![\"Nawaz](\"http:\/\/rt.com\/files\/opinionpost\/1f\/4f\/f0\/00\/4567.jpg\")
<\/p>\nWhen President Obama tells people that drones are more humane weapons, he tries to be a good salesman for the weapon, but forgets that it\u2019s a weapon which kills, Shahzad Akbar, a human rights lawyer representing drone victims, told RT.<\/p>\n
\n Shahzad Akbar, Director of the Foundation for Fundamental Rights,
\n and a member of the British human rights organization Reprieve,
\n is a human rights lawyer representing drone victims in a criminal
\n case against US officials.\n<\/p>\n
\n The interview comes as Pakistan voted on Wednesday in favor of
\n Nawaz Sharif, who begins an unprecedented third term as Prime
\n Minister of this country of 180 million people.\n<\/p>\n
\n <\/p>\n
\n In an address to parliament after he was elected, Sharif
\n specifically called for an end to the drone attacks used by the
\n United States to target terrorists in the tribal areas bordering
\n Afghanistan to the north.\n <\/p>\n
“This daily routine of drone attacks, this chapter shall now
\n be closed,<\/i>” Sharif said to enthusiastic applause. “We do
\n respect others’ sovereignty. It is mandatory on others that they
\n respect our sovereignty<\/i>.”<\/b><\/p>\n
RT: Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with
\n us. How would you describe the fundamental issue with the US
\n drone program as you see it?<\/i>\n<\/p>\n
\n Shahzad Akbar:<\/b> the fundamental problem with drone strikes
\n in Pakistan is that it\u2019s completely negating the right to life of
\n citizens of Pakistan and that\u2019s the basis of our whole campaign
\n against drones. The other issue is violation of security, or not
\n having a proper legal mechanism behind the drone strikes in
\n Pakistan; for me it\u2019s all subsidiary issues, the main issue here
\n is that it\u2019s negating the right to life to people of Pakistan,
\n it\u2019s negating due process, it\u2019s negating everything, which
\n civilized society offers, a democratic society offers to its
\n citizens. So it\u2019s against the law and this is taking lives, and
\n it\u2019s not just taking militant or terrorists\u2019 lives, it\u2019s taking
\n civilians, young children, women, elderly and other civilians\u2019
\n lives as well.\n<\/p>\n
\n RT:<\/b> Drones have been touted as a more humane form of
\n warfare and some supporters have said that its more preferable to
\n have a few targeted strikes as opposed to troops on the ground
\n fighting a traditional war.<\/i>\n<\/p>\n
\n SA:<\/b> I think when President Obama tells people that drones
\n are more humane weapons, I think he\u2019s just trying to be a good
\n salesman for a weapon, at the end of the day, it\u2019s a weapon which
\n kills. So if you kill people in a humane way or inhumane way, the
\n basic fundamental thing that you are doing here is killing. And
\n if that killing is illegal without the due process, then that\u2019s
\n what\u2019s wrong with it. It\u2019s not about the weapon, it\u2019s not about
\n the machinery, it\u2019s about the very thing what you do and that is
\n killing. So if you are killing people without due process,
\n without any law behind you, then you are committing a crime.\n<\/p>\n
\n RT:<\/b> President Obama has stated that drones \u201chave not
\n caused a huge number of civilian casualties\u201d, he said that for
\n the most part these have been \u201cprecise\u2026\u201d, and the program targets
\n \u201care active terrorists\u201d. How do you respond to his
\n assessment?<\/i>\n<\/p>\n
\n SA:<\/b> President Obama often says that it only kills militant
\n and doesn\u2019t kill civilians, but yet he fails to give their names
\n and identities of those who\u2019ve been killed in these strikes in
\n Pakistan. Now according to independent sources more than 3
\n thousand people have been killed in Waziristan in Pakistan, but
\n not a single name has been given by President Obama or the CIA,
\n which is carrying out all these strikes. What we hear from news
\n reports is just a few names of militant leaders who\u2019ve been
\n killed and rest is all a guess.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\n So if President Obama is still sure that he is killing militants
\n and he has not killed any civilians, then he has to give names
\n and details of all those militants who he has killed, because for
\n as a Pakistani I would be happy in a sense, that if you have
\n killed all those people who are creating all this terror in my
\n cities. If you\u2019ve killed all these people, ok I let you go
\n probably for your violation of law, but at least I will be happy
\n that you are making me safe. But the question here is who are you
\n killing? You have no idea yourself, and this is what the recent
\n reports published in American media tell us, that US has no idea,
\n CIA has no idea who they are actually killing in these drone
\n strikes.
