Drone Strikes and International Law

by Jack

Defense Technology asks:  Although 2013 witnessed one of the lowest rates in civilian casualties since the entry of the technology into battle space, collateral dam­age remains the program’s biggest liability. In October 2013, Amnesty International released a report that expressed “serious concerns” that drone strikes have resulted in “unlawful kill­ings that may constitute extrajudicial execu­tions or war crimes.” Has it all been worth it?

Should the success of the American glob­al counterterrorism fight be measured by the number of names crossed out on a CIA “kill list”? Or should there be other far more sensible metrics being used to measure progress?   Hopefully, President Obama will deliver a key speech in 2014—one that he might have given in 2013—explaining how American unmanned war birds have begun to measurably extinguish the flames of vio­lent extremism.

I think collateral damage are really partisans, terrorists in training, or codependents of the terrorist.  The drone strikes are mostly in contested areas held by Taliban fighters.  I seriously doubt there are too many innocents among the causalities occurred in a drone strike.   Name a war without so-called collateral damage.   We they all indicted for war crimes?

What’s your opinion?