Academic

CIA drone pilots as unlawful combatants?

By Tung Yin

Georgetown adjunct law prof Gary Solis has an interesting op-ed in the Washington Post in which he argues that CIA pilots of remote controlled aerial drones are violating the laws of war:

[T]hey are fighters without uniforms or insignia, directly participating in hostilities, employing armed force contrary to the laws and customs of war. Even if they are sitting in Langley, the CIA pilots are civilians violating the requirement of distinction, a core concept of armed conflict, as they directly participate in hostilities.

I think there are some structural reasons to ask whether military drones should be piloted only be military officers, given the desirability of clear chains of command and the like.

However, as I understand it, the purpose of the distinction requirement is to enable combatants to identify lawful targets and to distinguish those from unlawful targets (such as civilians).  Solis does note later on that it is unlikely that there are Taliban or al Qaeda snipers near Langley who could attempt to kill the CIA pilots.  But it seems to me that the analysis risks overlooking the primary vector of conflict -- namely, the drones themselves.  Presumably, the drones must be distinctly recognizable as military aircraft so that they can be appropriately targeted by combatants.  That strikes me as a far more important aspect of distinction than the nature of the pilot, given the remote nature of the piloting.

Full post as published by The Yin Blog on March 12, 2010 (boomark / email).