They are an emotive and symbolic issue, says Kim Sengupta
- Tory MPs join calls for urgent investigation into Isis 'hit list'
- Q&A: Was the action approved by David Cameron legal?
-
Profile: The man who advised on the legality of drone strikes
Flights over Syria, which accounted for only 10 per cent of the UK’s air missions in the region in January, had risen to 40 per cent by May, although these were for reconnaissance only until the killing of the British jihadists on 21 August. The unmanned Reapers flying the missions have been moved from Afghanistan where the UK has carried out hundreds of strikes alongside the US for years.
The drone attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq claimed many lives, but they were of foreigners, and there was relatively little fuss about them over here. What is causing controversy now, of course, is that two British nationals have been killed by British Reapers, with the question asked whether the Government is allowed to execute without trial.
The US faced similar questions after a drone was used to assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, in Yemen. Before and since then, US drones have killed hundreds of foreigners, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia with their use rising dramatically since Barack Obama, the holder of the Nobel Peace Prize, became President.
The Obama administration held that the targeting of Awlaki, the “Bin Laden of the Internet”, was justified because he posed a threat to American interest and citizens. A Congressional act which authorised a global war against al-Qaeda was cited as a key factor.
David Cameron told MPs that there was full legal cover for the strikes which targeted Reyaad Khan from Cardiff and Ruhul Amin from Aberdeen. The Government maintains that it can take pre-emptive action to counter a security threat either home or abroad.
Read more: David Cameron draws up 'kill list' of Isis fighters
The Government may now face legal action from the families of Khan and Amin. This would not be the first time that a British government has been accused of a “shoot to kill” policy, the deaths of the three IRA operatives in Gibraltar a prominent recent case.
British jihadist killed in drone strike linked with UK terror plots
PM under pressure to explain legal basis for drone attack
But drones have become an emotive and symbolic issue as bringers of death from the sky, operated from an airbase in Nevada or, in the case of Khan and Amin, from an RAF base in Lincolnshire. It is a method of killing that has generated deep concern among human rights groups.
Less questions were being asked about the deployment of drones when only foreign lives were being taken (AP)
But the unmanned aircraft are ideal for asymmetric, low intensity warfare of the kind being waged across swathes of the globe. They are hugely cheaper to produce and run than manned warplanes and do not have the risk of pilots being captured. We saw how Isis treat downed pilots with Muath al-Kasasbeh, the Jordanian air force officer who was burned to death by his captors after crashing his plane in Syria.
For the British Government and military the war against Isis is an ideal opportunity to use drones and be more open about doing so .
When The Independent revealed last year that the Reapers were being readied for Syria, a senior army officer asserted that they would be used in counter-terrorist operations even without a Commons vote. “Would the vast majority of people really object if Reapers are used in a kinetic capacity rescuing hostages? Would they really complain if Reapers are used to take out Mohammed Emwazi [Jihadi John]?” he asked.
Drones are here to stay and will be increasingly prevalent. The protests in the US about casualties caused by American strikes has not translated into public protests. There were no marches demanding justice for Awlaki.
The Pakistani government routinely, and loudly, complained about US drone strikes on its territory causing deaths. Yet the country proudly announced yesterday that it has carried out its first ever attack using locally produced drones called Burraq, or the Prophet’s Horse.
copy http://www.independent.co.uk/new
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário