A target’s view of assassination

The Independent reports on the target of he US drone attacks and the personal security measures he now takes to protect himself and his family and children. In the article he is quoted and repeats the statement that the drone campaign is one of individual assassination.  I have written previously on this blog and on storify opposing the use of drones and assassination as anti-terrorist tactics and its legality or otherwise.  The US have a different legal system and tradition, but throughout the ’80s the UK maintained the principle of civil primacy in its domestic anti-terrorist campaigns. The story though is as much about humanity rather than politics.

I know the Americans think me an opponent of their drone wars. They are right; I am. Singling out people to assassinate, and killing nine of our innocent children for each person they target, is a crime of unspeakable proportions. Their policy is as foolish as it is criminal, as it radicalises the very people we are trying to calm down.

I am aware that the Americans and their allies think the Peace Committee is a front, and that we are merely creating a safe space for the Pakistan Taliban. To this I say: you are wrong. You have never been to Waziristan, so how would you know?

 

The Law governing war has moved since 1939, it is more comprehensive, not least because the UN Charter, makes aggressive war illegal. The storify explores the issues of legality and effectiveness but the Indy brings to life the reality of this pursuit, in what may be bad intelligence. It’s one reason we need courts. we’ll see what happens in the EU Court and the European Court of Human Righs, Britain’s Drone Strikes and support of the US campaign are going to judicial review in Europe, because the parliamentary sovereignty gives the MPs taking the case no other option.

Comments are closed.