Drones & the Right to Life. 

A rant. 

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people — Preamble, UN Declaration of Human Rights

“Obama officials weigh drone attack on US suspect,” I read the headline, and I felt my blood simmer. It felt unfair that in an “unmanned war” on terror, when innocent humans are often killed as “collateral damage,” something as artificial as US citizenship gave room for pause. Wouldn’t humanity have called for this “pause” — the right to have your life reconsidered — to be given this right irrespective of arbitrary national borders and nationality statuses? Wasn’t it unfair that just citizenship could provide a veneer of security in uncertain times? Yet it was so. A U.S. Citizenship changes the rules on how drones operate. American exceptionalism at its finest, perhaps.

If it’s a U.S. citizen, a drone can only lawfully target senior Al-Qaeda operatives, and only under circumstances of “extraordinary seriousness of the threat.” Moreover, as more precaution, the Department of Justice is required to prove his/her guilt, and build a solid case. A drone can only strike when a capture is not feasible, and more importantly, the target must be “a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons,” — caught in the act, in layman terms. However, other citizens on other territories, commoners, they’re fair game, it seems.

Again, it’s not as black and white, as the case of Anwar Al-awlaki and his son showed in “The Drone that Killed my Grandson.” 16 year old American, Abdurrahman Al-Awlaki, was struck by a drone in Yemen as he looked for his father, who was on a list of targets. In response to this death of a minor without due process, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said “I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don’t think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.” — Where you are born, and to whom you are born makes all the difference it seems. Unjust defences in an unjust world.

On the question of human rights, the presumption of innocence is an integral article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 11 states:

1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Yet preemptive drone strikes, without due process continue to blur ethical lines, constraining civil liberties in countries like Pakistan with which the US is not even officially at war with (an ally through technicalities and by strategic default). Humans are not statistics, and there is no “good” in the “greater good” when innocent blood has been spilled. Mistakes, collateral damage, and other euphemisms — are not words that should ever be associated with the murder of human lives — yet they have become commonplace.

Why is it not that ALL humans, irrespective of their citizenship are allowed the right to a fair trial? Why is it that only if the target is an American citizen that ‘the Justice Department is required to show that killing the person through military action is “legal and constitutional”’ Why do we live in a world that has such a messed up justice system that man-made ideas such as citizenship etc. act as protection for human rights (and not even then), and not just the virtue of being a living creature? Every human being, regardless of cast, color, creed, citizenship, socio-economic status etc. should have the right to life. The right to liberty. The right to security of person.

But are those “rights,” inalienable as they are called almost mockingly, reserved for just the privileged few? Are they just Northern constructs, the South unworthy? Can we deem something as fundamentally basic as human rights “reserved” for those who can afford justice, or qualify for justice? Is not justice universal?

In a war that is pitched in black and white, it’s us (Americans) against “them” (everyone else) — them being the “other ” — the faceless, foreign terrorists…. except it’s always gray in war… and it gets “grayer” when countries like Pakistan have broken justice systems. When territories like FATA fall outside the control of a weak administration, and when weak and cowardly governments give a not-so-tacit consent to the the violation of their country’s own sovereignty — leaders tasked with upholding the rights of their citizens — who calls for the rights of Pakistani citizens suffering under drone attacks? Where does “due process of law” go when it comes to Pakistanis? In a precarious, heartbreaking situation a Pakistani anti-drone campaigner was allegedly kidnapped yesterday, according to a lawyer representing him. This is how those who demand justice are treated in this country. Is our system completely, utterly, irreparably damaged?