Jones strikes. Coll defended the use of drones. Ivo good evening, ladies and gentlemen. On the half of the council for global affairs, i am delighted to introduce our distinguished panel tonight. I look forward to a spirited that isn an issue answerly without a clear to right and wrong. And others, we are thrilled you have taken time to come here tonight. Thank you. As you are aware, in recent years, drones have become an important weapon in the war on inror, conducting attacks afghanistan, pakistan, and beyond. The increased use of drones for targeted killing has become an increase controversy. Many questions arise both at home and abroad. This is a particularly interesting debate for me. As a former infantry marine corps officer, both the pros and cons of this debate and of drone strikes in general hit closer to home them probably for the general audience. On the one hand, drones are quite attractive. They provide the capability to have me here or true near or true reconnaissance coverage, and issue strike coverages on criteria being met, all are removing the risk of a downed pilot scenario. By the way, which would inevitably lead to hostage rescue situations. Hand, there are very real second and third order consequences from these strikes. Collateral damage may be lower than the alternative, based on analysis from academics as well as the cia, the potential increase in the actual overall number of strikes makes these consequences very real. Because when we talk about Collateral Damage to we should be very clear what that means. Were talking about civilians. So each person needs to ask him or herself, you know, how many future enemy combatants and we actually created through these actions . So clearly, there is much more to account for when debating drone strikes. Much lesst debatable, drones are here to stay. According to the intelligence review, the market for military drones is expected to almost double to over 10 million. Given this, we must grapple with them, their effects on our as well, our society, as political and legal frameworks. So tonight, im truly looking forward to an indepth and informative discussion on the topic. You all have biographies on your chairs. So please allow me to briefly introduce the panel. Director alberto coll, of the european and latin american Legal Studies Program collegel universitys of law. Previously, he served as dean as principle secretary of defense. Oconnellmary ellen is a professor of law at notre dame university, where she also does research on international dispute resolution. She previously worked for the u. S. Dod in germany, as a professional military educator. Our moderator tonights ivo daalder. He is director of European Affairs at the National Security council. So without further a new, ladies and a moment, please join me and welcoming the panel. [applause] ivo thank you for the very kind introduction. And for setting the stage for the issues that were going to be discussing in the next hour that yout dilemmah have sketched out. We are just talking about the drones that are going to delivering your packages next week or that your kids are flying in the backyards. Or at least mine are. We are talking about a particular kind of drone, armed and capable of inflicting harm on people who are capable of striking with military weapons. These drones, they came and were developed as part of our counterterrorism strategy. The idea of actually putting a missile on a drone came from the desire by the United States to target a single individual. Osama bin laden, who was in afghanistan. And this was well before 9 11, it was actually done during the clinton administration, and spurred by both the agency, the cia, and the defense department. But encouraged her very much, by people inside the white house. So it was very much thought of in terms of a counterterrorism strategy. The employment of these systems in the last decades plus, really since 2000 an01, has raised a whole host of issues. Issues that are important for us to understand, because whether we like it or not, these systems are with us. They are here today, and theyre likely to be here tomorrow. And more and more people will have the capacity to decide when and how to use them. They raise fundamental issues of morality and ethics, issues of effectiveness and military strategy, and issues of legal that the legality of the use of these weapons. Particularly, when it comes to killing civilians in a foreign country. But possibly in other ways. So, that is what we will be discussing today. Debatesomewhat of a format for the two participants here do not necessarily agree on every single point when it comes to the legality of the use of these systems. The unarmedioned vehicles, drones that have been around for a while. They were used by the u. S. First in the military in the 1990s. They were then armed for counterterrorism in afghanistan in 2001. After a whole variety of other theaters, afghanistan and pakistan and the middle east in libya and yemen, and in other places, it is not just the United States that has these capabilities. Increasingly, other countries are using and employing these weapons, as well. So, here is how we will have our discussion. I will say nothing. For about 10 minutes. Willse our two panelists each have five minutes of introductory remarks. We will start with faster oconnell and move on to professor coll. Light, andave a red orange light, a green light. But let me tell you, we are going to try to stick to these times so we can have a little discussion. Oconnell i am a law professor and irishman was a speaking for five minutes will be challenging. Just two years ago, we were so focused on the drone. I attended a wonderful conference from tom durkin who is here. Some of you may be asking why were still talking about drones . Isnt isis the only issue on the agenda . I think you are right to ask that. But in my view, the comments i want to make, i will bring these two topics together. A