Foreign Affairs, Government, Intelligence, Military, United States

Drones and the unproven efficacy of these weapons…

U.S. DRONE POLICY

The unedifying and continued use of drones has once again brought the issue to the door of the United States.

Nabila Rehman and her brother Zubair, aged 9 and 13 respectively, were picking okra in their garden. They posed no threat to the U.S. or anyone else, but their innocence did not keep them safe. The pair were injured by shrapnel from a drone-missile that killed their grandmother and wounded five other children at the family home in North Waziristan, in Pakistan’s north-western border zone.

Earlier this week, they confronted the U.S. Congress with the ugly and devastating reality of the drone attacks. Under President Obama, use of drones has become an increasingly important weapon in response to dealing with terrorism.

Attack from the air is always terrifying, but unmanned aerial vehicles – controlled and guided by faceless operatives thousands of miles away – are in a definite league of their own. The ethical objections to their use, however, not as battlefield weapons but as tools of assassination with inevitable collateral death and injury to the innocent, have been swept aside by their ostensible military effectiveness.

For both the U.S. and the Pakistani government, which have secretly colluded in the drone strategy, drones may have seemed the perfect answer to liquidating dangerous militants and extremists in Pakistan’s treacherous no-man’s land. North Waziristan is a notoriously difficult region for western intelligence services and monitoring the movements and activities of insurgents always risks others being unwittingly caught up in the crossfire.

But the fury and anger drones provoke, as Nabila and Zubair’s testimony bears out, can make them counter-productive. As President Obama and other western leaders know, far from helping to secure peace in the West, drones frequently embolden its enemies. Indeed, those flocking to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in their droves were done so in seeking refuge and protection from the continued onslaught of U.S. drone attacks.

A RESPONSE TO THE ECONOMIST

On 8th February, 2013, MD responded to an article on The Economist, ‘The debate over drones’. That response is reproduced:

“The Fifth Amendment to the US constitution protects “any person” (not just US citizens) from being “deprived of life . . . without due process of law.”

Until the 9/11 attacks, the legal position was unambiguous: in war, active combatants could kill and be killed, subject to rules governing surrender and the use of banned weapons. But the ‘law of war’ applied only to conflicts between armed forces of opposing states, invoking the right of self-defence. Confrontations with insurgents and terrorists were strictly governed by human rights law, which requires state use of force to be reasonable in the circumstances. This ‘reasonable force’ requirement invokes a necessary and human restraint over soldiers’ actions and, as a direct extension, must surely apply to drone targeters. The rule of war is not being adhered to in places where drones are operating as “suspects” are being killed without much compunction.

The states that deploy drones argue that they are operating under war law, where human rights are less relevant. The US argues that it is in an ‘armed conflict with al-Qaeda . . . and may use force consistent with its inherent right to self-defence . . . including by targeting persons such as high-level al-Qaeda leaders who are planning to attack us.’ However, this statement prompts many questions. For instance, how can you have an ‘armed conflict’ without an enemy state? Or, what criteria is being used for putting names on the secret death list or what is the required degree of proof before suspects are targeted and killed?

There are no accountability mechanisms for the use of drones – no inquests, and often not even a casualty list which is a direct contravention of the normal rules of war and engagement. The US does, though, announce and celebrate when it hits a ‘high-value target’.

In aerial drone warfare, there is no fairness or due process to enable potential victims, their relatives or any outside body to challenge the accuracy of the information on which the targeting decisions have been made.

Some analysts may suggest that drone strikes are an exercise in self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. But Article 51 applies only to attacks by other states, not by terrorist groups. Yet, what is becoming increasingly of concern is that the record of drone attacks demonstrates that very often individuals are targeted when they constitute no clear or present danger.

Drone killings in tribal areas of Pakistan and Yemen have taken the lives of targets who are armed and who presented a clear danger, but others have merely been attending weddings or funerals or emerging from hospitals or mosques. ‘Decapitation strikes’ in Pakistan have resulted in families being killed by mistake and which have severely damaged US relations with a politically tense and nuclear-armed nation that is not at war with the US.

American officials also say that the Fifth Amendment could not avail a US citizen who joined an enemy force. This is correct as far as it goes, but the Fifth Amendment must entitle a citizen or his family to know whether he is on a death list and to apply to have himself taken off it.

Those who press the Hellfire buttons in Nevada do not pause to consider whether their targets are engaged in combatant missions or not. The criteria for drone use are covert CIA prerogatives, beyond the jurisdiction of the courts or the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.”

© MarkDowe2013: all rights reserved

Standard
Arts, Britain, Government, History, Military, Science, Second World War

Britain: ‘RAF and the ‘Battle of the Beams’…

R.V JONES: ‘RADIO WAVES & ELECTRONIC JAMMING’

ON THE AFTERNOON of September 7, 1940, the first German bombers came rumbling up the Thames, to drop their bombs on London in the opening act of what became known as the “Blitz.” They were followed by a further 250 Luftwaffe bombers, unloading the first instalment of a massive payload of some 14,000 tons of high explosive that rained down on London until May of the following year.

The trial by fire that started more than 70 years ago is often depicted as a triumph of human resilience, a refusal by ordinary people to submit to terror. And so it was. But it was also a victory for a less known aspect of applied science, for, alongside the ferocious aerial combat another secret, electronic war was taking place, known to very few at the time and little appreciated since.

We rightly celebrate military victory in the Battle of Britain and civilian grit in the Blitz, but Britain’s astonishing scientific triumph in what Winston Churchill later called “the Battle of the Beams” has often been too easily overlooked. It saved countless thousands of lives, confused the German assault and helped to stave off the threat of invasion. This battle was fought, not with bombs and bullets, but radio waves. In the age of Shock and Awe, this covert scientific battle offers a timely reminder that ingenuity is just as important in war as brute force.

..

THREE MONTHS before the Blitz began, a 28-year-old scientist named Reginald Victor (R. V.) Jones was summoned to Downing Street to address the cabinet on the subject of radio beams. Churchill had become increasingly worried by intelligence reports suggesting that the Nazis had developed some kind of secret ray that could magically guide the Luftwaffe bombers to their targets, even when flying at night and in dense cloud.

Though outnumbered, heroic RAF pilots flying nimble and venomous Spitfires and Hurricanes saw off the Luftwaffe, their decisive victory finally coming on September 15, 1940.

An RAF officer working in technical intelligence, Jones had begun studying German radio navigation systems several months earlier and offered the Cabinet a most alarming conclusion: the Germans were using two narrow radio beams transmitted from separate locations in continental Europe to pinpoint strategic locations in Britain. In effect, the German bomber pilot could follow one radio beam until it intersected with the other beam and then drop his payload – directly over the target.

Night-bombing made bombers safer from interception by fighters and anti-aircraft systems, but finding a target in the blackout or bad weather using traditional navigation was tricky. German scientists, it seemed, had solved the problem: they codenamed it “Knickebein”, meaning “crooked leg”, a reference either to the shape of the intersecting beams or the bent appearance of the transmitting antennae. The Germans could never resist a hinting code-word – the German codename for their long-range radar system, for example, was “Heimdall”, after the Norse god with the power to see over vast distances. But the British were similarly addicted to code-wordplay. With admirable understatement, this threatening new German radio navigation system was given the codename “Headache”; the countermeasures required to defeat it were named, perhaps appropriately, “Aspirin”.

 

TO TACKLE the problem, R.V. Jones turned for help to medicine. Electro-diathermy sets were used in hospitals to destroy abnormal tissue and to cauterise wounds. Suitably modified, they also proved highly effective at jamming the Knickebein transmissions and were now deployed to send out a blizzard of radio noise over a wide range of frequencies.

Hermann Goering, the Luftwaffe chief, had given Hitler his personal pledge that the radio navigation system was invulnerable. He was far wide of the mark and so, increasingly, were his bombers. During the crucial months of September and October 1940, as the Luftwaffe night-raids mounted in intensity, Jones and his fellow scientists became ever more adept at jamming and diverting the radio beams, using more powerful radio transmitters to “inject” the Knickebein signals with confusing Morse code elements.

Deprived of reliable electronic direction, the Luftwaffe crews could become disorientated at night. One pilot was said to have landed in Dover, thinking he was back in France. Bombs intended for vital and heavily populated targets fell relatively harmlessly in fields and hills. According to some estimates, as much as 80 per cent of the German night bombs missed their target. Intercepted messages between German ground controllers and Luftwaffe pilots unable to locate their targets provided vital evidence that the beam-jammers were having the desired effect.

Even so, “Aspirin” was far from a cure-all remedy. The German bombers still caused appalling damage. London represented a target too vast to miss, even at night. A derivative of Knickebein radio navigation, known as “X Apparatus” was used to guide 400 Luftwaffe pilots to Coventry on November 14, 1940. Because of a technical error, the British jammer stations attacked the wrong frequency. The city was devastated, 568 people died, and Joseph Goebbels coined the term “Coventriert” to describe a particularly satisfactory level of destruction.

But how many more lives might have been lost, how many key military and industrial installations would have been destroyed and with what effect on the progress of war, if the Luftwaffe had been able to continue precise bombing under cover of darkness? Churchill was never in any doubt that science had played a pivotal role in blunting the Blitz. He dubbed R.V. Jones the “man who bent the bloody beams”.

 

R.V. JONES, who died in 1997, was a remarkable warrior, but one who believed in trickery and creativity as the antidote to savagery. In 1993, the CIA founded an intelligence award named in his honour, for “scientific acumen applied with art in the cause of freedom”. Yet, in this country, which he did so much to defend, so secretly, his is not a household name.

The Blitz and the Battle of Britain are synonymous terms that have left an enduring legacy of proud national stereotypes; the Spitfire pilot, the ambulance driver, the unbowed housewife sweeping up after the bombs had left their mark.

Just as important, although much less lauded, was the scientist in his lab, using a medical gadget to baffle and confuse Hitler’s bombers.

Standard
Britain, Government, Legal, Military

‘Legal justification’ for air strikes over Syria raises a storm…

THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT’S LEGAL POSITION

MILITARY action against Syria will be legal even if Britain fails to get a fresh UN resolution, the Government has claimed.

In a highly unusual move, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, ordered the release of a brief summary of the Government’s ‘legal position’ for launching retaliatory strikes against Bashar al-Assad of Syria. The document is effectively a summary of the advice drawn up for the Cabinet by the Attorney General Dominic Grieve.

Former UN deputy secretary general Lord Malloch-Brown has warned that the legal case set out in the 660-word document was ‘a little tenuous’. Lord Malloch-Brown, who served as a minister in the last Labour government, said it was not clear that action in Syria would save lives – a key test in international law for using force on humanitarian grounds.

Other experts have warned the Government’s case was ‘extremely controversial’.

Mr Cameron told MPs the ‘excellent’ advice made it clear that intervention on humanitarian grounds would be legal even if, as expected, Russia vetoes a new resolution Britain is seeking at the UN Security Council condemning the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime and giving authority for the world to use ‘all necessary measures to protect civilians.’

The document says that without the UN resolution, three key tests would have to be met. There has to be ‘convincing evidence’ of ‘extreme humanitarian distress.’

It must be ‘objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved’. And the use of force must be ‘necessary and proportionate’ and ‘strictly limited in time and scope’. The document says that ‘all three conditions would clearly be met in this case’ as the Assad regime had been ‘killing its people for two years’ and had repeatedly used chemical weapons, diplomacy had failed and the planned strikes were limited to ‘averting a humanitarian catastrophe’.

But Michael Caplan, QC, said ‘all possible avenues’ at the UN must first be explored before any strikes, if Russia vetoes the Security Council resolution. This could include a rare referral to full UN General Assembly to provide greater legal cover, he said.

Standard