2010年9月9日木曜日

ALCU 殺害者リスト作成は法律違反

ALCUは「暗殺は法律違反」と政府を提訴した。
 ACLUなどは、米軍やCIAが、戦争地域以外で米国民をテロ容疑者として
殺害するのは憲法や国際法に違反するとして、差し止めを求める訴えを
ワシントンの連邦地裁に起こした。

アウラキ
・米国市民のアラビア半島のアルカイダの指導者
・米財務省により資産凍結等の措置。
・訴追なし。
・テキサス州陸軍基地の銃乱射事件の犯人と接触
・米機爆破未遂事件の犯人と接触

911以降、議会がアルカイダ組織に対して軍による武力攻撃を許可。
CIAは、パキスタンやイエメンでUAVによる攻撃で、アルカイダ容疑者を
殺害した。

2002年、CIAは、イエメンでUAVにより米国民を殺害した経緯がある。

CIA本部で操縦されるUAVを使った攻撃は、国際法違反の可能性があると
指摘されていたが、決着はついていなかったようだ。

軍内部で、事故死や戦闘死等に見せかけて、暗殺や殺害した例が、報道
されたことがあったが、最近は、あまり見ない。
軍の上官が、不正を行った場合、内部告発ができず、部下は黙認せざる
を得ないのだろう。調査官が真実を報告しても、ねじ曲げられるのかも
しれない。突然の配属替えもあるかもしれない。
「不名誉除隊は避けたい」となると選択範囲は少ない。
民間人だともっと単純なのかもしれしない。

UAVによる誤爆が報道されたことがあったが、殺害が目的だったのだろうか。

米国産テロリスト増加か
旧ブラックウォーター 任務遂行中
CIA テロリスト狩り
米無人機は違法か
オバマドクトリン


---テロ容疑の米国民『暗殺は法律違反』 人権団体が政府提訴---
2010年9月1日 朝刊
http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/world/news/CK2010090102000043.html

 【ワシントン=嶋田昭浩】有力な人権団体「全米市民自由連合(ACLU)」などは三十日、米軍や米中央情報局(CIA)が、戦争地域以外で米国民をテロ容疑者として殺害するのは憲法や国際法に違反するとして、差し止めを求める訴えをワシントンの連邦地裁に起こした。
 米政府は、昨年十二月の米デルタ機爆破未遂事件などにかかわったとみて米国籍のイスラム過激派指導者アンワル・アウラキ師らの行方を追っており、差し止め訴訟は、同師らに対する暗殺作戦の阻止が狙いという。
 アウラキ師は、米国生まれで、二〇〇一年ごろには南部バージニア州のモスク(イスラム教礼拝所)でイマーム(導師)を務めていた。その後、イエメンへ渡ったが、昨年十一月にテキサス州の陸軍基地で十三人が死亡した銃乱射事件や米機爆破未遂事件の犯人と接触があったとされる。
 米財務省は今年七月、アウラキ師をイエメンを拠点とする国際テロ組織アルカイダ系勢力「アラビア半島のアルカイダ」の指導者と認定。資産凍結などの措置をとった。
 だが、アウラキ師は訴追されておらず、ACLUは「裁判なしに当局が人の命を奪えるのは、他人の身体に重大な危険が差し迫った場合だけだ」と強調。当局が、判断基準を明確にしないままテロ容疑者の殺害リストを作成するのは、無実の人間を誤って攻撃する恐れもあるとした。ACLUによると、アウラキ師のほかに氏名不詳の米国民少なくとも二人が殺害リストに登載されているという。
 CIAは二〇〇二年に中東イエメンで無人機による攻撃で米国民を殺害。訴訟を機にこうした暗殺作戦への批判が高まりそうだ。


---Can the CIA Put a U.S.-Born al Qaeda Figure on its "Kill List"?---
By Alex Kingsbury
Posted: September 7, 2010
http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/09/07/can-the-cia-put-a-us-born-al-qaeda-figure-on-its-kill-list.html

An ACLU lawsuit seeks to block the targeting of radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki

The American Civil Liberties Union is challenging the Obama administration's alleged inclusion of a radical, Yemen-based cleric on a "kill list" of foreign terrorists. What makes this case particularly salient is that the cleric, al Qaeda propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki, is an American citizen. Can the United States target one of its citizens without, at a minimum, due process? In this situation, legal experts say, citizenship provides no protection-and, in any event, the facts of the ACLU's case are unlikely to even get a full court hearing.

U.S. officials say al-Awlaki is linked to, among other incidents, the Fort Hood shooting in Texas and the would-be underwear bomber of last Christmas. CIA chief Leon Panetta, in a television interview this summer, noted that al-Awlaki is "first and foremost a terrorist, and we're going to treat him like a terrorist."

