Amnesty says OBL raid, Drone Strikes unlawful

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Your logic, if true, here seems akin to that of an abused spouse in a bad marriage, who keeps on taking the beating to preserve a non existent relationship.. Or alternately, a more practical view, is that Pakistan knows that it will get laughed out of ICJ or UN if it takes this up simply because it was not able to prevent illegal use of its territory by terrorists and USA acted in self defense.

Neither the political nor military leadership wants a complete break from the US - I don't believe either one of the two views the US as an enemy necessarily, but is finding it very hard to engage constructively with the US given anti-Pakistan US policies.

A reluctance to go to the UNSC at least is probably driven out of a realization of the fact that the US would veto any resolution against drone strikes in any case (if the US even let the discussion on the issue get to that stage), which would put the ball back in the court of 'bilateral negotiations', except that there would be a lot more bad blood between the two sides after such an attempt and probably significant US domestic pressure on the US Government to not accede to Pakistani demands on the issue.

I don't believe Pakistan's case would be 'laughed out of the UN/ICJ' - Pakistan has strong legal arguments in support of its position, as have been pointed in other threads.

 

[Solomon2]

"In the absence of further clarification from the US authorities, the killing of Osama bin Laden would appear to have been unlawful," it said.

Pretty weasel-worded, isn't it? It's easy to suspect that AI really believes the strikes are lawful but is trying to press the U.S. to be more open about it. Not very different from what I'm trying to do, you see.

 

[AbhimanyuShrivastav]

I don't believe Pakistan's case would be 'laughed out of the UN/ICJ' - Pakistan has strong legal arguments in support of its position, as have been pointed in other threads.

I dont think those are any stronger than what Taliban had in 2001...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pretty weasel-worded, isn't it? It's easy to suspect that AI really believes the strikes are lawful but is trying to press the U.S. to be more open about it. Not very different from what I'm trying to do, you see.

'Weasel worded' on the part of the US - Amnesty's argument is legitimate, and mirrors one I raised a few days/weeks ago.

The facts as they stand are that, in the absence of any UNSC authorization for the use of force inside Pakistani territory, and no plausible 'self defence' justifications, the US has carried out multiple military operations inside Pakistan, which, per the official Pakistani position, were/are unauthorized and illegal. Therefore, in the absence of any plausible legal justification provided by the US to support its actions, US military operations inside Pakistan, without Pakistani authorization, are illegal.

Amnesty International's conclusions on the legality of US military operations inside Pakistan are legitimate.

I dont think those are any stronger than what Taliban had in 2001...

The Taliban was not recognized as a the legitimate government of Afghanistan in the UN either - there is a world of difference between them and the GoP raising the issue in the UN.

 

[Solomon2]

Ugh, connection problems messing up my posts, I'm giving up for today.

 

[Rocky25]

The question is not about 'human rights' as much as it is about the legality of US actions inside Pakistan.

Given Pakistan's extensive cooperation in neutralizing AQ leaders and members, and its proposals to conduct Pakistan operated or jointly operated drone strikes, the argument that 'the US is doing this because Pakistan is refusing to' is invalid.

Pakistan is a country who strongly supports terrorism and having terror as a state policy! Pakistan only fought against the terrorists who are against them! Pakistan did not go extensively against US enemies!

US is not fool to assume that Paksitan will fight its war! So they are at the field! Simple difference is US has the balls and capability and India lacks both!

Pakistan's aim is to re-direct the terrorists against India in which they are successful in 1989.

 

[SMC]

^ Good ol bharati conspiracy theories.

Yeah, and I bet you also had an alien encounter?

 

[jbond197]

Why is it that this Amnesty International always come into defense of terrorist scums like OBL? Utterly shameful!!!

Anything that helps in reducing earth's load of such scum is justifiable and let's not worry about what the likes of Amnesty says about it!! For me, It lost all the credibility just by questioning OBL killing...


Amnesty International these days rarely talks about when innocent monks are killed or innocent people are killed in blasts but does all the talking about actions against terrorism.. Depends on the funding, I guess..

There should be an investigation on who all funds Amnesty International and i am sure a lot of surprises will come out in open..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Why is it that this Amnesty International always come into defense of terrorist scums like OBL? Utterly shameful!!!

Anything that helps in reducing earth's load of such scum is justifiable and let's not worry about what the likes of Amnesty says about it!! For me, It lost all the credibility just by questioning OBL killing...


Amnesty International these days rarely talks about when innocent monks are killed or innocent people are killed in blasts but does all the talking about actions against terrorism.. Depends on the funding, I guess..

There should be an investigation on who all funds Amnesty International and i am sure a lot of surprises will come out in open..

You are going off on a completely tangential diatribe here - Amnesty International, along with many other commentators as well as the Government of Pakistan, is questioning the legality of the tactics and policies employed by the US, especially with respect to unauthorized (by Pakistan or the UN) US Military operations inside Pakistan.

 

[regular]

Amnesty says OBL raid 'unlawful'​

Amnesty says OBL raid unlawful - thenews.com.pk

Oh! Thank You Amnesty for taking the side of poor innocent Pakistanis getting bombed and slaughtered mercilessly by the evil villan-USA of the world. At least U came to realize now that we poor Pakistanis have been the target of cruelity by the USA/NATO for the last 6 to 7 years......

 

[Abingdonboy]

Amnesty international are always sticking their noses' in criticizing but not giving alternatives or solutions. What would have been their strategy to take care of OBL or take out high level AQ/Taliban leaders in Pakistan? It is clear, for whatever reason, these scumbags operate with impunity in Pakistan and go unchallenged so the GoP isn't going to do anything about them-someone does.Having said that I believe the drone strikes are counter-intuitive and achieve little in the long-run.

 

[Oldman1]

You are going off on a completely tangential diatribe here - Amnesty International, along with many other commentators as well as the Government of Pakistan, is questioning the legality of the tactics and policies employed by the US, especially with respect to unauthorized (by Pakistan or the UN) US Military operations inside Pakistan.

And how exactly would they want us to deal with Osama Bin Laden? Wait for him to come to the U.S.? And its not unauthorized when the Pakistan govt. gave approval when they are the ones who provided support and intel in the first place. Especially when the drones were based in Pakistan, which I'm sure AI forgot to mention.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And how exactly would they want us to deal with Osama Bin Laden? Wait for him to come to the U.S.? And its not unauthorized when the Pakistan govt. gave approval when they are the ones who provided support and intel in the first place. Especially when the drones were based in Pakistan, which I'm sure AI forgot to mention.

The Pakistani government did not give any approval for the ILLEGAL US military operation to kill/capture OBL. Pakistani intelligence did however provide significant assistance and intelligence that allowed the US to put the pieces of the puzzle together to track down OBL.

The US should have informed Pakistan and the operation should have been led by Pakistan (perhaps with US support) as was the case when Pakistan captured the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, along with hundreds of other AQ leaders and members over the years.

On drone strikes, again, in the absence of any official Pakistani authorization or UNSC resolutions authorizing unilateral drone strikes or military ops in Pakistan, US drone strikes are illegal, as pointed out by Amnesty International.

Amnesty international are always sticking their noses' in criticizing but not giving alternatives or solutions. What would have been their strategy to take care of OBL or take out high level AQ/Taliban leaders in Pakistan? It is clear, for whatever reason, these scumbags operate with impunity in Pakistan and go unchallenged so the GoP isn't going to do anything about them-someone does.Having said that I believe the drone strikes are counter-intuitive and achieve little in the long-run.

The 'alternatives' have always been there - the US could have done what was done earlier, when Pakistan captured and neutralized hundreds of AQ operatives, including the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, KSM.

Pakistan has also proposed that the drone strikes be jointly operated or Pakistan operated.

So the alternatives are there, it is the US that has chosen to disregard them out of hubris and pursue a course of action that violates international law, but panders to its ego and arrogance.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Congressmen ask Obama for target criteria, legal justification of drone strikes

By Huma Imtiaz
Published: May 31, 2012

A letter, circulated by Democrat Kucinich, expresses concern over use of drone technology against suspected militants.

WASHINGTON: Congressman Dennis Kucinich and ten other members of the US House of Representatives have asked US President Barack Obama to explain the targeting criteria for drone strikes and the legal justification for them.

A letter, circulated by Democrat Kucinich, expresses concern over the use of drone technology against suspected militants by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).

In a press release, Kucinich said that “these drone strikes are conducted in the name of our national security and yet the Congress and the American people have not been provided with the legal justification for such strikes. The use of drones must be subject to the same legal constrains and oversight as any other weapon. These attacks undermine the moral values and the strategic goals of the United States. The fact that they are conducted with complete impunity and with no accountability threatens to set a dangerous precedent that could unravel the very laws and international standards the US helped to create.”

The letter, says that “as members of the Congress, we are deeply concerned about the full impact of drone strikes.” It asks the President to provide the “targeting criteria for “signature” strikes; mechanisms used by the CIA and JSOC to ensure that such killings are legal; the nature of the follow-up that is conducted when civilians are killed or injured; and the mechanisms that ensure civilian casualty numbers are collected, tracked and analysed.”

The letter follows an article published in The New York Times earlier this week that stated that the President not just signed off on drone strikes, but also had a kill list.

The US, including President Obama have conceded conducting drone strikes in a number of countries including Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

Congressmen ask Obama for target criteria, legal justification of drone strikes – The Express Tribune

===========

Clearly even US legislators have no clue about the international legal justification for US drone strikes, yet some US Establishment Kool Aid drinkers' continue to argue that the 'legal justification is clear' through mental contortions and concocted interpretations of UNSCR 1373.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

- Sen. Barack Obama, 12/20/2007

Posted by a commentator:

The face of collateral damage - Salon.com