The USA Defends Its Drone Attacks In Pakistan

The US defended its drone attacks in Pakistan, saying it takes "extraordinary care" to ensure they comply with the international law. The unmanned attacks targetting terror suspects were a "course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life" White House said. It follos he allegations by Human Rights Watch and Emnesty International of the unlawful killlings of the civilians. Pakistan's PM on Tuesday urged the US to end drone attacks in his country. Speaking at the start of the visit to US, Nawaz Sharif said the attacks violated the his country's "sovereignty." ( Has Pakistan any "Sovereignty"? These words have been repeated more than thousand times by Pakistani leaders and politicians, did these have any impact in the past that would have now, never). He added that raids were major "irritant" in relations with Washingtom. Drone warfare has become common in the US pursuit of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Few details are known about these covert operations, which are controlled remotedly from the control rooms, often on other continents. In a new report released on Tueday, Amnesty said it reviewed nine out of 45 recent drone strikes in North Waziristan and found a number of victims were unarmed. In the report, Will I Be Next? US Drone Strikes In Pakistan, Amnesty called on the US to disclose the information and legal basis for strikes carried out in Pakistan. As for local claims of civilian deaths in drone strikes in South and North Waziristan ( the tribal areas of Pakistan), targetting millitant camps, they are almost impossible to prove. One reason is the restricted access of media in theregion. The other is the millitants' tendency to cordon off the targeted sites and make quick burials. But Waziristan is a small place, with well-knit tribal clans living and interacting closely wity each other. Civilian deaths can not go unnoticed here and anecdotal evidence travel fast. The general impression one gets from talking to elders from the area is that drone strikes for the most part are accurate, causing little or no collateral damage. It seems that if civilian deaths had been as high as those mentioned in some international reports, there would have been more of an outcry against it bot socially and in the media.