I've written previously about the ethics of drone attacks in Pakistan. Questions were recently raised by Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions over whether the strikes themselves were legal. The drone strikes have reportedly killed a number of high-value targets, but a report by the New America Foundation concludes that around a third of the dead may be civilians.
Today the New York Times reports that the drone strikes in Pakistan will be expanded to coincide with the troop escalation in Afghanistan and that the legal issues surrounding their use haven't exactly gone away:
Pakistan's public criticism of the drone attacks has muddied the legal status of the strikes, which United States officials say are justified as defensive measures against groups that have vowed to attack Americans. Philip Alston, the United Nations' special rapporteur for extrajudicial executions and a prominent critic of the program, has said it is impossible to judge whether the program violates international law without knowing whether Pakistan permits the incursions, how targets are selected and what is done to minimize civilian casualties.
So as long as they can keep such information secret, it won't matter whether the strikes are legal or not, because there's no way to know.
-- A. Serwer
