The anti-terrorist fight is far from won. Although al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is no longer present, the U.S., the threat extends through the scattered members of this organization, listing it as one of the main reasons for war. Al-Qaeda is everywhere seen or even suspected, where the strategic interests of the United States tolerate no interference: in Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, and especially now in the Horn of Africa, Somalia and Yemen. And if the new doctrine of the Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama is, war only when absolutely necessary, then it is reminiscent of the response of the cycling legend Fausto Coppi to the question whether he had ever taken doping products, "Never - only when there was no alternative. "When asked when this was the case." Actually, ever "
The expansion of the war on terror on the African continent will be easier for the U.S. president with a new weapon, which has just the anti-guerrilla fight a multitude of benefits: the drone. In Pakistan and Afghanistan drones are the everyday, in any case become effective weapons of the United States, which previously took more than 3,000 people were killed, not counting the wounded. The reports from the front, always wear the same script: Victims of rocket attacks were terrorists, insurgents or extremists of al-Qaeda or Taliban, sometimes is a "medium-or high-ranking commander met." Names are mentioned only in the rarest cases. Allegations that it was mostly civilians IN QUESTION to be rejected as non-verifiable. Is the death of civilians can not be denied, excused himself and to pay a ridiculous dead money. The public is accustomed to these vague reports of war practice in which there is no more sacrifice.
The question of the legality of targeted killings of civilian casualties no doubt many will no longer made. The U.S. and Israel, the two main producers and users of this device to legitimize this war with the purpose of self-defense argument against an opponent with whom one was in a military conflict, civilian casualties are treated as collateral damage. Finally seems to have found a weapon that the - of course, held for international law - guerrilla methods of the enemy is equal. In their refinement will work not only in the U.S. and Israel, but also in Germany and other countries with vigor, their applications attract especially states with internal problems.
In the U.S. armed forces concentrated the drone war in the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the supreme command center for the Special Forces. In Pakistan, however, it was so far only the CIA, that this highly successful and served for their warriors safe weapon. In Yemen, the JSOC was active, the CIA only since August 2011. Just as Somalia, Yemen is an ideal testing ground for the perfecting of this war machine. For years, both countries have been dismembered by a chaotic civil war and paralyzed, there is no state authority could the arbitrary doings of foreign intelligence services to counter an effective control. Now, the CIA sought after, their activities in Yemen adapt their successful work in Pakistan. Your success in killing more senior Al-Qaeda fighters, they achieved with "signature strikes," where precise identification of the victim is not required. Obama had denied this broad authorization, which applies to the military of the JSOC, CIA in Yemen and limited intelligence on the "personality strikes." This requires a clear proof that the victim in the crosshairs of the drone to speak the target is hit list.
The request of the CIA. »Signature may lead to strikes," lies in front of the National Security Council, the White House has not yet indicated. Discussed not only the question whether someone who was never suspected of terrorism - such as the American son of Al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki - could be executed without trial. Two journalists from the New York Times, Jo Becker and Scott Shane, have now revealed that Obama will decide personally on this list of death row inmates.
Now, will deny that the President may authorize the Congress without the planned expansion of the operation. The concerns go back to the limited authorization by Congress, George W. Bush immediately after 11 September 2001. Bush had called for a war unlimited permission to "pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or acts of aggression against the United States or to deter them." But the Congress could be recorded by the moment of terror not lead to such a blank authorization. Indeed, "with the vague notion of" aggression, the President could have taken advantage of any pretext for military deterrence, without a renewed vote of get Congress must. How limited the Congress's authorization to use military force against countries and groups, "which in the terrorist acts of 11 September 2001 have been involved. " The president is forced to turn to for any other military campaign to regain the Congress. When CIA chief David Petraeus now to extend the use of drones on targets with "suspicious behavior" in the Control Panel is seeking terrorist groups, is not under the original authorization. Because these groups were just as the terrorist attack in Yemen in September 2001 involved. Bruce Ackerman of Yale University, therefore, concludes that as a serious threat to the United States by terrorist groups in Yemen may be, the president was now obliged to seek the consent of Congress. Consequently, he should have done so even before the first use of drones in Yemen. But at the time of operation was either not known or no one called for a rights of Congress.
The news that President Obama with his own circle of advisers will decide who comes to the death list of the drone attacks, the public is alarmed. The U.S. has declared since the Second World War war any more. If the President still uses military to kill people, then the law requires a public report on the case to the Congress and congressional approval no later than 180 days after. A non-military organization like the CIA, but he could not under any circumstances for killing without trial use, this practice is contrary not only unique to the law, but also the insurance under which Obama has begun, Andrew P. Napolitano lamented in The New York Times: "Since 9/11, the U.S. government built national security systems that are neither the U.S. Constitution nor the Geneva Conventions that operate either under the rule of law nor under the rules of war or under federal law, but secretly for a new system, which is created by the Bush administration and now led by Obama himself, the same Obama who condemned as a senator these rules, but it has extended even as president. "
Obama's administration is silent on these issues and allegations. She has never released details about the methods of identification of targets and victims. You may refuse the request of the CIA or ask the Congress for approval. There is no indication that they would deny this - to the deep-seated fear of the terror in the minds of the political class.
No comments:
Post a Comment