Britain faces legal challenge over secret US 'kill list' in Afghanistan Afghan man who lost relatives in missile strike says UK role in supplying information to US military may be unlawfulguardian.co.uk, Thursday 9 August 2012 14.56 EDT
A US soldier in Khost province, Afghanistan. Targeting Taliban commanders in precision attacks has been an important part of Nato strategy. Photograph: Jose Cabezas/AFP/Getty Images Britain's role in supplying information to an American military "kill list" in Afghanistan is being subjected to legal challenge amid growing international concern over targeted strikes against suspected insurgents and drug traffickers.
An Afghan man who lost five relatives in a missile strike started proceedings against the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) and the Ministry of Defence demanding to know details of the UK's participation "in the compilation, review and execution of the list and what form it takes".
Legal letters sent to Soca and the MoD state the involvement of UK officials in these decisions "may give rise to criminal offences and thus be unlawful". They say Britain's contribution raises several concerns, particularly in cases where international humanitarian laws protecting civilians and non-combatants may have been broken.
"We need to know whether the rule of law is being followed and that safeguards are in place to prevent what could be clear breaches of international law," said Rosa Curling from the solicitors Leigh Day & Co. "We have a family here that is desperate to know what happened, and to ensure this kind of thing never happens again."
Targeting Taliban commanders in precision attacks has been an important part of Nato's strategy in Afghanistan, and it has involved US, British and Afghan special forces, and the use of drones.
But who is put on the "kill list" and why remains a closely guarded secret – and has become a huge concern for human rights groups. They have questioned the legality of such operations and said civilians are often killed.............................>>>>..............>>>>.......................http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/09/legal-challenge-kill-list-afghanistan
Speaking out against secret government 'kill lists' is un-patriotic. Anybody publicly speaking against 'kill lists' should be a suspected member of Al Qaeda.
Who should be on a "kill list", or should anyone be on that list?
Was Adolph Hitler on a US kill list in WW2? Killing Hitler (with a drone if they were available then) would have certainly shortened the war, saving both German and American lives.
Should Osama Bin Laden been on a "Kill List" after Sept 11th? Suppose Bill Clinton had today's Drone capability and killed Bin Laden when he located him long before Sept 11... Should Clinton have killed Bin Laden in the 90's thus preventing the WTC attacks?
In Afghanistan today where there is an active war going on... should drones be used to kill top level targets, or on targets to difficult to access with conventional weapons?
Ideally, Predator Drones should be traded in for Peace Drones that are used to locate missing persons or pilots and sailors lost at sea... but this isn't an ideal world.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
If we are talking about hindsight...Should Al Awlaki be on the secret kill list? Should Tim McVeigh have been on a secret kill list? Should Bill Ayers have been on a secret kill list? Should Occupy Wall St. organizers be on secret kill lists?
This isn't about drones, it is the secrecy of the 'kill list' that the anti-American, freedom hating, Al Qaeda sympathizers are concerned about.(TIC if you didn't pick up on it)
The government is killing innocent people using drone air strikes and then hide behind the secrecy of a kill list and claim national security. But that isn't tyranny, that is "national security".
If we are talking about hindsight...Should Al Awlaki be on the secret kill list? Should Tim McVeigh have been on a secret kill list? Should Bill Ayers have been on a secret kill list? Should Occupy Wall St. organizers be on secret kill lists?
This isn't about drones, it is the secrecy of the 'kill list' that the anti-American, freedom hating, Al Qaeda sympathizers are concerned about.(TIC if you didn't pick up on it)
The government is killing innocent people using drone air strikes and then hide behind the secrecy of a kill list and claim national security. But that isn't tyranny, that is "national security".
Answers in order of appearance: 1. Yes 2. No 3. No 4. No
The mission, to use "SECRET" kill lists is probably a good one. For one thing the word "SECRET"... If the targets are military or political ENEMY targets... as they have always been... I have no problem with killing the enemy the most efficient way possible with the least amount of danger to US troops and civilians on the ground. Um... We could announce the "SECRET" list... but that would make the entire project more difficult and probably reduce the effectiveness of the project. Of course we could always advertise our SECRET list on Al Jazerra if your intention is to make the list known to the enemy.