The ACLU suit, filed last week in federal court, relies heavily on media reports that officials early this year put al-Awlaki on a terrorist "kill list" that permits the use of lethal force "without charge, trial, or conviction." Moreover, the suit says that the process gives officials "sweeping authority to impose extrajudicial death sentences in violation of the Constitution and international law." Both the Justice Department and the CIA insist that the actions are legal. "This agency acts in strict accord with American law," says Marie Harf, a CIA spokesperson.

The case raises related legal questions about the use of armed drones, one of the most controversial (and, say officials, effective) counterterrorism programs, beyond the conventionally defined limits of a battlefield. Perhaps most importantly, says John Radsan, a law professor and former CIA assistant general counsel, "this case brings into sharp focus a central legal question: Does membership in al Qaeda subject someone to the laws of armed conflict?"

But legal experts don't expect the courts to agree to hear the case. "If a lawsuit is inevitably going to lead to the disclosure of classified information, then the courts usually don't get involved in hearing it," says Robert Turner, who heads the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia.

In some instances, the government must go to court and invoke the "state secrets privilege," a move that has quashed more than a dozen terrorism or intelligence-related lawsuits since the 9/11 attacks. Other times, the courts rule on procedural grounds that the plaintiffs, in this case both the ACLU and al-Awlaki's father, a Yemeni citizen, lack legal standing. "I think the ACLU has filed this case to prompt more public and legal debate about the drone program, which has not received, in their minds, the attention that it should," Radsan says.

The drone program has attracted neither the scrutiny nor the outrage directed at the detention of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, though the legal pillars supporting both programs are closely related. International and domestic law allows for the use of lethal force against groups and individuals that pose a threat.

Following the 9/11 attacks, Congress approved the use of military force against the al Qaeda network and since then suspected al Qaeda figures have been killed by CIA drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen. The CIA and the Justice Department both maintain the legality of the drone program, which is not formally acknowledged by the government, but is often discussed unofficially. Indeed, it has been called one of the CIA's least secret operations.

In a rare and carefully worded public defense, State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh told the annual convention of the American Society of International Law in March that "U.S. targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war."

Anticipating the kind of legal challenges raised in the suit filed this week, Koh noted that "some have suggested that the very act of targeting a particular leader of an enemy force in an armed conflict must violate the laws of war. But individuals who are part of such an armed group are belligerents and, therefore, lawful targets under international law."Given that legal justification, says Turner, al-Awlaki "has the same rights as a private in the German Panzer Corps during the Second World War-he's got the right to wave the white flag and surrender or continue fighting.


---Drone Attacks - The Proliferation Of A New Form Of Warfare---
by Aleksandra Bielska
August 27, 2010
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/08/27/drone-attacks-the-proliferation-of-a-new-form-of-warfare/

According to the Pakistan Daily Times, 13 suspected terrorists and seven civilians died in the most recent US drone attack in the Pakistani region of Northern Waziristan on 24 August 2010. Even though US drone attacks take place almost daily, the international community largely refrains from discussing their long-term consequences, which are highly likely to include the increasingly widespread application of the drone technology.

It is highly likely that the daily targeting of terrorists by drones operated by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the US Department of Defense (DoD), the support of this form of warfare by the current US government, the impression of impunity conveyed by the relatively muted response of the international community, and advantages that drone attacks can have over alternative solutions from the users’ point of view will encourage countries, such as Israel, Iran, Algeria, China, Turkey, India, and non-state actors, such as the Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah, to increase the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for launching of targeted attacks against their perceived enemies.

Most recently this trend has been evidenced by the development of UAV capability by Iran which, according to BBC, presented its first drone bomber on 22 August 2010.

From the beginning of the global war on terror, the US military and the CIA have used drones to target suspected terrorists. There are two separate drone programs: the military one which operates in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the CIA program that extends further, reachingcountries such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. In his special report, Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, and arbitrary executions mentioned that the “first credibly reported” assassination by a CIA drone took place on 3 November 2002. It targeted Qaed Senyan al-Harithi, an al-Qaeda operative allegedly involved in the planning of the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.

The use of drones has increased under the administration of President Barack Obama. The use of drones by the CIA has become a hallmark of antiterrorist operations that have been conducted since the Agency has been led by its current director, Leon Panetta. As the New York Times reported, the drone campaign in Pakistan has further intensified since seven CIA agents died in the suicide attack in Afghanistan in December 2010. Since this incident, the number of attacks has increased from one per week to one per day.

Philip Alston claims that currently “more than 40 countries” have access to drone technology. He adds that some countries, “including Israel, Russia, Turkey, China, India, Iran, the United Kingdom and France either have or are seeking drones that also have the capability to shoot laser-guided missiles ranging in weight from 35 pounds to more than 100 pounds.” Also terrorist groups, such as the Lebanese organization Hezbollah, have obtained drones and may be able to use them not only to conduct surveillance but also to launch targeted attacks.

