Law Commons^™

In Search Of Answers: U.S. Military Investigations And Civilian Harm, Center For Civilians In Conflict (Civic), Human Rights Institute

Human Rights Institute

For the families and communities of civilians killed and injured by the U.S. military, it can be very difficult to find out why their relative was harmed, and what – if anything – the military may do to acknowledge, explain, or compensate their loss. The military can never fully remedy the death of a loved one or the destruction of a family’s livelihood. Yet effective military investigations into civilian harm can help answer important questions for affected civilians, provide a basis for appropriate redress, promote accountability, and allow the military to learn valuable lessons for avoiding or mitigating similar harm …

Joint Civil Society Statement On Armed Drones, Sophia Wistenhube

Human Rights Institute

I am presenting a statement that has been endorsed by 46 civil society organisations, from 17 countries. We are committed to preventing and mitigating harm, including violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, from the use of drones in domestic and international deployments of force.

Out Of The Shadows: Recommendations To Advance Transparency In The Use Of Lethal Force, Human Rights Clinic, Sana'a Center For Strategic Studies

Human Rights Institute

The U.S. government’s secretive and expanding use of “targeted killings” and drone strikes since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 is highly controversial. For many years, such killings were carried out as part of counter-terrorism operations and in near-complete secrecy by the Cen- tral Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), including in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, far from any traditional and recognized battlefield. The government did not meaningfully explain their legal basis. The U.S. government has admitted that it killed between 2,867–3,138 people between 2009–2016, in an estimated 526 strikes in areas the …

Possible Changes To U.S. Policies On The Use Of Force In Counterterrorism Operations, American Civil Liberties Union (Aclu), Amnesty International, Center For Civilians In Conflict (Civic), Center For Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Clinic, Coalition For Peace Action, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, Interfaith Network On Drone Warfare, National Religious Campaign Against Torture, Open Society Foundations, Openthegovernment

Human Rights Institute

We write today to express our deep concern regarding reports that the administration is considering weakening current policy standards for the use of force in counterterrorism operations.

Ngo Statement On Reported Changes To U.S. Policy On Use Of Armed Drones And Other Lethal Force, American Civil Liberties Union (Aclu), Amnesty International, Center For Civilians In Conflict (Civic), Center For Constitutional Rights, Coalition For Peace Action, Friends Committee On National Legislation, Human Rights Clinic, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, Interfaith Network On Drone Warfare, National Religious Campaign Against Torture, Open Society Foundations, Reprieve

Human Rights Institute

The Trump administration’s failure thus far to release and explain the changes it has made to a previously public policy is a dangerous step backwards. Transparency around the use of lethal 2 force is critical to allowing independent scrutiny of the lawfulness of operations and to providing accountability and redress for victims of violations of international law. Transparency also helps governments identify and address civilian harm. It enables the public to be informed about some of the most important policy choices the government makes in its name – ones that involve life and death decisions. While transparency can enhance the …

Implementation Of Executive Order Of July 1, 2016, Human Rights Institute

Human Rights Institute

October 6, 2016, NEW YORK – The Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic today urged the Obama Administration to fulfill its promises of transparency and accountability for U.S. drone strikes. Over the past decade, the U.S. government has killed thousands of people around the world in a program largely cloaked in secrecy. Together with a group of leading non-governmental organizations, the Clinic called on the government to act on promises it made over the summer to investigate drone strikes and compensate victims.

Public Acknowledgement And Investigations Of U.S. “Targeted Killings” And Drone Strikes, American Civil Liberties Union (Aclu), Amnesty International, Center For Civilians In Conflict (Civic), Center For Constitutional Rights, European Center For Constitutional And Human Rights, Human Rights Clinic, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, Open Society Foundations, Reprieve

Human Rights Institute

The United Nations, local and international human rights organizations, and journalists have investigated and reported numerous cases in which there is credible evidence of harm to Yemeni, Pakistani, and other civilians from U.S. strikes carried out in secret, often using drones. The families of those individuals are still seeking redress and accountability, and the continued refusal of your administration even to officially acknowledge their losses compounds their suffering

Civilian Harm From Drone Strikes: Assessing Limitations & Responding To Harm, Human Rights Clinic

Human Rights Institute

U.S. intelligence officials tout the drone platform as enabling the most precise and humane targeting program in the history of warfare. While drone technology is a significant advance, claims about minimal civilian harm from drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen elide many of the operational realities of using drones outside of full-scale military operations.

United States’ Compliance With The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights, Human Rights Institute, American Civil Liberties Union (Aclu)

Human Rights Institute

The U.S. government is engaged in targeted killings through drone strikes (and other aircraft) in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere, which have resulted in the deaths of thousands of people. U.S. practice is characterized by secrecy and an unwillingness even to engage directly with concerns about civilian harm, let alone to provide accountability for civilian deaths and injury. Despite calls for disclosure from UN experts and non- governmental organizations, the U.S. government uses vague and shifting legal standards, and fails to disclose the basis for strikes or the steps it takes to minimize harm to civilians and investigate reported violations …

Counting Drone Strike Deaths, Human Rights Clinic

Human Rights Institute

Popular debate on U.S. drone strikes often centers on how many individuals are killed, and which of two categories the individuals killed fall into – militant or civilian. U.S. officials emphasize the precision of drone technology and contend that extremely few civilians have been killed. Yet others have questioned these claims and stated that there is evidence to suggest that deaths, and civilian deaths in particular, are much higher than U.S. officials admit.

The uncertainty about civilian deaths is largely due to the U.S. government’s resistance to openly providing information about strikes. In the absence of official data, the most …

Civilian Impact Of Covert Drone Operations Overlooked, Human Rights Clinic

Human Rights Institute

WASHINGTON, DC Sept. 30, 2012 — As US covert drone strikes become more entrenched as an accepted counterterrorism strategy, the US government needs to conduct a thorough accounting of the impact on civilians, said a new report released today by Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Clinic and Center for Civilians in Conflict.

Drone Strike Casualty Estimates Likely Understated, Human Rights Clinic

Human Rights Institute

NEW YORK — The U.S. government should provide an official accounting on who is being killed by drone strikes, said a new report released today by Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Clinic.

The Civilian Impact Of Drones: Unexamined Costs, Unanswered Questions, Human Rights Clinic, Center For Civilians In Conflict (Civic)

Human Rights Institute

Since 2008, the US has dramatically increased its lethal targeting of alleged militants through the use of weaponized drones—formally called unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) or remotely piloted aircraft (RPA). Novel technologies always raise new ethical, legal, and practical chal- lenges, but concerns about drone strikes have been heightened by their role in what might colloquially be termed “covert drone strikes” outside the established combat theater of Af- ghanistan. Airstrike campaigns in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia are conducted with a degree of government secrecy enabled by the fact that there are few supporting US ground troops and/or CIA agents in these …