Amnesty says OBL raid, Drone Strikes unlawful

[Solomon2]

It's Kucinich. Imo, he's sort of in la-la-land himself - but he did get ten other congressmen to sign on.

But no senators. Confirmation of cabinet appointees happens in the Senate and consequently a senator's opinion on policy matters carries more weight than that of a congressman, who can merely cut off funds.

While I consider AM's position that the Security Council needs to explicitly authorize drone strikes rather than rely on the post-9/11 resolutions depriving a non-terror-resisting state of sovereignty dangerous nonsense (akin to outlawing murder but claiming that as long as the police don't arrest a suspect it's O.K.), I suppose his attitude that direct orders from the Security Council carry more impact may be worthwhile.

Would you be happy if the Security Council takes stronger action, explicitly condemning Pakistan for its negligence at enforcing UNSCR 1373, or would you prefer the "softer" approach of the majority of the SC publicly approving drone strikes in N. Wazirstan?

 

[ashok321]

But Pakistan has effectively, if not publicly, consented to drone strikes. Reports indicate that Pakistani officials not only consent to such strikes, but share relevant intelligence and even allow drones to use Pakistani airfields. While important questions remain regarding the scope and substance of its consent, Pakistan has never advanced formal complaints in any international forum. Pakistan’s failure to avail itself of international remedies or formal means of protest strongly suggests—and perhaps actually constitutes—consent to the strikes.
However, statements by various U.S. officials suggest that they do not consider the legality of the strikes to rest exclusively upon Pakistani consent. According to the U.S., the drone strikes are also justified by self-defense.