviser Harold Koh’s March 25, 2010 Statement
6.Harold Koh, Legal Adviser to the State Department, delivered an important speech on international law at the American Society for International Law on March 25, 2010, in which, for the first time, a senior lawyer - indeed, the most senior lawyer on international law - delivered a defense of the lawfulness of the US use of drone warfare.
7.As someone who has been a sharp critic of the silence of the administration’s senior lawyers on this crucial topic (indeed, in my earlier testimony before this Subcommittee, on March 23), I welcome and applaud the Legal Adviser’s forthright and robust statement. Although relatively short and, as the Legal Adviser noted, an authoritative and considered statement of US legal views rather than a formal legal opinion, it went a long way to assuaging concerns I had expressed on whether the administration’s lawyers would stand with the political leadership on so important an issue.
8.The Legal Adviser’s statement was noteworthy on several grounds. They include particularly the unmistakable and repeated distinction drawn between “armed conflict” in a strict legal sense and “self defense” as a separate basis for the use of force by the United States. In addition, the statement defended the development of such technologies and the efforts by the United States to develop technologically more sophisticated means of targeting and reducing collateral damage. It stated that there was no obligation to provide targets with “process” prior to striking. And it specifically stated that whether in armed conflict or self-defense, such operations did not violate the US domestic ban on “assassination.”
9.The comprehensiveness of this defense of drone warfare, on both armed conflict and self-defense grounds, is impressive and persuasive, and is a major statement of the US view of international law on this topic.
10.The fact that this statement was delivered by the Legal Adviser to the State Department sends an important signal that this is not simply the view of DOD, or the CIA, or any intelligence agency - but the view of the United States, expressed as its “opinio juris,” its considered view of its own obligations under international law, to the rest of the world.
11. The Distinction Between “Armed Conflict” and “Self-Defense”
12. As I testified on March 23, the fundamental question of drone warfare is not really the technological platform, but instead where and who operates it. On a traditional battlefield in the hands of the military, drones are simply another air support platform; issues surrounding use, targeting, and collateral damage are no different than for any other weapons system. The debate arises on two axes, one related to self-defense, and the other related to the role of the CIA.
13. Is it lawful to use drones in uses of force that do not constitute “armed conflict” with a non-state actor (Al Qaeda and similar groups) in a technical legal sense, because where the drone strike might take place is far away from the current places of hostilities? That question was answered firmly in the affirmative by the Legal Adviser’s statement; such strikes can be justified, even though separate and distinct from “armed conflict,” as lawful self-defense.
14. Such self-defense operations are not governed by the full panoply of treaty laws that attach to armed conflict - neither the full range of armed conflict law that applies conflicts between states, nor the limited Common Article 3 rules that apply to conflict with a non-state actor. Strikes outside of armed conflict can be undertaken under the doctrine of self-defense - and although lacking all the technical rules that only make sense in overt, army-against-army fighting, such self-defense operations must still adhere to fundamental customary law including, as the Legal Adviser noted, the principles of distinction and proportionality that are also foundations of the technical law of armed conflict. In other words, to say that these operations are not governed by treaty law applicable to overt warfare is not to say that they lack legal standards. On the contrary, they must adhere to the customary standards of necessity, distinction, and proportionality.
15. The Legal Adviser’s statement reaffirms and reinvigorates the traditional US view of self-defense, and I find little if anything in his statement that is inconsistent with - indeed, in my view it is a clear reaffirmation - of a speech in 1989 by then Legal Adviser Abraham Sofaer on the topic of transnational terrorism and self-defense.
16. The Lawful Role of the CIA
17. As I noted in my March 23 testimony, if one crucial issue about drone warfare is where it takes place - leading to the importance of the armed conflict/self-defense distinction - a second crucial issue is who is lawfully empowered to carry it out. In other words, the fault line in the argument over drone warfare is much less the weapon system than who uses it and where. In the hands of the military on the ordinary battlefield, it is not very different from other air platforms. The question, of course, is off the ordinary battlefield and in the hands of the CIA.
18. The lawfulness of the CIA’s operations under US domestic law is not at issue. The agency has been tasked by direct orders of the President, under the authority of a complex statute that provides for oversight and accountability within and between the political branches. The fundamental challenges come from influential parts of the “international law community” - NGOs, international organizations, activists, academics, UN officials, and others - who view the use of targeted killing as unlawful under international law, or likely so, and particularly so by the CIA and outside of the technical scope of armed conflict.
