Panetta defends drone use in Yemen

US defence secretary Leon Panetta defended the use of drones to kill terror suspects on Thursday amid reports that the CIA is seeking permission to expand strikes in Yemen, a move that renewed debate about the legality of the strategy. Panetta told a congressional hearing that such drone strikes were precise, and targeted only terrorists planning attacks on the US. But an international legal expert countered that such strikes were unlawful, executing suspects without a trial. Such a strategy was questionable enough when employed in Afghanistan but was doubly so in Yemen, given that the US is not at war there, she said. The Washington Post reported on Thursday that the CIA was seeking a wider definition of targets in Yemen so it can launch drones against individuals engaged in behaviour deemed suspicious, such as unloading explosives or gathering at suspected al-Qaeda compounds. The White House has not yet made a decision. The US has been using drones against suspected militants since 2002 in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and around the Horn of Africa. The use of drones in Yemen has been increasing, with Washington fearful about the threat posed to the Yemeni government from insurgents. There have been about eight drone strikes in Yemen this year, with innocent civilians amoung the casualties. Insurgents from a group allegedly linked to al-Qaeda claimed three of its members were killed by a drone on Monday. The Yemeni government claims it was a rocket. Panetta, asked about the Post report during a hearing of the House armed services committee, said the drones were aimed only at people in Yemen posing a threat to the US. "Our target there represents those terrorists, or those al-Qaida terrorists that involve a threat to this country, and there are very specific targets," Panetta said. "This is not broad-based. We are not becoming part of any kind of civil war disputes in that country. We are very precise, and very targeted and will remain pursuant to those operations." The intention was to confine such attacks only to those al-Qaeda terrorists planning attacks on the US. "No more, no less," Panetta said. The chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, General Martin Dempsey, said that drones were not the only tactic being used in Yemen. Counter-terrorism training was being given to Yemeni special forces. Dempsey said: "It's important not to see this as we are only doing one thing and not the other." But Mary Ellen O'Connell, an international law specialist at Notre Dame university, challenged the legality of the strikes. She expressed unease with what she described as a return to the ugly strategy used by the US in the Vietnam war and in Central America. O'Connell, who is also vice-president of the American Society of International Law and who has testified to Congress on legal issues, said of the proposed expansion in Yemen: "In other words, the CIA is seeking to escalate an already unlawful campaign of targeted killing at the very time Yemen needs support building the rule of law and ending violence and military conflict. The last time the CIA had this much freedom to kill was in Vietnam. It killed 25,000 people, and the US lost the war." She said that the Obama administration had decided that detaining people was causing political difficulties so they are just killing them instead, and governments round the world are quiescent. She noted that Obama is a law professor and expressed surprise that this should be happening on his watch. The sensitivities around American strikes in Yemen were illustrated by US embassy cables from 2009, which were made public on WikiLeaks. They detailed how US attacks were carried out covertly and were presented as the work of the Yemeni government to prevent outraging local and regional opinion. In August last year, the former US director of national intelligence, retired admiral Dennis Blair, wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times arguing that while drones had served a useful purpose they had become counterproductive, increasing hatred of America in Pakistan.