One more thing. Is it killing ANY foreign targets your issue or just killing those on a Kill List???
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Um... We could announce the "SECRET" list... but that would make the entire project more difficult and probably reduce the effectiveness of the project. Of course we could always advertise our SECRET list on Al Jazerra if your intention is to make the list known to the enemy.
One more thing. Is it killing ANY foreign targets your issue or just killing those on a Kill List???
When you say "we", I assume you mean "we" as in a citizen of the United States. Now, the question I have is - when did Anwar Awlaki(a U.S. citizen just like yourself) get traded from team "we" the United States and end up on team "them" with the people on the foreign enemies secret kill list? When did that transition happen and when did the government make the decision that an American citizen(any citizen for that matter) was no longer guaranteed due process of law? Should the government make people aware they are on the 'kill list' to give them an opportunity to get off of it?
And if you agree that Awlaki who has committed NO ACTS OF TERRORISM deserved the extrajudicial execution, why would McVeigh and Ayers, who have committed acts of terrorism, deserve due process? If you were consistent you would have supported the hypothetical extrajudicial execution of McVeigh and Ayers as a preventative assassination.
I have problems with ALL CIA operations flying unmanned drones into sovereign countries and executing people without first having to provide evidence of guilt to an unbiased court. That is the absolute definition of tyranny. We are not at war box, there has been no declaration. America is flying into any country they want and delivering vigilante justice.
Your ability to defend state sponsored murder is second to none box.
If we are talking about hindsight...Should Al Awlaki be on the secret kill list? Should Tim McVeigh have been on a secret kill list? Should Bill Ayers have been on a secret kill list? Should Occupy Wall St. organizers be on secret kill lists?
This isn't about drones, it is the secrecy of the 'kill list' that the anti-American, freedom hating, Al Qaeda sympathizers are concerned about.(TIC if you didn't pick up on it)
The government is killing innocent people using drone air strikes and then hide behind the secrecy of a kill list and claim national security. But that isn't tyranny, that is "national security".
This is about due process.
Either the government follows their own rule of arrest and conviction or they are no better than the terrorists they target.
Who should be on a "kill list", or should anyone be on that list?
Was Adolph Hitler on a US kill list in WW2? Killing Hitler (with a drone if they were available then) would have certainly shortened the war, saving both German and American lives.
Should Osama Bin Laden been on a "Kill List" after Sept 11th? Suppose Bill Clinton had today's Drone capability and killed Bin Laden when he located him long before Sept 11... Should Clinton have killed Bin Laden in the 90's thus preventing the WTC attacks?
Nope and nope.
Trial and conviction are required before executions.
What happened to your slippery slope theory as it would apply in this situation?
This is about due process. Either the government follows their own rule of arrest and conviction or they are no better than the terrorists they target.
I agree, due process is important, but not always possible. In Cicero's questions: I agreed with the drone strike against Al Awlaki, as an AlQaeda terrorist in Yemen out of reach from any American law enforcement or military. I disagreed with a drone against Tim McVeigh Bill Ayers and of course Cicero's attempt at humor... the Occupy movement. McVeigh and Ayres were within US Jurisdiction and readily available to be apprehended by normal law enforcement systems.
I do believe in 'due process' but I also respect that some times, in rare cases it isn't possible. We all seem to agree that there are occasions that due process should be dismissed. A bank robbery in progress with armed criminals and lots of civilians involved... at times a SWAT team will kill a suspect with no 'due process. Hostage situations when the hostage is in imminent danger of being killed, a SWAT team or even just ordinary law enforcement will kill the suspect if it's deemed necessary.
IMO Al Awlaki was just one of these cases. He posed an imminent danger to American citizens as did Osama Bin Laden. Their death or capture were necessary.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
In Cicero's questions: I agreed with the drone strike against Al Awlaki, as an AlQaeda terrorist in Yemen out of reach from any American law enforcement or military. I disagreed with a drone against Tim McVeigh Bill Ayers and of course Cicero's attempt at humor... the Occupy movement. McVeigh and Ayres were within US Jurisdiction and readily available to be apprehended by normal law enforcement systems.