19. Drone warfare becomes controversial, in other words, almost entirely when it is used by the CIA - and in places outside of the Afghanistan, or a narrow slice of cross border regions with Pakistan. Used as a weapon in counterinsurgency by the US military, it is just another weapon. Used as a weapon in counterterrorism, however, directed against Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership away from the active locales of hostilities, whether further afield in Pakistan or still further afield in Yemen, Somalia, or elsewhere, by the civilian CIA - that is where the sharp arguments mostly take place.
20. The Legal Adviser nowhere mentions the CIA by name in his defense of drone operations. It is, of course, what is plainly intended when speaking of self-defense separate from armed conflict. One understands the hesitation of senior lawyers to name the CIA’s use of drones as lawful when the official position of the US government, despite everything, is still not to confirm or deny the CIA’s operations.
21. In my view, the next step in this evolving legal process should be to affirm what the Legal Adviser’s statement says without naming the CIA. That process might involve the US government, in a no doubt difficult interagency consultation, in establishing new mechanisms for acknowledging operations that are widely known, widely discussed even by senior officials - if not operationally, then at least for the “hypothetical” of asserting their legality. In my view, it would be best to establish a formal category of unacknowledged but also obviously not covert operations by the CIA, with their own mechanisms of Congressional oversight and accountability.
22. The Legal Adviser’s statement has announced the framework and done everything but say the words “CIA.” It is time to take the next step and say “the CIA.” The officers of the CIA who carry out these operations, whether planning or execution, merit the public acknowledgment that what they do is legal.
23. Congress ought to make clear, through pronouncement and resolutions and, even better, through legislation, that any attempts to use international or foreign legal process to go after these officers in pursuit of their duties at the intelligence agencies would be regarded as a serious and unfriendly act toward the United States. It is crucial that the two political branches send a single message that the United States stands behind its self-defense operations as such.
24. Distinctions in the CIA’s Roles in Drone Warfare
25. The distinction between operations in armed conflict, as a technical legal status, and self-defense operations raises a legal issue that has been at the center of some of the criticism of CIA operations. Some commentators, including eminent laws of war scholars, have suggested that the activities of the CIA operating drones (including from locales in the United States) in the context of the armed conflict in AfPak constitutes unlawful combatancy by CIA personnel.
26. The question is not an idle one, if the State Department’s position of a distinction between these two grounds for using force is accepted. The legal rules applicable to participants are different as between these two statuses. In an armed conflict, the rules by which combatants must distinguish themselves in order to qualify for combatant immunity apply, and there is a question as to whether that applies to CIA personnel whose activity is part of the armed conflict underway in the Afghanistan or Pakistan theatres.
27. I do not propose to offer here a detailed or definitive answer to the complex question of when and who is required, for example, to wear uniforms and what those must be in order to meet the requirements of the law of armed conflict. My understanding of the DOD view with regards to its own special forces in the early stages of the Afghanistan war, for example, was that context mattered and that US special forces, while commingled with Northern Alliance fighters, could dress as those militia fighters did, and meet the requirements. Context matters, including personnel flying a drone from an office in the United States.
28. In addition to the question of uniforms and marks identifying combatants, these questions also raise important questions for the United States, and DOD particularly, as to the lawful role of civilians in armed conflict. It is partly a question of the lawful role of civilians in support of US combatant forces, as well as when persons on the other side become lawful targets. The underlying question is the much-vexed topic in international law of war over what constitutes “direct participation in hostilities” (DPH). The views that most matter on this are those of the DOD, and I believe it is premature to opine on them until DOD has expressed an official view.
29. Similarly controversial and important is what constitutes the “armed conflict” in AfPak - does it cover all of Pakistan, so that these questions of DPH by CIA personnel matter as a matter of armed conflict law? Or are parts of Pakistan outside of the active border zones of overt hostilities - such that CIA operations there take place instead under the rationale of “self-defense,” and so outside of the technical rules of armed conflict, including the formal rules for combatancy? I do not have definitive views on these questions, but I believe they are appropriate to put to the administration, DOD as well as DOS and the CIA, and to encourage the executive to express a view that it believes can serve as a long-run basis for US practice and legal policy.
