TESTIMONY BEFORE THE CONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS PEACE ANDSECURITY TASKFORCE

AD-HOC HEARING ON DRONES

May 8, 2013

Zeke Johnson

Director of Amnesty International USA’s Security with Human Rights Campaign

***

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today.

Amnesty International recognizes the US government’s duty to protect the life and physical integrity of people within its jurisdiction, and to bring perpetrators of crimes to justice. But in doing so, the US government must respect its obligations under international human rights law, which applies in peacetime and in armed conflict, and under international humanitarian law, which applies only in situations of armed conflict.

Those responsible for the September 11 attacks, attacks that deliberately targeted civilians and which Amnesty International has repeatedly condemned as a crime against humanity, should be brought to justice through fair criminal trials without recourse to the death penalty, as should anyone responsible for carrying out or planning other attacks. This is a realistic aim that can and should be achieved through cooperation between states, in accordance with their international obligations.

Under the law enforcement standards applicable in such circumstances, situations can arise where the intentional use of lethal force might be justified if it is strictly unavoidable to protect against an immediate threat to life.

Amnesty International also recognizes that where the US government is a party to a specific armed conflict, lethal attacks conducted within the zone of the conflict that comply with the laws of armed conflict, generally will not violate the right to life as protected under international human rights law. In such situations it is imperative that US forces adhere strictly to the principles of distinction and proportionality and take all necessary precautions to spare civilians. Whenever there is doubt as to whether a person is a civilian, the person is to be considered a civilian.

However, Amnesty International is gravely concerned that the Obama administration's policies and practices on the intentional use of lethal force appear to go substantially beyond what is permitted under the rules of international law.

Deliberate killings that do not comply with the relevant rules of international law are often referred to as “extra-legal, arbitrary or summary executions” or “extra-judicial executions." The onus is on the state to demonstrate that a killing is lawful.

Here are 5 steps Congress can take to help prevent extrajudicial executions:

First, press the Obama administration to release more information.

The Obama administration must disclose further legal and factual details about U.S. policy and practices for so-called “targeted killings,” “signature strikes,” and “Terrorist Attack Disruption Strikes,” including secret Department of Justice legal memorandums, and specific information about who has been killed.

Second, reject the Obama administration's radical redefinition of imminence.

Under international human rights law, the intentional use of lethal force is lawful only if it is "strictly unavoidable" to meet an "imminent threat of death" in self-defense or defense of others. In the leaked Department of Justice "white paper," the administration claimed that an individual could be designated as posing an “imminent threat” in the absence of intelligence about a specific planned attack or the individual’s personal involvement in planning or carrying out a specific attack. This notion stretches the concept of imminence in a manner that is potentially disastrous for the protection of human rights and the international rule of law.

Third, repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

For over a decade, the US government has claimed that it is engaged in a global and pervasive armed conflict against a diffuse network of non-state actors which provides its forces the license to kill individuals anywhere in the world at any time, whenever it deems--based on secret information--such actions to be appropriate. The message sent is that a government can ignore or jettison its human rights obligations and replace them with rules of its own whenever it deems the circumstances warrant it. The "global war" theory must be rejected, its central pillar, the 2001 AUMF, must be repealed, and the US government must adhere to the international legal definition of armed conflict.

Fourth, ensure judicial review--but reject a 'kill court.'

The US government is obligated by law to ensure independent and impartial investigations in all cases of alleged unlawful killings and to ensure effective redress and remedy where killings are found to have been unlawful. The proposal by some to set up a secret pre-strike kill court should be rejected out of hand. It would be a false fix that would serve only to entrench human rights violations. Such a court would be inherently unfair and would show that the 'imminence' test for the use of lethal force was not satisfied. Post-strike review and remedy for unlawful killings are the right solution.

Fifth, uphold the rights of all people, not only US citizens.

Some have called for legislation that would provide greater protections for US citizens against the use of lethal force (or for that matter indefinite detention). Such legislation should be rejected. International human rights law explicitly prohibits discrimination on the grounds of national origin when it comes to respect for human rights. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, wrote: "Do the United States and its people really want to tell those of us who live in the rest of the world that our lives are not of the same value as yours?"

In closing, human rights violations by the US government are not only of concern in their own right: they also weaken the credibility of the US government as an advocate for respect for human rights by other states; they set dangerous precedents that other states may exploit to avoid responsibility for their human rights violations; and if unchecked there is a real risk that the “global war” theory will further corrode the foundations of the international human rights framework. We reiterate our call on the US government to recognize the application of international human rights law to all US counter-terrorism operations, wherever they occur.

Thank you.