Legality of drone attacks

Thank God! at long last someone from behind the high walls of the moralising West has spoken against the barbaric drone attacks. No doubt there has been lingering, low-key debate in the Western media and social networks about the legality of drone attacks. But the governments there have kept their eerie silence over the unethical and immoral drone strikes which kill much more innocent non-combatant than the 'militants', amply demonstrating their connivance in this international crime. Perhaps, that's no more the case; the first stone, to break that silence, has been cast.
UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism Ben Emmerson has asked Washington to open itself to scrutiny so as to establish the legality of drone attacks. The US government keeps insisting that militants are the only target and the collateral losses, in terms of human lives, are very limited, which Emmerson is not prepared to accept, asking for the videos and other on-site footage. Should Washington fail to respond positively to his call, the UN official will ask the United Nations secretariat to devise its own mechanism.
Ben Emmerson has taken one big step forward on seeking the authenticity of American claims of no-big-losses of innocent non-combatant lives, which belie the brutality of the drone attacks that have caused the loss of over 2000 lives, over 70 percent of which were civilians, since 2004, when President Bush launched the robotic killer. It is our hope that Ben Emmerson will receive international support to expedite his move and result in an early halt to these barbaric strikes.
The CIA-operated drones are now striking at their 'targets' almost on a daily basis and are much more lethal. And the callousness on the part of the operators of these killing machines is very severe. As against their expectations that Eid would be drone-free, the Fata residents were subjected to far more devastating strikes; in some cases these were followed up with more strikes in order to take care of those caring for the victims.
Since 2004, when President Bush ordered the use of un-manned vehicles (UMVs) against terrorists' sanctuaries in the tribal areas, some 140 strikes have been carried out, with 44 only this year for President Obama has not only publicly owned the drone attacks but also declared their use as 'weapon of choice'. Why does no protest emanates from the Western capitals, which never tire of declaring President Bashar al-Assad of Syria a terrorist, but keep silent when something identical is carried out by the drones in Pakistan's tribal areas. Not that his brutality can be condoned, he is an international criminal and should be tried for his rampant brutality. But, arguably, terrorism is committed in its most vulgar form when the terrorist doesn't know who he is killing. Drones are machines, inhuman and heartless, and cannot separate the innocent from the guilty.
Add to this Barack Obama's classification of victims that every military-age tribal male is the target and you see how hollow sounds the Washington's claim of fighting for the rights of people world-over. If it is honest about its assertion that drones cause next to nothing in terms of the loss of civilians it should oblige Ben Emmerson and wait for his verdict. That said, we cannot escape responsibility for being a part, at least in the early phase, of this rain of death from the sky. The then-president, General Musharraf, not only condoned this brutality, he even allowed the use of Pakistani bases for drones to operate from. Then the prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, according to WikiLeaks, endorsed the use of drones against his own people, by telling Americans 'you keep on striking with the drones we will look the other way'. But that policy of appeasement may not last any longer, with the Foreign Office adding extra anger to its take on the latest attacks - reflecting the people's growing impatience with this one-sided co-operative alliance with the Americans.
The fact is that against 'the few hundred terrorists' in the early stages of Nato involvement in Afghanistan, killed through drone attacks, the number has multiplied manifold. The ball as to who is responsible for the increased incidence of violence in Pakistan and across its borders is in the US's court. If CIA-operated drones are not killing innocent civilians in such large numbers as is claimed, let it get a clean chit from Ben Emmerson. Its reluctance to allow a visit would be considered as the conclusive proof of its crime in killing unarmed civilians in Pakistan.