Among state actors, the motivation for the increased interest in UAV targeting may vary from user to user. As Michael Boyle from the Scottish University of St. Andrews said, drones can be employed to attack “terrorist operatives in places where there’s limited reach.” As a result, the increased use of drones is highly likely amongcountries such as Israel, Algeria, China, Colombia, India or Turkey; that is, among those that struggle with terrorist units that sometimes operate in remote mountainous or desert areas.

Moreover, as terrorist groups active in these countries often find “safe-heavens” in cross-border territories and neighboring states, the application of UAVs may be seen as a way to reach terrorists hiding abroad. Finally, despite potential moral, ethical, and legal concerns, targeted killing by drones still meets relatively little attention from media and almost no objection from the international community. This contributes to the impression of impunity, which is dangerous as it can be inviting. The apparent lack of serious consequences is evident when we consider experience not only of the US, but also of Israel.

After the US and Russia, Israel is probably the best known from its use of drones for launching of targeted attacks. Israeli strikes take place mostly on Palestinian territories, primarily in the Gaza Strip. Nonetheless, reports saying that Israeli drones spotted Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut, but that the idea of killing him was finally aborted, suggest that Israel may extend its drone campaign abroad. Israeli experience clearly shows that in comparison with alternative solutions, such as operations of civil or military forces, the use of drones seems to generate less controversy and it appears to be less risky, especially regarding the well-being of foreign relations.

This is evidenced by the recent affair related to the alleged killing of a Hamas leader Mahmoud al Mabhouh by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, which operated in Dubai. The consequences for Israel of the unprecedented investigation into this incident contrast with the relatively mild international response to information about flights of Israeli drones over Lebanon or targeted attacks by US UAVs in Pakistan.

The killing in Dubai hotel resulted in the thorough investigation during which the local police used CCTV recordings to recreate almost every move of the alleged killers and their victim, from the moment they entered to the moment they left the country. The police described the modus operandi and released photos and personal information of suspected assassins. Authorities in Dubai identified 27 people involved in the strike and Interpol added 11 participants of the operation to its “most wanted” list. All this combined with the use by alleged assassins of fake British, Irish, French, Australian and German passports, a fact to which Great Britain, Australia and Ireland each reacted by expelling one of the local Israeli diplomats.

As a result of the Dubai affair, regardless of whether Mossad was really involved in the assassination, the environment in which Israeli intelligence services operated has forever changed. While considering their next move, Israeli planners will need to account for the increased vigilance of local police, widespread use of CCTV technologies, attentiveness of the media, and watchfulness of ordinary citizens now alerted for the possibility of encounter with foreign civil special operation units. Needless to say, from the Israeli point of view, these new difficulties can represent another argument in favor of the increased application of drones.

According to the Washington Times, which relied on information from the Israeli Air Force, the Heron TP drone introduced by Israel in February 2010 has the capability to attack targets in Iran. This Israeli announcement came as a response to the Iranian plans of launching of a UAV bomber that, as Fox News claimed, was intended to reach Israel. Hitherto, however, the Karrar bomber, first drone bomber presented by Iran, has a reach of 1000 km (620 miles) which is too little to attack Israeli targets. Nevertheless, it is sufficient to reach US targets in the Persian Gulf. Moreover, it is likely that this aircraft, called a “messenger of death” by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will be a subject of further development, and its capabilities will be upgraded so that it could reach Israeli nuclear facilities and cities as remote as Tel Aviv.

It appears that in case of a military confrontation between Iran and the US or Iran and Israel, drone technologies will be available to both sides of the conflict. When compared to the unilateral use of UAVs by the US in Pakistan or by Israel in the Gaza Strip, this will be a novel dynamic which surely merits further attention and analysis.

What once seemed to be a science-fiction-kind of event slowly became a daily reality. Although more decisive criticism of drone attacks by the international community, official investigations into similar incidents, legal actions, or fierce diplomatic reactions by a country whose territory is affected without authorization are likely to slow down the spreading of this form of warfare, they are unlikely to utterly stop the proliferation. Considering advantages that, from the user’s point of view, can relate to the employment of drones, unless drone attacks will be banned by an international agreement, it is unlikely that their application by new actors and in new places will cease.

In light of the above, the international community needs a UAV-related debate that would include informed analysis of present occurrences and likely future trends. Such a debate should address multifaceted character of the issue, including not only the consideration of moral and legal aspects, but also of the psychological impact that targeted killings have on drone operators (the possible development of “Playstation mentality” mentioned by Alston). It should engage authoritative policymakers, scholars, legal experts and other people with knowledge and understanding relevant to carry out an informed and beneficial discussion aimed at the introduction of international rules that would identify constraints, introduce a well-thought out supervision, and define sanctions helpful in dealing with uncontrolled proliferation of this new form of warfare.

0 コメント: