Der Spiegel Claims Germany Witholds Intel on Militants Who Might Be Drone Strike Targets

According to Der Spiegel Online, Germany is withholding intelligence from the United States out of concern over the legality of such cooperation in circumstances that might result in a drone strike killing a German citizen in Pakistan's FATA:

The target of the October strike was apparently a Taliban commander believed to be behind an attack on a US base in Khost in December 2009, which killed seven American intelligence agents. There are many indications that the CIA knew exactly who was staying in the building outside Mir Ali. The Americans apparently accepted the possibility that Bünyamin E. and the other Islamists from Germany would also be killed in the drone strike. However, their actual target, the Taliban strategist, had left the property before the attack. The deadly drone attack has already changed the way the German and US governments interact. The German Interior Ministry has issued new, more restrictive rules and has instructed the BfV to stop providing the Americans with current information that would make it possible to determine the location of German citizens. Although telephone numbers are still being passed on, details on exact locations are not. If the information ends up on the Americans' so-called "Capture or Kill" lists, the Germans note that it can only be used to arrest suspects. When providing information, the German intelligence agencies include wording to the effect that the Americans can use it "for intelligence purposes only" or "to protect against threats" -- in other words, not to hunt people down. According to a German official, these instructions "rule out the possibility that German information could be used to plan a drone attack." This will hardly put an end to the discussion of drone attacks. More than 30 Islamists from Germany are still in Waziristan. It is only a matter of time before another drone attack claims the lives of German citizens.

Of course, it might also be only a matter of time before one of these 30 guys claims the lives of German citizens.  But I digress.  The details in this piece are fuzzy enough that I wonder how legit this is, so take this all with a grain of salt.  If it is legit, however, it is an extraordinary illustration of the costs of legal uncertainty in counterterrorism policy relating to drone strikes.  Speaking of which, the article also asserts that German prosecutors are at this time attempting to determine whether the law of armed conflict applies in FATA in relation to drone strikes, in order to determine whether to file charges in relation to the drone strike mentioned above:

The degree to which the drone attacks will adversely affect the German-American relationship also depends on the German Federal Prosecutor's Office. In the southwestern city of Karlsruhe, the office's investigators are currently examining the possibility of filing charges against those responsible for the death of Bünyamin E. A key factor in their decision is the question of whether what is happening in Pakistan can be defined as an armed conflict or war, as is the case in Afghanistan. Should the prosecutors answer this question in the affirmative, German forces would have extensive latitude under international criminal law, as was the case with the bombing of a tanker truck in Kunduz in September 2009 that killed up to 142 people, including many civilians. It would constitute something of a carte blanche for the use of drones. This, however, is contradicted by the general legal view that there is no armed conflict in Pakistan. In that case, an investigation into the drone attack that killed Bünyamin E. would be subject to the rules of ordinary criminal law. Such an investigation, by a public prosecutor in Hamburg or Wuppertal, for example, would deal a serious blow to relations with Washington. The federal prosecutors, erring on the safe side, have forwarded the delicate issue to the Foreign Ministry, the BND, Germany's foreign intelligence service, and two institutes, asking for their responses in the form of expert opinions.

Again, take it all with a grain of salt.  If readers have more accurate information, let me know.