\n <\/p>\n
\n ![\"Pakistani](\"http:\/\/rt.com\/files\/opinionpost\/1f\/4f\/f0\/00\/000_del6184126.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n RT:<\/b> How can anyone know who is actually getting killed
\n in these drone strikes?\u00a0<\/i>\n<\/p>\n
\n SA:<\/b> Isn\u2019t it the CIA who should be knowing who they are
\n killing because CIA, when they say it\u2019s very precise and it\u2019s
\n very accurate, so what it this precision and accuracy if you
\n don\u2019t know who you are killing?\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\n RT:<\/b> Most of the drone strikes take place in remote
\n areas, known as tribal areas, which are effectively blocked by
\n Pakistani authorities from the rest of the world. Can you
\n describe a little bit the conditions in these areas?<\/i>\n<\/p>\n
\n SA:<\/b> Well, most of the drone strikes in Pakistan, which the
\n number is more than 370 drone strikes so far, and they have been
\n taking place in the tribal areas of Pakistan and specifically in
\n two regions, one is South Waziristan and the second is North
\n Waziristan. And these areas, one is an operational military area,
\n and the other area has a huge contingent of Pakistani military in
\n that area, which has been blocked from the rest of the country.
\n The whole border between Pakistan from North Waziristan to
\n Afghanistan is also pretty much manned. According to the recent
\n number, which they have given to a UN representative, in Pakistan
\n that number is more than 100,000 soldiers in Waziristan, so this
\n is the kind of area, where President Obama, says this is the
\n place I’m hitting where the Pakistani Army or no one can reach.
\n So there is a reach, but this reach is by the Pakistani military,
\n and no one else. So, for example, independent journalists like
\n you or campaigner like me, or a lawyer like me cannot go to that
\n area. And similarly if anyone wants to come out of this area to
\n report of any violation, it’s extremely difficult for that person
\n to come here because, just to give you an example, to get out of
\n Miranshah, which is the capital of North Waziristan, to get out
\n of that into a settled area, there is a road, which is not more
\n than 30 to 40 kilometers, and you have to cross 7 military
\n checkpoints. Where pretty much at every checkpoint you are
\n stripped, and if you don’t have an ID saying that you are from
\n the tribal area, you are not allowed in or out.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\n Some people might not like it, but I simply call it a
\n concentration camp, that you’ve built a wall of military and
\n militants, and behind this wall you are keeping more than 800
\n thousand people who are not allowed to come out and no one from
\n the rest of the country is allowed to go in. And that is kind of
\n laboratory that US is using to use test its drone program.\n<\/p>\n
\n RT:<\/b> How do you establish innocence of your
\n client?\u00a0<\/i>\n<\/p>\n
\n SA:<\/b> Interestingly, I don\u2019t have to prove their innocence
\n in the court of law, because in court of law you have this
\n principle that presumption of innocence, everyone is innocent
\n until proven guilty. It\u2019s just a court of public perception when
\n I go out there with my clients. First question people ask me, how
\n would you prove them to be innocent? And my answer to them is,
\n how would you prove them to be guilty so that you kill them? Do
\n you have anything against my client to say that they are
\n militants; they are family members of militants, with a person
\n who has been killed was a militant, so therefore that person was
\n killed. There is not even an allegation of that present here. So
\n there is not even an allegation of that, so how do I prove my
\n client\u2019s innocence is not really my job, but I think they have
\n proven their innocence by travelling from Waziristan, crossing
\n all those dozens of checkpoints by military, coming to Islamabad
\n and Peshawar filing their cases in the High Court, speaking with
\n journalists, speaking with the rest of the world and telling
\n their story. And on the other side what we have is utter silence.
\n CIA is saying nothing, they are not even getting my clients\u2019
\n claims, so who do you believe here?
\n <\/p>\n
\n ![\"A](\"http:\/\/rt.com\/files\/opinionpost\/1f\/4f\/f0\/00\/000_del240936.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n RT:<\/b> And how do you define a militant in this case, Ive
\n read statements stating that the US claims any able bodied male
\n from a certain age group is a potentially a militant.<\/i>\n<\/p>\n
\n SA:<\/b> I think there are two things here. One is, first of
\n all, there is no definition of who is a militant and who is not a
\n militant, just like there is no definition so far for a
\n terrorist. If you don\u2019t have so far a proper definition of
\n terrorist.. The problem here is in Waziristan that what we are
\n talking about here is the signature strikes. Now this is kind of
\n methodology that has been developed by the CIA that they are
\n going to study the behavior of a person and the way someone is
\n dressed or is looking. And then on the basis of that they draw
\n this assumption that this person might be a militant we are
\n looking for. And that just this whole process simply explains to
\n you the absurdity of this process and selecting a target. So, for
\n example, according to, again, once again, the documents leaked by
\n the CIA or of the CIA and printed and published in American
\n journals or newspapers indicate that a signature is where a CIA
\n operative is looking at the screen, studies the person’s
\n behavior. For example if there is a guy who has a long beard,
\n wears certain kind of turban, carries a gun, drives in a SUV is
\n your militant, and this is the basis of the CIA\u2019s labeling anyone
\n as a militant and then taking a target and killing them. And this
\n is what we used to have in the United States in the 60s – racial
\n profiling. If you are a black guy and you are walking in a white
\n neighborhood and all the police was supposed to stop and search
\n you because you are a black guy, you are supposed to be a thief.