30. That said, I do not believe that the CIA’s current participation either in the theatre of hostilities or elsewhere is unlawful or contrary to international law under the laws of war or otherwise. There might, however, be useful prophylactic measures that could be taken to make that evident.
31. I believe it is appropriate for Congress to ask that the administration undertake a process to formulate a view of the participation of CIA personnel in an armed conflict and what that means - a process that would likely be difficult because of issues of interagency review. However, in order to put the CIA’s activities on the best long-run legal footing, I believe that Congress should urge the administration to undertake what might be an arduous process of consultation and formulation of views.
32. Why Ever the CIA? Why Not Always the US Military to Use Force?
33. Lurking just behind many of the questions about the lawfulness of the CIA’s use of drones, where and how, is a much bigger policy issue. Congress ought to address it forthrightly. Why should the CIA, or any other civilian agency, ever use force (leaving aside conventional law enforcement)? Even granting the existence of self-defense as a legal category, why ever have force used by anyone other than the uniformed military? Drones raise this question if for no other reason that they can be operated far away from the strike zone, whether by CIA or military personnel. Why ever have the CIA use force?
34. That question is in some sense beyond what a hearing such as this can answer, but I raise it because one way or another, it needs to be addressed. It is behind many of the criticisms that are perennial in this activity. For this testimony, suffice it to say that the United States and many, many other leading countries in the world have found that there are circumstances that both justify the use of covert force, and that serious judgments as to the avoidance of greater harms is best served not by overt military force, but by covert or clandestine force, using civilians.
35. Those judgments might in any instance turn out to be wrong, but as a matter of international practice, states have both possessed and utilized clandestine civilian agents, without acknowledging them, in the past and today. The CIA offers to the President the ability to undertake operations of self-defense on a covert basis that this country - and likewise its friends and enemies alike - has deemed essential since the founding of the CIA at least. I raise this because it is important to recognize that not infrequently, arguments against drones are really proxy for arguments against the very idea of the CIA using force. That is an important argument to have, perhaps, but better to have it on its own terms, not indirectly by arguing about drones.
36. Finally, to be clear, the use of drones, or other use of force by civilian CIA agents in covert operations is not contrary to international law insofar as it is an exercise of lawful self-defense. The traditional view of the United States, as expressed in 1989 and reaffirmed today, is sovereignty and territorial integrity are very important in international law, but they cannot be used to shield transnational terrorists who have found safe haven.
37. Targeting US Citizens
38. Press accounts that the Obama administration had affirmatively placed the radical cleric, Anwar Al-Awlaki, currently presumed hiding in Yemen with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), on the kill-or-capture list and, thus, subject to a drone targeted killing attack, raised some excited discussion in the United States. The fundamental question was whether, under international law or US domestic law, the US government owed a targeted individual some form of judicial process before targeting him or her, or whether perhaps it was unlawful to target the person at all in favor of attempting to arrest and bring for trial under a law enforcement model of counterterrorism.
39. Commentators have correctly noted that that Legal Adviser’s statement on drones covers not just targeted killing but, once seen in the context of a US citizen on the kill-or-capture list, is equally a statement that even a US citizen who has joined forces with transnational terrorists and is hiding abroad might be subject to targeted killing. The existing domestic law for making such a determination, the Legal Adviser’s statement implies, is sufficient, and there is no obligation in US or international law to provide other process, such as judicial review, before a possible strike. Moreover, this is not an act of assassination, within the meaning of the US domestic prohibition, according to the Legal Adviser’s statement. All of this seems to me correct as a matter of law and policy.
40. It bears noting, however, that the Legal Adviser’s distinction between armed conflict and self-defense is equally relevant here as in other contexts. That is, it is not necessary that, for example, Al-Awlaki, be a “combatant” to be subject to a strike by the CIA. The legal justification of self-defense is separately available as a basis to attack. The standard in that case is not “combatancy,” but the threat posed, immanence, and other traditional factors - including the US’s long embrace of “active self-defense,” meaning that a threat can be assessed on the basis of a pattern of activity already established in the past, without having to wait until a target is on the verge of acting.
41. Many of the critics of this policy in the United States seem not to appreciate that there is a distinction between the territorial United States, in which the CIA is not authorized to act, and extraterritorially.
