Exclusive: Drones "inhumane", dead al Qaeda man's family says

(Reuters) - The brother of al Qaeda's second-in-command, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike, said Washington's use of the remote-controlled weapons is inhumane and makes a nonsense of its claims to champion human rights.

U.S. officials said on Tuesday that Libyan-born al Qaeda operative Abu Yahya al-Libi was killed by a drone strike in Pakistan, in what was described as a major blow to the militant group.

The attack is likely to fuel an increasingly fierce debate about the legality and morality of the drones, which have become one of the chief U.S. weapons against al Qaeda but which opponents say stretch the definition of the legitimate use of lethal force.

"The United States talks human rights and freedoms for all, but the method they used to kill him is savage," Abu Bakr al-Qayed, brother of al-Libi, told Reuters on Wednesday in a telephone interview.

"The way the Americans killed him is heinous and inhumane," he said, speaking from the town of Wadi Otba, south of the Libyan capital. "We are in the 21st century and they claim to be civilized and this is how they take out people."

"Regardless of my brother's ideology, or beliefs, he was a human being and at the end of the day deserves humane treatment," he said.

For years considered a covert Central Intelligence Agency program, the unmanned aircraft can be remotely piloted from thousands of kilometers (miles) away and can fire missiles at targets at the push of a button.

White House officials say there is nothing in international law that forbids the use of the drones and that, by killing dangerous insurgents, they are making Americans safer.

That view has been challenged by authorities in Pakistan, who are angry because many of the strikes have happened on their soil, and by rights campaigners.

Civil liberties groups argue that the strikes are illegal because they take place outside an active battlefield, meaning the rules of law which allow a combatant to kill their opponent do not apply.

More at http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/ ... B820120606

If we have a policy against assassination, how does a drone strike fit in?

Aside from the fact that the "victim" was not an American citizen, this use of drones does raise some similar issues to those cases.

If we have a policy against assassination, how does a drone strike fit in?

(I happen to think assassination is a very good way to fight wars, but "they" don't ask for my opinion.)

Precision strike operation. If we used a fighter with a laser guided bomb on that target would it be any different...besides the larger blast/fragmentation kill radius?

Do we have a policy that allows for air strikes against non-military targets, or non-combatant personnel?

If so, that starts sounding like assassination.

D.P.H. "Direct Participant in Hostilities". If they are participating in a tangible way; logistics, intel, communications, etc... they qualify as combatants.

Not wearing a uniform and/or using human shields, doesn't actually immunize them, from being a military target.

All academic as far as I'm concerned.

I think when at war the target should be the highest possible military executive.

I know, it's not "civilized" to go after the supreme commander.

Bullshit, IMO.

<shrugs>

This operation is consistent with your doctrine then, because it was a counter leadership operation and he was second in the chain of command at AQ.

Aside from the fact that the "victim" was not an American citizen, this use of drones does raise some similar issues to those cases.

If we have a policy against assassination, how does a drone strike fit in?

(I happen to think assassination is a very good way to fight wars, but "they" don't ask for my opinion.)

How dare this man think that his brother deserved due process of law and a fair trial before being executed? He's obviously a terrorist if he believes in shit like that.