I do believe in 'due process' but I also respect that some times, in rare cases it isn't possible. We all seem to agree that there are occasions that due process should be dismissed. A bank robbery in progress with armed criminals and lots of civilians involved... at times a SWAT team will kill a suspect with no 'due process. Hostage situations when the hostage is in imminent danger of being killed, a SWAT team or even just ordinary law enforcement will kill the suspect if it's deemed necessary.
IMO Al Awlaki was just one of these cases. He posed an imminent danger to American citizens as did Osama Bin Laden. Their death or capture were necessary.
Awlaki wasn't a bank robber, this wasn't a hostage situation, he was put on a 'kill list' and systematically hunted down. This isn't a 'kill or capture' list, it is explicitly a kill list.
As always, I am always curious to know how you know Al Awlaki was an Al Qaeda terrorist without the transparency of due process. You must have some kind of inside track to the White House and access to all the evidence.
And why is Yemen out of of reach of law enforcement? Did the United States ask the Yemen government that Al Awlaki be extradited? You do know the United States has an embassy in Yemen? He couldn't have been too far out of law enforcement reach. http://yemen.usembassy.gov/
I agree, due process is important, but not always possible. In Cicero's questions: I agreed with the drone strike against Al Awlaki, as an AlQaeda terrorist in Yemen out of reach from any American law enforcement or military. I disagreed with a drone against Tim McVeigh Bill Ayers and of course Cicero's attempt at humor... the Occupy movement. McVeigh and Ayres were within US Jurisdiction and readily available to be apprehended by normal law enforcement systems.
I do believe in 'due process' but I also respect that some times, in rare cases it isn't possible. We all seem to agree that there are occasions that due process should be dismissed. A bank robbery in progress with armed criminals and lots of civilians involved... at times a SWAT team will kill a suspect with no 'due process. Hostage situations when the hostage is in imminent danger of being killed, a SWAT team or even just ordinary law enforcement will kill the suspect if it's deemed necessary.
IMO Al Awlaki was just one of these cases. He posed an imminent danger to American citizens as did Osama Bin Laden. Their death or capture were necessary.
So your answer to do you believe in due process is "blah, blah, blabbity balh, sometimes."
Imminent danger. Whoah!
That's the slippery slope, can of worms that gets innocent people killed by cops.
So your answer to do you believe in due process is "blah, blah, blabbity balh, sometimes." Imminent danger. Whoah! That's the slippery slope, can of worms that gets innocent people killed by cops.
Just wondering... do you disagree with the SWAT team shooting to kill in those rare situations where necessary to save the life of a hostage??? Do you think that before a sky marshal on a Sept 11th plane were to shoot a WTC terrorist, should he first be required to get an OK from a judge???
The cases where due process should be overlooked are rare and specific, but necessary.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Just wondering... do you disagree with the SWAT team shooting to kill in those rare situations where necessary to save the life of a hostage??? Do you think that before a sky marshal on a Sept 11th plane were to shoot a WTC terrorist, should he first be required to get an OK from a judge???
The cases where due process should be overlooked are rare and specific, but necessary.
Hostages with a gun to the head is imminent danger. I would shoot the hostage taker myself.
Sending drones to kill a US enemy eating dinner, watching tv, or riding in a car is no such threat.
If a hostage takers lays down his weapon, he may not be killed as a threat.
A threat must be direct.
Not a political difference threat.
When the US government threatened Waco, was the government an imminent threat?
No, they were a direct threat.
They took an entire community hostage for the actions of one man.
Just wondering... do you disagree with the SWAT team shooting to kill in those rare situations where necessary to save the life of a hostage??? Do you think that before a sky marshal on a Sept 11th plane were to shoot a WTC terrorist, should he first be required to get an OK from a judge???
The cases where due process should be overlooked are rare and specific, but necessary.
What answer do you think George Washington or Thomas Jefferson would give?
If we allow every paranoid Government the power to kill any perceived threat the world would be in chaos.
That's crazy talk, like Iranians or the Jews spew.
Logged