42. Critics also frequently raise the spectre that all this is license for the CIA to attack an American - or frankly anyone - in, for example, London or Paris. As stated in my March 23 testimony, however, what is justified in the ungoverned regions of Somalia or Yemen is a different matter applied to places under the rule of law such as our friends and allies. The United States is not going to undertake a targeted killing in London. The diplomatic fiction of the “sovereign equality” of states makes it difficult to say, as a matter of international law that, yes, Yemen is different from France, but of course that is true.
43. The willingness of the Obama administration to assert plainly that it has no trouble targeting an American citizen who has taken up the cause of violence gainst the United States and its citizens is a positive sign of resolve in counterterrorism by the administration. For one thing, it lessens at least slightly the incentive of terrorist groups to recruit Americans, which is likely to be no small matter over the long term. But as to the fundamental propriety of targeting an American without judicial process, extraterritorially?
44. The policy is far from unprecedented. Suppose that an American scientist in the Cold War had decided to defect to the Soviet Union with vital nuclear secrets that went to the heart of the US strategic arsenal. US citizen, and not military, and not a combatant, because despite the existence of a Cold War, no actual military conflict was underway. The CIA finds that its best chance to remove the threat is a sniper attack on the US scientist in East Berlin as he attempts to enter the Soviet embassy. Far fetched? Not really. Not an armed conflict and not a “combatant” in a technical legal sense - a US citizen targeted without judicial process, abroad, and under rationales of self-defense. The same concepts apply today, with respect to transnational terrorists, including Americans who take up the cause with them.
45. A Role for Congress?
46. This testimony has highlighted several matters on which Congress could play an important and useful role, primarily in offering support to the policies undertaken by the administration. One of these is to encourage and provide opportunities for other senior lawyers in the intelligence and defense communities to affirm, amplify, and expand on what the Legal Adviser has said.
47. A second role for Congress - and a deeply important one - is to specifically name the CIA as under the protection, so to speak, of these legal views on self-defense. This is of great importance in order to make clear that line officers and legal officials of the CIA are not being put in the untenable position of being tasked to carry out policies for which they might later be accused of violations of international law. Congress needs to clarify its lawfulness, and frankly make clear that countries that seek to gainsay the US’s own considered legal view on this topic, including allies and NATO allies, such as unsupervised prosecutors in Spain or elsewhere, will discover that there are consequences.
48. Congress should also invite the administration to elaborate its views of CIA actions inside Pakistan, to state whether it thinks such activities are part of the on-going armed conflict, are separate from it, and how such views interact with legal doctrines of DPH. This is a topic on which there needs to be a coordinated legal view among DOS, DOD, CIA, DNI, and perhaps others.
49. Congress should explicitly endorse the Obama administration’s view that American citizenship does not preclude one from being targeted extraterritorially under laws of armed conflict, self-defense or US domestic law.
50.
Congress should be strongly supporting, through budget processes and otherwise, the development of more discrete and discriminating drone-and-missile technologies to reduce collateral damage to the minimum that technology can allow, as well as to improve targeting identification.
51.
Congress should invite the CIA to share what it believes it can regarding collateral damage involved in drone strikes.
52.
If, as some commentators have suggested, the use of force threshold is gradually shifting toward smaller and more discrete uses of force by US actors, made possible by evolving drone technologies, then Congress should revisit the rules regarding oversight, review, and accountability to ensure that they take account of emerging realities about the use of force as perhaps a substitute - and highly desirable substitute - for large scale overt war.
53.
Congress should make clear that it rejects utterly the argument made popular in the press in recent months that drone warfare is somehow dishonorable or that it somehow reduces the disincentives for the US to use violence, or that it makes violence too easy for the United States because its forces are not at risk, with the barely concealed implication that if American servicemen and women are not actively at risk of getting killed, because drones make it possible to take the fight to the enemy without having to fight through whole countries on the ground to get there - that drone warfare, that is, is somehow illegitimate, dishonorable, unlawful, or an enabler of the US to let loose its unrestrained propensity to use violence. It is none of those things, and Congress should say so.
54. Conclusion
55. I thank the Subcommittee, chairman and members, for this opportunity testify. Please be in touch with me should you have any further questions or seek additional views.

Kenneth Anderson
April 28, 2010, Washington DC

1 コメント:

匿名 さんのコメント...

アメリカ本国でも結構問題になってる兵器ですよね。
使用禁止条約が締結される動きはないのでしょうか??