Pakistan Airstrikes - Remote Controlled Criminal Stupidity

By Steve Hynd

You can't kill a hydra by decapitation. Neither can you kill a non-centric insurgency or terrorist operation by killing all the bigwigs. New ones crop up just as quickly and often they're even more nasty, cruel or twistedly clever than the ones you just killed.

That's why airstrikes againt extremist leaders in Pakistan make no sense in the first place, even before you count in their destabilizing effect when they become war crimes by hitting civilians instead or as well, as they seem to do every time. Even COIN guru David Kilcullen calls them "totally counterproductive".Yet airstrikes are still the flavor of the day in Pakistan. Utterly dumb as well as criminal.

But Bernhard at Moon of Alabama has another thought - some are probably criminal in a far simpler sense too. That LA Times article on the CIA remotely piloted drones used for these Pakistan airstrikes linked above, contains a snippet of information that "Some of the pilots -- who also pull the triggers on missiles -- are contractors hired by the agency". Bernhard asks:

Government officials like soldiers, policemen or even CIA agents have certain immunities when are ordered to kill someone. Civilian contractors do not have these nor should they have them. Civilians pulling the trigger to kill in a non defensive situation are committing first degree murders.

Where is the federal prosecutor going after these?

In the current climate, where even torturers get a free pass, that's just not going to happen. But it's still a fair question about the legality of using civilian contractors to carry out these attacks. I'm sure there's a loophole or legal legerdemain the CIA would cite in such cases. Does anyone know for sure what it is?

Comments

[Peter G]

I'm equally curious about the existence of a rule that says a contractor can't pull the trigger. What rule is that? I'm assuming myself that the distinction has to do with the term "defensive". In war the distinction between an offensive action and a defensive one is entirely academic. A missile launched by a predator at a suspected concentration of Taliban (or what have you) could just as easily be classified as defensive as offensive. If you are implying that only returning direct fire is permissible I don't think you'll find much support for any sort of war crime trial absent proof that civilians were deliberately targeted.