In a widely-publicised report (‘Living Under Drones’), academics
from Stanford Law School and the New York University School of Law, have
recently cast fresh doubt on the moral/legal status of the continuing use by
the United States of unmanned aerial vehicles.
As is all too familiar in these cases, the conclusions and claims of the
authors have been uncritically accepted in media reports. This is a pity, since the agendas of those
involved, and defects of the methodology of the report, are very obvious. There are some important issues regarding the
strategic importance/significance of the use of drone-strike capability in
modern irregular warfare, and how traditional just war concepts may be applied
to drone use. Regrettably, the
Stanford/New York collaboration makes little contribution to this debate. Instead, it palliates extreme left wing and
broadly anti-American interests. The
extent to which some American academics will do this never ceases to amaze!
The main conclusions of the report are based on interviews
conducted in Pakistan with 130 people who were survivors or witnesses of drone
attacks, or relatives of victims of such attacks. Specifically who might be interviewed
was suggested by a local human rights organisation, the ‘Foundation for
Fundamental Rights’, which had been set up in early 2011 to campaign
against drone attacks. Am I the only
person that thinks that this is not a reliable research methodology?
