Barack Obama confirms unmanned drone programme

[VCheng]

Two points:

- US congressional resolutions have no legitimacy outside the US.

- "appropriate force", i.e. force conformant with the rules of engagement relevant under the circumstances. The above ruling does not give US marines the right to shoot 'em up in the middle of Karachi.

Based on that, the next step is to make a valid contention in a court of jurisdiction for redress, right - but only if these points can be proven to be correct, I would submit to you.

If what you say has been so clear in its egregious violation for the last decade or so, why has Pakistan not made that case? To suffer or acquiesce is silence is inexplicable for a nuclear-armed sovereign state, wouldn't you think?

Thus, either the AUMF applies globally, or if it does not, Pakistan's silence provides implicit acceptance of its application over its territory.

=======================

BTW:

The Sphinx. One of the world's most respected superheroes, the Sphinx is "terribly mysterious", and purportedly has the power "to cut guns in half with his mind". He offers the rest of the team dubious or needlessly cryptic advice ("Until you learn to master your rage, your rage will become your master.") and forced antimetabole ("When you learn to balance a tack hammer on your head, you will head off your foes with a balanced attack."), which nonetheless proves useful in their training.

 

[Sugarcane]

R.I.P No words to describe my feelings,

IMHO - Top three ranks of Security forces must be sacked and we should promote brave and honest men from lower ranks.

 

[gambit]

I'll make it simple: Outside a war zone, what you are describing is called a targeted assassination. Doesn't matter how you sugarcoat it the fact is that, if the other person is not resisting arrest, then it's an extra-judicial execution.

Most countries, including the US, have an official stance against state-sponsored assassinations.

That comment was about face-to-face soldiers or people shooting at planes, but in any case, the point is that all these actions are within a war zone.

We are going in circles, but my basic argument is that Pakistani territory is not a war zone, therefore, those rules of conduct do not apply. It doesn't matter if the place is crawling with war criminals, unless the US declares war, then it cannot apply the rules of war in that territory. When Nazi war criminals are tracked down in Brazil or wherever, they are brought to justice, not just whacked off in the middle of the night.

Nothing wrong with keeping things simple. But not too simple as to erase or hide the necessary components of the arguments.

The reality and truth is that a 'war zone' does not have to be preceded by any formal declaration of war.

The Avalon Project - Laws of War : Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Hague V); October 18, 1907

Article 1.
The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable.

Art. 2.
Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.

Art. 3.
Belligerents are likewise forbidden to:

(a) Erect on the territory of a neutral Power a wireless telegraphy station or other apparatus for the purpose of communicating with belligerent forces on land or sea;

(b) Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power for purely military purposes, and which has not been opened for the service of public messages.

Art. 4.
Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist the belligerents.

Art. 5.
A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory.

It is not called upon to punish acts in violation of its neutrality unless the said acts have been committed on its own territory.

Article 1 is inviolable only if the claimed neutral party is competent and willing to commit to Articles 2 thru 5.

Case in point: The Vietnam War where North Viet Nam violated the territorial sovereignty of Laos and Cambodia to create the famous Ho Chi Minh Trail. Laos and Cambodia were claimed neutral parties. Their internal problems made them incompetent at enforcing border integrity and allowed parts of their territories partners and more importantly participants in an armed conflict. The US and SVN had every right to cross the borders to prosecute their version of the war. No formal declaration of war was committed upon Laos and Cambodia. For jurists specializing in international affairs, specifically military adventures, there is no clearer case of justifiable border violation.

You are grossly wrong when you say that certain rules of conduct are not applicable unless there is a declared 'war zone' which pretty much implicate a formal declaration of war. How about this: Going by your argument, what goes on in Gitmo is outside of the examination of the Geneva Conventions since Cuba is not a declared 'war zone'. Your argument is dangerous because it make possible legally unaccountable atrocities because from now on nation-states who wishes to commit said atrocities can escape accountability by not formally declaring a 'war' between each other.

Your 'war zone' argument is further complicated by the reality and truth that jurists have been moving away from the word 'war', which has a lot of rhetorical baggage, and towards the more specific but equally effective 'armed conflict' phrasing. What make your 'war zone' argument problematic is that in insisting that the drone missions are 'legal' only in light of a formal declaration of war, you have effectively elevated al-Qaeda to nation-state status because only nation-states can formally declare war upon each other. The Taliban is no longer the recognized government in Afghanistan so your argument also restored them to their previous position and created a moral conflict where there are virtual opposition governments in Afghanistan. The only saving grace here is that the physical reality of Afghanistan somewhat support what you accidentally done -- restored the Taliban to their previous status.