\n So the question for Americans is: is this what you would like to
\n be known for? Or are your principles important which your four
\n fathers fought for centuries and built those principles within
\n your own country?
\n <\/p>\n
\n RT:<\/b> US Assistant Secretary of Defence Michael Sheehan
\n told the Senate Armed Services Committee that there is no time
\n limit or geographical boundary on drone strikes. He said that
\n military operations against Al-Qaeda would last beyond the
\n present term of President Obama \u201c10 to 20 years.\u201d That would mean
\n that the drone strikes would continue till 2024, or even up to
\n 2034….what’s your response?<\/i>\n<\/p>\n
\n SA:<\/b> I think the US administration is not really listening
\n to reason here because all governments around the world, UN,
\n people on the ground are telling them that this is a disastrous
\n program, and you have to listen to reason, you have to listen to
\n all those hundreds of cases of innocent civilians who have been
\n killed in Pakistan, in Waziristan by drones and hundreds of
\n civilians who have been killed even in Afghanistan, where your
\n forces even have the ground control, and still you are committing
\n so many mistakes, you are killing civilians. Just to give you one
\n example, in 2010 US military killed its own soldier, who was on
\n ground, with a drone. So they were American soldiers dressed as
\n locals on some kind of operation, and they\u2019ve been killed by
\n drones themselves. One thing, which the American administration
\n needs to understand, is that drone technology is not a very
\n sophisticated or complicated technology; and what if in future
\n countries have drones, what will be the impact of the precedence
\n that US is setting on the world.
\n <\/p>\n
\n RT:<\/b> You almost make it seem like there\u2019s unanimous
\n international opposition to the use of drones but if drones
\n per-se were so bad, why would Pakistani officials ask for the
\n technology?<\/i>\n<\/p>\n
\n SA:<\/b> I would ask a question that what role the Pakistani
\n Army or Pakistani Government is playing in drone wars. Because on
\n one side they are saying that drones are illegal and
\n counter-productive, but on the other side we also hear that they
\n have been cooperating on drone wars in Pakistan. And this is the
\n key question that we have been asking through our litigation and
\n this is the thing, which has been settled in Peshawar High Court,
\n litigation, which we recently succeeded in. And court held
\n categorically that drone strikes are illegal and Pakistani
\n government submitted their reply in the court saying that they
\n are not cooperating and that they will not cooperate in the
\n future, there is no consent on drone strikes. So therefore the
\n court gave a very categorical order to the government of Pakistan
\n to tell Americans that there will be no more drone strikes in
\n Pakistan, and if there are, there will be consequences for rulers
\n ass well.
\n <\/p>\n
\n RT:<\/b> What are the prospects of this actually
\n happening?<\/i>\n<\/p>\n
\n SA:<\/b> I think there are good prospects\u2026 I think this
\n judgment of Peshawar high court provides that tool for Prime
\n Minister Nawaz Sharif to take up the case of drones with the
\n Americans and settle it, now it\u2019s for the Americans to listen to
\n reason. And if they don\u2019t, then I\u2019m not sure what options the
\n Prime Minister has left because we\u2019ve had a Prime Minister in the
\n recent past who\u2019s been sent home by a court of law for not
\n obeying the decision of the court. So then the Prime Minister
\n should be running the risk of being sent home. This is exactly
\n what we\u2019ll be doing if drone strikes continue and the Prime
\n Minister doesn\u2019t do much on drones. If he doesn\u2019t tell the
\n Americans to stop it, he doesn\u2019t order the Pakistani military to
\n shoot it down. Then we have another option, but to go to court
\n for the contempt of court against him.\n<\/p>\n
\n RT:<\/b> But is Pakistan in the position to be able to be
\n able to challenge the United States on the drone program?<\/i>\n<\/p>\n
\n SA:<\/b> Why not? I mean, Pakistan has not always been
\n listening to the United States. For example, just to give you an
\n example of Nawaz Sharif\u2019s previous 10 years as Prime Minister
\n when Pakistanis wanted to nuclear test despite America\u2019s
\n pressure. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif at that time went ahead
\n with it and at this time if a Pakistani Prime minister really
\n wants to stop the drone strikes, it\u2019s not really hard to shoot it
\n down. And Pakistan withdrawing its cooperation from war on
\n terror, I don\u2019t think US will have much option here.
\n <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n