UN Lawyer Leading Drone Inquiry Calls Obama Speech 'Significant' and 'Historic'

[bigtree]

UN rapporteur Emmerson hails 'historic' Obama drone vow

The lawyer leading a UN drone inquiry has praised a speech by US President Barack Obama as a "significant step towards increased transparency".

Ben Emmerson said Mr Obama had set out more clearly than ever before the legal justifications for targeted killing . . .

Mr Emmerson, a United Nations human rights special rapporteur, launched an inquiry into drones in January . . . examining 25 attacks, in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, the Palestinian territories and Somalia . . .

"It sets out more clearly and more authoritatively than ever before the administration's legal justifications for targeted killing, and the constraints that it operates under," he said.

"The publication of the procedural guidelines for the use of force in counter-terrorism operations is a significant step towards increased transparency and accountability."

read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22653476#TWEET766839

related:

remarks by the President at the National Defense University, May 23
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022893512

"We wish Mr Obama had pledged an accounting for the civilian deaths caused by drone strikes, and some form of reparations, but he did not. He should do so," says the New York Times in an editorial.

Commenting on the heckler, the Los Angeles Times says: "Obama's careful and almost deferential response suggested that he is closely attuned to such complaints. Rather than dismiss [her] as a heckler, the president engaged her, asking her to let him explain but also pausing to listen as she continued to talk while security closed in around her."

[graham4anything]

1. +a zillion on the top part, of course, President Obama once again outsmarted the haters

big major win for mankind and big win for President Obama and Hillary Clinton who keep roping the dopes.

and big minus a zillion to the rude, obnoxious, person who wouldn't let the president speak.
That person and Joe Wilson in the congress are one and the same.
Rude, rude, rude.
Just makes the protesters/altmedia look silly, silly, silly.

As someone else's signature states, I love waking up every day in a world where President Obama is the President of the United
States of America. Simply the best.

[ProSense]

2. Thanks for posting.

Watch this sink!

[bigtree]

3. well

I'm not really up for debating the issues surrounding the president's initiatives (busy today) - I would highlight the fact that there are serious and significant steps that need to be carried out by Congress and the administration before anyone can be sanguine about any of this. I am a bit cynical about the outcome, but I don't think I could have expected a more determined and insistent speech from Pres. Obama than the one he gave. On one hand, it's surprising, really, in its challenge to the cw in dc about our terror war; although, it is well in line with the thinking of a majority of Americans who aren't buying that these measures and practices are making us more secure.

Best part is to see that he is the man that many of us have said he would be at this point in his daunting and engaging presidency.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. It shouldn't

Obama did what I believe an American President should always be willing to do; make his best legal case, in detail, supporting any use of lethal force. Sadly we have had other Presidents who would not have felt any need to do so, relying instead on pumped up patriotism to justify anything they chose to do in the name of "national security". I was impressed by Obama's speech - by his head on addressing some very controversial matters in detail. It furthers open and informed debate, and that lies at the heart of any truly functional democracy.

[ProSense]

6. Agree, it was a

comprehensive speech.

President Obama: Congress briefed on all drone strikes; supports additional oversight
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022891534

President Obama: Repeal the AUFM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022891567

Obama on Gitmo: will appoint senior envoy, restart transfers, call on Congress to lift restrictions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022891615

[Cha]

12. NO!

[Scurrilous]

5. K & R

[quinnox]

7. good speech, nice to see Obama moving towards the left on the drones issue

[Hekate]

8. 5th Rec

[reusrename]

9. War Crimes.

Let's not forget what the UN investigation is all about:

"[It is] alleged that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. Christof Heyns … has described such attacks, if they prove to have happened, as war crimes. I would endorse that view."


http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2012/oct/25/un-inquiry-us-drone-strikes?cat=world&type=article


Outrage at CIA's deadly 'double tap' drone attacks

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at-cias-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-8174771.html

Will these crimes just be more water under bridge for this administration? Past mistakes that don't need to be prosecuted?

