UK minister faces legal action over US drone strikes in Pakistan

Islamabad, Mar 12 (ANI): Lawyers representing the family of a man killed in a US drone attack in Pakistan has said they would begin a legal action against Britain's Foreign Secretary William Hague, accusing him of complicity in strikes that allegedly broke international laws.

London law firm Leigh Day and Co said it had "credible, unchallenged" evidence that Hague oversaw a policy of passing British intelligence to US forces planning attacks against militants in Pakistan.

It plans to issue formal proceedings against Hague at the High Court in London on behalf of Noor Khan, whose father died in a drone attack last year, The Dawn reports.

Malik Daud Khan was part of a local jirga, or council of elders, holding a meeting in the tribal areas of Pakistan when a missile fired from the drone hit the group, the law firm said.

Attacks by pilot-less US aircraft have become a key weapon in President Barack Obama's counter-terrorism strategy in Pakistan and officials say they have helped to weaken Al Qaeda's leadership in the region. However, the attacks have become a source of friction between Washington and Islamabad.

Leigh Day and Co will argue that those involved in armed attacks can only claim immunity from criminal law if they are "lawful combatants" taking part in an "international armed conflict".

Khan's lawyers will say that staff working at UK Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) in southwest England, Britain's main intelligence monitoring centre, may have broken the law.

As civilians, they were not classed as combatants and could be prosecuted, the law firm said. They would also say that Pakistan was not involved in an international conflict.

"There is credible, unchallenged evidence that (Hague) is operating a policy of passing intelligence to officials or agents of the US government and that he considers such a policy to be in 'strict accordance' with the law," Richard Stein, head of human rights at Leigh Day, said in a statement.

"If this is the case, the Secretary of State has misunderstood one or more of the principles of international law governing immunity for those involved in armed attacks on behalf of a state." (ANI)