policy ofink counterterrorism that soaking to focus on and use the drone has been, in part responsible for the rise of isis. Isis came up from, according to the cia, nowhere. But of course, they were around. Just did not watch as they were focused on using drone killings. Drones that terrorized the , note who are affected just the targets, but those who have to live under the constant threat of attack. And they are open to the recruitment by groups like isis, when they say, the people who sent you the drones are our enemies and we are going to train you to fight them. In fact, the drone has become the single biggest recruiting tool for islamic terrorist organizations since guantanamo was used for that purpose. Actual may be the success of isis, and self. Reliance on drones has distracted the u. S. From pursuing other, more effective counterterrorism measures. It has distracted the cia from intelligence gathering, and they are associate with destabilizing the governments we need in place to oppose groups like isis. The focus on drones squanders precious resources that could be used to a college far more good, especially in establishing conditions for greater global security. Drone use models violence. And in defiance of the rule of law, as an acceptable means to a competent positive goals. In a world awash with conflict, the u. S. s failure to develop alternatives to the unlawful use of drones has helped give rise to groups like isis. Lay out thebriefly law that i am talking about that we have defied in using drones. Then spend a very brief moment, with more evidence on the negative consequences of that defiance of law. The drones we are talking about tonight our military drones only, as ivo said. The ones we used the reaper which is the main drone in our arsenal now that fires only one weapon. The hellfire missile. It was designed by Lockheed Martin to kill tanks. This is not a police weapon. If youre going to use a weapon like that outside the u. S. , you have to meet the rules of the United Nations charter. These are the rules for the force which are binding to the u. S. , a full party in the u. N. And to other rules of International Law. The charter says that all use of military force is prohibited, with two narrow exceptions that are in the charter, itself. The Security Council can authorize force, which it did most recently in libya in 2011. Or a state may use force in selfdefense to an armed attack. Occurs, thatttack is what the charter says, and for such time until such time the Security Council enters in and helps defend the country. So when the United States went to war in afghanistan, after 2001, we dider 7, so on the basis of article 51 selfdefense under the u. N. Charter. That is what our letter to the Security Council said. But it does not end there. Not only do you have to have an armed attack, as we did with the 9 11 attack, but you are using force, and must meet other principles. It have to be a last result. Achieving the defensive purpose. Second, the force has to do some good, it has to accomplish the necessity of that military defensive purpose. And third, it has to be proportional. You cannot kill more people would do more destruction, create the conditions for ongoing revenge in your strategy whatrry out defense than was originally inflicted upon you. So, this is a very narrow right to use force as selfdefense. And if youre using a bomb against the territory of a foreign, sovereign state, regardless of who is there, you have to only attack the country that is responsible for the initial triggering attack. Droneoblem with using the in places like pakistan, yemen, somalia those countries never attacked the u. S. And what has happened and what has been the result of the u. S. Using the drone . Unlawfully in those countries to which i contend has been the case, yemen is in far more worse condition than when the first day we use the drone there in december of 2002. Our drone use, constant military force against that small, fragile country helped trigger the civil war that the stabilizing destabilizing the country. I could give other examples of what actually works. But we actually did in the case of Osama Bin Laden, we did not get him with a drone. We use, basically, Police Tactics. We used intelligence gathering, and we sent a Commander Team that apparently according to john brennan with orders to arrest. And if he resisted arrest, we could kill him in the resistance to arrest. We did not use a drone against bin laden. That is actually a model case of how to go about in countering, not military force. We have been hearing from more and more of our experts in this field, that drone use has this unlawful use in all of these countries. And at the end of the day, as of today, it has been counterproductive. Just spoke atlger notre dame in the fall, and he on terror haswar been lost. We have been using military force, which is not effective against terror to them and dictatorial governments. General michael flynn, former head of the u. S. Intelligence agency, said drone attacks have been a failed strategy. 18, 2015, four former drone operators, all veterans, publicly criticized president obamas targeted killing for inflicting heavy civilian casualties and developing an Institutional Culture callus to the death of children and other innocents. Well, when youre children are being killed unlawfully in this the through drones, families are going to send their surviving children off to an organization like isis to get revenge. There is a better way, one that is lawful, ethical, and effective. Ivo thanks very much. As a law professor and an irish person, you can stay within the time. Can a human person to the same . Want to thank the counsel for the hard work. And also my good collie, mary ellen. I have had the pleasure of knowing her for over 20 years. I respect her profoundly for scholarship. And all these things do not prevent me from disagreeing with her, quite vigorously. [laughter] which shows