Obama might already be convinced that General Petraeus is a war criminal (I certainly believe it) and this could very likely be why he had to let him go. He did resign very promptly once Emmerson was appointed UN rapporteur leading this investigation.

from juancole.com

The United Nations will Investigate Civilian Deaths in US Drone Strikes

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism writes

>>>snip

The London-based lawyer became the second senior UN official in recent months to label the tactic of deliberately targeting rescuers and funeral-goers with drones ‘a war crime’. That practice was first exposed by the Bureau for the Sunday Times in February 2012.

‘[It is] alleged that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. Christof Heyns … has described such attacks, if they prove to have happened, as war crimes. I would endorse that view,’ said Emmerson.


>>>snip

Also, under 18 USC 2441 - War crimes, this can be a capital offense if people are killed.

(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;

Folks should realize that any grave breach of Geneva is an actual war crime under our own US domestic law.

The follow-up drone strikes are, in all probability, prosecutable as offenses under the Geneva Conventions treaty, particularly the Fourth Convention, Part 1, Article 3, to wit:

...the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: noncombatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,


So a bomb aimed at those retrieving wounded from a previous strike would fall under this category, as well as provisions pertaining to

"the protection of civilians providing aid to the wounded"

under the first Convention. - barracuda

We know the CIA was running the drone program when these strikes occurred.

This sure looks like an easily proven, bona fide war crime, that can be traced back to the General?

Did Petraeus give the order?

Does anyone even care anymore?

[Hekate]

10. Are they investigation BUSH, since it started with him?

Are they? Are they investigating BUSH, who killed hundreds of thousands in a war based on a lie? BUSH and the Neocons, who could not be BOTHERED to narrowly target a goddamned thing, but instead threw bombs at Iraq and Afghanistan like 4th of July firecrackers and tossed our military men around like toy soldiers in a sand box.

Until the UN et al. start doing that, they can all take a flying leap, afaic.

[freshwest]

14. Looks like the list came from Rand Paul. Fuck him and his daddy.

[Hekate]

15. Amen

They disgust me. And their water carriers.

[freshwest]

16. Cranky billionaire media converts.

[reusrename]

24. There is no statute of limitations.

An Ohio man was convicted two years ago for Nazi war crimes committed during WWII:

?t=1305197771

[bigtree]

19. right, and don't just dismiss the fact that the LEAD investigator is encouraged and welcomes

. . . the President's initiatives.

I think it makes no sense at all to just brush past these initiatives which relate to what we're asking for from the President. Sure, he's got a long way to go before anyone opposed to the drones and the killings can say that the administration is being held responsible, but, we often tend to brush right past welcome initiatives like this and leave them without support needed to overcome the certain republican response.

[reusrename]

23. I agree, and I certainly don't want to brush past any of those other issues.

Sometimes I believe this president has accomplished a miracle of sorts. I was positive we would be in an all-out nuclear confrontation by now, and I still think we would have been were it not for Obama. No one else could figure out how to put on the brakes. We were in free-fall into fascism. He has given the world a moments pause to stop and catch its breath. And that's got to be the absolute most you could ever expect from any one person.

What I am discussing is whether or not it will ever be possible to hold war criminals responsible for their crimes. The UN investigation is welcome. I hope it precipitates legal proceedings in some court of law. It could be what causes the dam to finally break.

I have a funny (old-fashioned, I guess) way of looking at some things. War crimes is one of those things. Some very decent folks came up with a system of justice that makes war into a legal enterprise. I'm not saying that this system is ideal, but it is all we have. When this system is set aside it makes everything else much more dangerous.

Right now our Roberts' Supreme Court would probably overturn any convictions against any US war criminal convicted of any violation of any US statute supporting the Nuremberg Principles. This includes crimes against peace such as waging an unjust war, war crimes committed during such a war such as acts of torture, and crimes against humanity such as genocide.

