The release of the movie Eye in the Sky was much anticipated in the legal community. In some commentaries and reviews, the movie is sometimes billed as a military drama or a movie about new technology in warfare. That sounds better than a ’decision-making drama’, but that is what it actually comes down to. ’Eye in the Sky’ highlights the legal, political but above all moral dilemma of targeting individuals with armed drones and the possibility of also killing innocent civilians. Of course, for me, it was thrilling to watch and listen to legal principles and concepts in action. But more importantly it highlighted the facts that the law doesn’t provide an answer to every dilemma, and that law is only one part of the equation. I don’t think it is Oscar material, but the subject matter is so timely and thrilling that it may have a shot.
The Eye in the Sky Plot
Essentially, the movie features three main characters that are part of the decision-making process. Helen Mirren (do I need to cite a past movie here?) plays Colonel Powell, with what seems to me an unhealthy obsession with a couple of terrorists. Aaron Paul (’Breaking Bad’) plays an American drone pilot in what looks like a shipping container in the desert around Las Vegas. Alan Rickman (see Helen Mirren), in his last film before his passing, plays a British general who is in charge of managing, nudging the politicians towards a decision. These politicians in the room with Rickman’s character – General Benson – include some junior British ministers, but also the Attorney General.
Colonel Powell is in charge of capturing two terrorists in Kenya, through the use of Kenyan troops on the ground, with a drone flying overhead providing intelligence. However, the terrorists move quickly into an area controlled by Al-Shabaab making the use of ground troops impossible. Drone- and human intelligence then discover that the two terrorists are joined by two even bigger targets on the wanted-list, and are getting fitted for suicide vests. This dramatic confluence of circumstances switched the ongoing mission from ’capture’ to ’kill’. And the legal discussion kicks in.
The Conundrum (spoiler alert!)
The first significant legal moment is when Colonel Powell asks the lawyer on duty in the secret bunker whether she has permission to strike the targets with a missile from the drone. Looking rather flustered, the junior officer boldly states that the Rules of Engagement for the mission cover only the capture of a target, not the killing. Conclusion: the Rules are insufficient and do not allow a lethal strike, so new rules are necessary. Under pressure from the Colonel who answers with non-legal arguments, the lawyer tells the Colonel (rather uncomfortably) that he wants to ’refer up’ to the the Attorney General for a final decision on the matter. Now, this term becomes a theme, which can also be described as ’passing the buck’, or the decision as a hot potato that no one wants in his/her hands. Sitting in a room with the politicians, General Benson gets surprisingly quick approval from the Attorney General, but gets push back from the other politicians. Why? Because the targets include British and American citizens, and the potential for collateral damage.
Military necessity and collateral damage
In the law of armed conflict (also called international humanitarian law), lethal action may be taken if there is a military necessity, but any collateral damage must be minimized to the largest extent possible. In the scenario here, the collateral damage is acceptable for everyone at first. All these most highly rated targets are gathered in one house and two of them are about to go on a suicide mission, and collateral damage is deemed minor. But the presence of the little girl just outside the house changes everything. The drone pilot refuses to fire off his missile and is apparently authorized to demand a new assessment of the collateral damage. Is the possible death of one little girl acceptable collateral damage when weighed against the military necessity of preventing suicide bombers from blowing up potentially many more children and other people? Politically, how would it play in the public’s eyes when it becomes aware that an innocent little girl was consciously put at risk, in order to kill these terrorists?
Refer up!
And you guessed it, the junior minister who must take the decision, doesn’t do so, but ’refers up’, to the British Foreign Secretary who is overseas. The Foreign Secretary is not at his best, does the same thing, and refers up to the Prime Minister. Although he or she is not shown, an exasperated aide tells the ’war room’ that permission must be given by the US Secretary of State. Portrayed as a stereotypical cowboy in this area, the Secretary can’t believe he is interrupted during his trip in China and gives his permission in a blink of an eye. For good measure, a lawyer from the White House calls in just to say that the US is ready to kill accept the legal and political risks. However, the British stubbornly try to reduce the risk of collateral damage in a number of suspenseful ways that add good drama.
A moral dilemma
The audience finds itself rooting for the little girl, but will often understand the need for military action. If I were to guess, the political considerations generate less support. This movie highlights that it all military, political and legal dilemmas are closely related and actually start with a moral one. The law provides the parameters within which the military decision has to be made. Political considerations can ignore both, but probably won’t. Eye in the Sky covers this dilemma well. It shows these tensions with great actors, a script in full service of the dilemma and in which silences and picture say more than a thousand words. The suspense arch is well, suspenseful. In any case, this movie should become a staple of every international humanitarian law course at whatever level it is taught.
Conclusion? Go see this movie and try making the decision to strike or not. Let me know what you decide and why, in the comments below, through Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn.