that, of course, one can disagree with people very strongly and still admire them soundly, as i do. So, here is the problem the United States has. Ok . We have individuals in certain parts of the world who are engaged in planning and carrying out attacks against the u. S. Ok . And they operate not in china, not in russia, not in iran, not in Great Britain, or mexico, where we might be a would extradite them or be able to ask those governments to detain them. They operate in areas where we ofnot have a peaceful option detaining them or incapacitating them. And so, as a society, we have an obligation, ok . To respond to those attacks by attacking them. And that is covered by the ruled nations charters on article 51. Mary ellen talks about selfdefense against the armed attack. And indeed can only use drone strikes against those individuals, we are responding to an armed attack. We are not responding against an attack by human. The yemeni government. We are responding to an armed attack by the individual operating in yemen. She did not tell you, of course, that under International Law, yemen, pakistan, and somalia have a Legal International obligation to prevent individuals in their territory from carrying out attacks against the territory or the nationals of the state with which they are at peace. Just as the United States as a similar obligation. You know, we are obligate to prevent any individuals from carrying out attacks from u. S. Territory against any nation or state with which we are at peace. Now, these governments pakistan, somalia, yemen either in able or in some cases are unwilling because of deep domestic political divisions to prevent these individuals from operating. And so my question is, what are we supposed to do . Do we simply cross our hands and allow them to operate with impunity . They are not operating in a zone of Armed Conflict, and might be area, or iraq, or afghanistan. But they moved to another area and we allow them to operate with impunity . Is that what natural law, morality, what the law really allows . And i suggest to you that when the language in the United Nations charter was written in 1945, ok, we did not have this problem. We did not have the capacity of individuals and terrorist organizations operating in these lawless areas, striking against the u. S. Or against other countries. So, we have to respond. Now, i agree we have to respond using necessity, using proportionality. We may agree that sometimes, perhaps, we have used too many drone strikes. And we might agree that maybe we have to be more selective, more careful. Ok . But to ban drone strikes as unlawful, i think, makes a travesty of what International Law is. As it has been famously said, it is not a recipe for suicide. State saidetary of this about height of the cuban missile crisis read and so last cases,and yes, in many it is a last resort because peaceful resolution, detention, arrest does not work. I find it interesting for mary ellen to call obamas Osama Bin Laden operation a police operation. It was not a police operation, ok. And it was not a police that it was the use of u. S. Military force. It was an attack, a combat operation against an individual who had engaged in an armed attack against the u. S. Now, obviously, had Osama Bin Laden surrendered, we were under a legal obligation to arrest him and bring him back to the United States. And we would have done so. If he did not surrender, we were there to kill him. Ok . And it was a combat operation. Obviously, you, know drone strikes are designed to be proportional. Sometimes going to do cause Collateral Damage. Innocent people get killed. And we look at how we could make some of these operations much more discriminate. We do go out of our way to make these operations very discriminatory. And we try to avoid Collateral Damage. We make every effort not to hit individuals who are present in mosques, and hospitals, in places where there is a high likelihood of Collateral Damage. We still wind up killing innocent people. But i suggest to you, that if we were to use socalled Police Tactics, as mary ellen has suggested, to arrest these individuals, we was still have massive Collateral Damage. We was still wind up killing lots of innocent people because the militants against which we would direct the socalled Police Tactics would have armed supporters around them. And they would use shelters in the civilian population to force these civilian casualties. Our member very clearly, of course, and somalia, we actually sent u. S. Forces there to arrest mohammed, the somalia warlord. And we all know what happened. He mobilized his militant sympathizers, they surrounded a group of u. S. Special operation forces, it was a firefight. And the result was hundreds of innocent people killed. So, we have to look very closely and at the question, what options does the u. S. Have in some of these cases . Ivo great. Thanks to both of you for i think of very clear, definitive statement. I will throw out a few questions, in order to get the disagreement going. [laughter] i will not discourage any of you to mary ellen i think it is going great. Ivo let us hope that this of it. Mary ellen, let me start with you. I was intrigued by the idea that it was the unlawful use of force that was a big recruitment tool for isis. Which seems to imply the lawful use of force against isis would not be a big recruitment tool. And yet, we know that, of of 2014, the june u. S. Has engaged in military action in a lawful way against isis. Because it was invited by the defend iraqment to they cametack from syria, not a foreign country i do not think there is any dispute that the u. S. Was acting on behalf of of the iraqi government, or with the support of the government. And that ava has of the government, and at the behest of the government, it is likely that isis is using that as a recruitment tool. Because the bombs falling from an aircraft, as opposed to a droned,from a hellfire might not be di