[bigtree]

25. good points

. . . the U.S. certainly considers their judgment supreme to any tribunal outside the country. Of course, it doesn't serve any outside view of their ability to render impartial judgments on their own activities and actions that our Supreme Court and our national legislature can effectively shield them from prosecution and accountability in any court of law.

The answer, I think, still lies within our own democratic system of government (for better or worse). That's the way that our constitution intends; to render such judgments unto the people. Alas, we still appear wont of a cudgel weighty and motivating enough to rally the people to remedy these abuses and crimes.

[reusrename]

26. Aha! We do possess just such a cudgel!

A lot of folks have forgotten it, but we do have a Supreme Court Justice who went on an overnight camping trip with a defendant while this defendant was appearing before his court.

Then, when he was pressed to recuse himself over this ex parte contact, he instead wrote a 21-page memo detailing exactly why he is above the law and doesn't need to comply with it.

The federal recusal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), requires that “any justice . . .
shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be
questioned.”

Win or lose, Scalia should be impeached over this. It is the correct political fight to wage. Make his apologists explain why it isn't a problem for him and Cheney to get together for a sleepover during the case.

This is a discussion that should be had. This is the issue that should determine who we elect to the House. This is how we begin to set our own course. Demand justice.


And then there is Justice Thomas...

[Pirate Smile]

11. Kick & rec

[Cha]

13. THIS is a Keeper! I should hope so but you

never know.

mahalo bigtree

[DevonRex]

17. Excellent news. It was. Anyone who paid attention knew it at the time.

And he even managed to be respectful to a disrespectful protester, in such a way that people listened to her more than they would have otherwise.

[Comrade Grumpy]

18. Excellent speech. Let's see the follow-up.

[bigtree]

20. you know the outcome is going to be leveraged against whatever republicans present

... and defend.

No one, not even the President, imagines he's going to completely get his way on this. What he's really looking for is to invest Congress in the operation and targeting of the drones; as well as to bring more specificity to the lingering 'war on terror.'

If you were to assume that the president would get his way on every initiative here, he'd still be heavily invested for the foreseeable future in some aspect of military maneuvering to counter whatever he perceives as threats from individuals or groups bent on harming Americans or our interests.
The most significant thing he's done here, however, is to provide a progressive beginning to the debate and insisted that there actually be one.

[ProSense]

21. Full statement:

UN expert in human rights and counter-terrorism welcomes US President’s speech

GENEVA (24 May 2013) – United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, Ben Emmerson, today welcomed US President Barack Obama’s speech, and the publication of policy principles governing counter-terrorism operations, including targeted killings.

“This extremely important speech breaks new ground in a number of key respects. It affirms for the first time this Administration's commitment to seek an end to its armed conflict with Al Qaida as soon as possible; it reminds the world that not every terrorist threat or terrorist attack can be equated with a situation of continuing armed conflict; it sets out more clearly and more authoritatively than ever before the Administration's legal justifications for targeted killing, and the constraints that it operates under; it clarifies, and proposes improvements to, the procedures for independent oversight; and it sets out the steps the President is now resolved to take in order to close Guantanamo Bay.

“The publication of the procedural guidelines for the use of force in counter-terrorism operations is a significant step towards increased transparency and accountability. It also disposes of a number of myths, including the suggestion that the US is entitled to regard all military-aged males as combatants, and therefore as legitimate targets.

“I will be engaging with senior Administration officials in Washington over the coming days and weeks in an effort to put some flesh on the bones of the announcements made today.

“The President’s historic statement today is to be welcomed as a highly significant step towards greater transparency and accountability; and as a declaration that the US war with Al Qaida and its associated forces is coming to an end. The President's principled commitment to ensuring the closure of Guantanamo is an utterly essential step.

“His acknowledgement that the time has come to tackle not only the manifestations of terrorism but also its social, economic and political causes around the world - to seek long term solutions - signals a shift in rhetoric and a move in policy emphasis towards promoting a strategy of sustainable and ethical counter-terrorism, consistent with Pillar I of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy*.”

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13355&LangID=E

[bigtree]

22. thanks!

[Jamaal510]

27. K&R