ドローンの秘密の使用のために、米国で論争を増やす
Increasing debate in the U.S. for secret use of drones
Crece la polémica en EE UU por el uso secreto de los ‘drones’
Las críticas han sido mayores entre la oposición conservadora, pero algunos demócratas protestan por el secretismo de las operaciones
La guerra teledirigida
Antonio Caño Washington 16 MAR 2013 - 23:38 CET
Increasing debate in the U.S. for secret use of drones
The reviews have been higher among the conservative opposition, but some Democrats protesting the secrecy of operations
The war remote
Antonio Cano Washington 16 MAR 2013 - 23:38 CET
On Friday, a federal court of appeals ruled that the Obama administration lacks justification to keep secret drone attacks and demanded detailed reply to the application filed requesting information. That does not end the legal battle, which still faces a long way from the labyrinths of justice, but gives new legitimacy to those who believe that the president is abusing its power with the use of this new weapon, currently the main instrument show of force by the United States abroad.
moreObama says he will not use drones in the U.S.Obama promises more transparency in the program of the 'drone'"America can not fight terrorism by remote control"Obama is legal basis to kill Americans abroad
Jameel Jaffer, legally responsible for the American Civil Liberties Association (ACLU), the group that claims access to that data, later stated that this sentence supports that "the public is entitled to know who is killing the Government, why, in which countries and under whose orders. "
A pressure from human rights organizations have joined in the last week, after several years of silence, some members of Congress, especially on the right of the Republican Party and the mainstream media, who have recognized now that they knew for months the existence of a drone base in Saudi Arabia and silent for reasons of national security.
The confirmation last week in the Senate of the new CIA director, Paul Brennan, has been the height of this debate, with a surprising scene next to Tea Party Senator Rand Paul, who spoke for thirteen consecutive hours shows striking of his desire to block the nomination until the White House give explanations about drone program.
A federal appeals court ruled that the Obama administration lacks justification to keep secret drone attacks
The Administration has given some answers. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Congress asserting that the president is not authorized to use that weapon to kill U.S. citizens within U.S. territory, and remember that their use outside the borders of this country is backed by a Justice Department document that laid the legal foundation necessary.
So far, the reviews have been higher among the conservative opposition, which meant that the drone program and continues to justify the methods of the war on terrorism launched by the George W. Bush, although there have been some protests in the Democratic ranks, not because the drones but by the secrecy of the operations.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, backed by members of Congress, has circulated the idea that a special court, which already exists to authorize covert action intelligence services, assume the authority to hear and decide the drone attacks. But the proposal, which has not openly opposed the White House still comes up against various obstacles of legal and political character.
Rand Paul spoke for thirteen consecutive hours shocking sign of his desire to block the appointment of the director of the CIA to the White House did not give explanations about the drone program
First, it is not clear that the use of drones, despite the cruel appearance dehumanized involved firing missiles from an office without even seeing the enemy face should necessarily mean a step backwards from the current weapons. Although its use has grown tremendously during this administration and increased, therefore, the number of civilians killed in Pakistan and Afghanistan for these devices, some lawmakers and experts estimate that replacing conventional aircraft drones has improved the accuracy of the attacks and has reduced the total number of innocent victims.
Senator John McCain, among others, his colleague Paul rebuked their ignorance and striking attitude of protest, and several members of the Democratic Party have highlighted that with drones, have prevented many of the abuses generated by the presence of troops in abroad.
A recent UN report showed that last year nearly doubled the number of bombs dropped from drones in Afghanistan over the previous year, from 294 to 506 - and the number of civilian deaths that went from 1-16. But that same report noted that the total number of innocents killed in 2012 in Afghanistan fell from 3131-2754, which seems to show that the drones, even with the risks involved, are replacing other weapons whose effects on the civilian population are still much more lethal.
Last year nearly doubled the number of bombs dropped from drones in Afghanistan over the previous year, from 294 to 506 - and the number of civilian deaths that went from 1-16
The use of drones in Afghanistan is better controlled because almost all operations are under the command of the Pentagon, where transparency is greater. There are, however, similar figures for the other major front in the war with the robots, Pakistan, where most of the flights are run by the CIA, which also deals with the attacks in Yemen. The Pakistani government estimates that for every al Qaeda militant killed by drones, 140 civilians are killed. U.S. denies those figures. A study by the independent institute New America Foundation has stated that during the Obama Administration, have been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan between 1,507 and 2,438 people, of whom 148 to 309 were civilians.
Even though the drones they supposed, ultimately, a reduction in the number of innocent victims, the debate about the limits of presidential powers still open, especially since the death in 2011 of an American citizen, Anwar Awlaki, one of the most prominent leaders of Al Qaeda in Yemen.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