アメリカ合衆国は、遠隔無線殺人飛行機のdronesで、テロリストを暗殺する作戦では、テロリズムを殱滅できない
CHRISTOPHER SWIFT | EXPERTO EN TERRORISMO
“EE UU no puede luchar contra el terrorismo por control remoto”
El abogado y profesor de Georgetown ha visitado Yemen para estudiar el efecto de los ataques con 'drones' en la lucha contra Al Qaeda
Eva Saiz Washington 7 FEB 2013 - 18:48 CET
CHRISTOPHER SWIFT | terrorism expert
"America can not fight terrorism by remote control"
The lawyer and professor at Georgetown visited Yemen to study the effect of the attacks with 'drones' in the fight against Al Qaeda
Eva Saiz Washington 7 FEB 2013 - 18:48 CET
Christopher Swift, Assistant Professor of National Security Studies at the University of Georgetown, is a lawyer and political scientist, expert on the relationship between international law, constitutional law and national security. In their research to prepare his next book, The struggle of art, Swift spent this summer in Yemen to analyze the effects of the use of drones by the U.S. in the war against Al Qaeda being waged there. Swift's experience in the field has led him to be quite skeptical about the long-term effectiveness of the use of drones to fight against the terrorist threat.
QUESTION. - Do you think that, under the arguments of the Justice Department memo leaked this week, there is a legal basis that covers the use of drones to execute U.S. citizens abroad?
ANSWER. - This case must be examined from three different aspects, international law, constitutional law and national laws that protect civil rights. In the case of Anwar Alauki is met international law, and that the cleric was in a country, Yemen, which authorized the U.S. to use drones in the fight against Al Qaeda. Also meets constitutional legality according to which a U.S. president can order the death of a fellow you are in a foreign country that is at war, Yemen case, and that is plotting or carrying weapons to attack United States or an ally. All these factors came together in the case of The Alauki.
Killing innocent civilians is always illegal under any law, but it is inevitable in circumstances of war "
Q. - But according to the Fifth Amendment ...
R. - Exactly. It is in the case of laws protecting civil rights where I have more questions about the Justice Department's arguments. The Supreme Court held that it is legitimate to kill a U.S. citizen without violating the Fifth Amendment as long as it involves an imminent threat to self, people and property and I think that has leaked memo is not specific enough when determine when a threat is "imminent". Do imminent threat to commit a terrorist attack on the day of an attack drone or within two months? Probably yes, in a year? Mmmm ... Although I must admit that when I think of ordering the use of drones to attack a U.S. citizen, the U.S. government has exquisite care to avoid violating the Fifth Amendment.
Q. - And what about the innocent victims?
R. - Killing innocent civilians is always illegal under any law, but is inevitable in circumstances of war.
When ordering the use of drones to attack a U.S. citizen, the U.S. government has exquisite care to avoid violating the Fifth Amendment "
Q. - How can affect the credibility of President Obama his defense of drone targeted killings after having opposed the practices employed by the Bush Administration after 11-S?
R. - authorized the use of torture during the mandates of George W. Bush is completely illegal and point at all be compared with the use of unmanned aircraft, developed under the umbrella of the law. However, its use is legal does not mean it is questionable from the moral standpoint.
Q. - Do you think, then, that the Obama administration should change its current strategy to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Yemen or Pakistan?
R. - The debate should not focus on the legality of drone attacks, but its long-term effectiveness. How effective fight against terrorism with a remote control? Not at all. The military successes of the Army are not contributing to political stability that the U.S. intends to achieve in Yemen or Afghanistan.
Al Qaeda thrives mainly of young frustrated their low expectations for the future and that is not solved by the use of drones "
Q. - How much is counterproductive to use drones in that strategy?
A. - I think those attacks are necessary, but this should decrease the intensity. The drones have proven effective in eliminating al Qaeda leaders but do not solve the economic and social problem that exists in that area. Al Qaeda thrives mainly of young frustrated their low expectations for the future and that is not solved by the use of drones.
Q. - If drone strikes are legal why the White House did not acknowledge its existence until last Tuesday?
R. - That's not entirely true. John Brennan, the counterterrorism policy adviser Obama was very explicit and transparent about it and he is a member of the White House. But the need to keep certain opacity essentially due to military reasons and operational secrecy is not a politician.
The military successes of the Army are not contributing to political stability that the U.S. intends to achieve in Yemen or Afghanistan "
Q. - Do you think, therefore, that the debate on drones has been caused with a political purpose, to coincide with the hearing on the confirmation of Brennan as CIA director?
R. - The debate in Congress is a debate that tries to weigh the boundaries between the law and the war between protecting the safety and protection of our liberties and I think it is a legitimate debate right now but sterile. While we focus on drone strikes in Yemen, we forget that in this country are in desperate need of water and medical aid. That does not speak, nor is the other objectives that the U.S. has in the country, as a final guarantee political stability.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