Barack Obama confirms unmanned drone programme

[Kazhugu]

And when was I clapping my hands with glee exactly? Or have you gotten into the business of lying and distorting the truth like Obama and the rest of the US Establishment?

Am i lying?

Oh hell yes - I hope the latter two are confirmed dead as well, though the account from a militant source in the article debunks the claim that Qari Hussain was killed.

Nonetheless, a significant strike.

THANK YOU USA!

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistans-war/28687-80-die-drones-hit-baitullah-s-hideouts.html#post407238

My words have been the same for years now ... this is the last time you get a free pass for issuing threats to other members on this forum.

that was not a threat..i dont believe in online threats..you sit in usa and you are calling their president as a global terrorist in chief....that is enough for fbi to book you...consider it an advice...it is not worth damaging one's real life over some internet bravery...

I don't believe I am a supporter of Zardari in any case, and please do show me some actual agreement between the US and Pakistan that substantiates what you allege.

this is like a us citizen asking prior to today's disclosure, "give me official proof of cia operating drones"..

 

[VCheng]

.............................

That is alright though apparently, since the dead are not Caucasian Americans after all.

Well, even the Pakistan FO has admitted to the advantages offered by the drone attacks. Any comments on that?

 

[Developereo]

Trouble is, it is not possible to bring out the "facts" following these strikes. Pakistan does not control the locations where most of the strikes occur, the miscreants do. The miscreants cordon off the strike sites and control the information about who was killed or injured. Thus a layer of propaganda is laid over the "facts" from virtually the moment the strike occurs. Even the relationships of the "civilians" present at the strike site to the "miscreants" at the strike site usually cannot be ascertained in any dependable manner. It is a Catch-22 situation. If the GoP really controlled the location, no drone strike would be necessary. Since the GoP does not control the location, a drone strike is the most effective way of attacking the bad guys who are there. BUT, the post strike analysis is immediately clouded by propaganda, especially anti-American propaganda.

The anti-Americanism is justified since America is acting outside the law. Unless it declares war on Pakistan, America has no right to kill people 'suspected' of being terrorists. For a country that prides itself on being a 'nation of laws', American actions are the epitome of immorality and illegality.

A nation's character is judged in times of adversity; anyone can be at their best behavior in good times. Is America holding true to its ideals, or is all the fancy rhetoric dispensable when it becomes inconvenient?

Well, even the Pakistan FO has admitted to the advantages offered by the drone attacks. Any comments on that?

Nobody ever expected Pakistani authorities of being standard bearers of legality. How exactly does that justify the illegal American actions?

 

[VCheng]

The anti-Americanism is justified since America is acting outside the law. Unless it declares war on Pakistan, America has no right to kill people 'suspected' of being terrorists. For a country that prides itself on being a 'nation of laws', American actions are the epitome of immorality and illegality.

A nation's character is judged in times of adversity; anyone can be at their best behavior in good times. Is America holding true to its ideals, or is all the fancy rhetoric dispensable when it becomes inconvenient?

Nobody ever expected Pakistani authorities of being standard bearers of legality. How exactly does that justify the illegal American actions?

Well, if the actions are clearly illegal as you say, then what is stopping Pakistan from reacting, even pursuing justice in ICJ, for example? Such inaction only serves to indicate agreement.

 

[Developereo]

Well, if the actions are clearly illegal as you say, then what is stopping Pakistan from reacting, even pursuing justice in ICJ, for example? Such inaction only serves to indicate agreement.

Economically, militarily or diplomatically, Pakistan is in no position to challenge the reigning superpower.

Might makes right.

However, it is a fact that Muslims in general, including Pakistanis, are woefully under-represented in the legal field. If so many Jewish or Indian people had been killed extra-judicially, the American courts would have been flooded with privately-filed legal challenges to the drone program.

 

[VCheng]

Economically, militarily or diplomatically, Pakistan is in no position to challenge the reigning superpower.

Might makes right.

I would agree with the first two points, your sarcasm notwithstanding, but diplomatically, Pakistan can play a much better game than it has been of late.

There needs to be a proactive, cohesive plan put in place NOW, before the constant painting of Pakistan as a hotbed of terrorism leads to inevitable consequences if nothing were to change. The writing is on the wall already.

 

[Jango]

Trouble is, it is not possible to bring out the "facts" following these strikes. Pakistan does not control the locations where most of the strikes occur, the miscreants do. The miscreants cordon off the strike sites and control the information about who was killed or injured. Thus a layer of propaganda is laid over the "facts" from virtually the moment the strike occurs. Even the relationships of the "civilians" present at the strike site to the "miscreants" at the strike site usually cannot be ascertained in any dependable manner. It is a Catch-22 situation. If the GoP really controlled the location, no drone strike would be necessary. Since the GoP does not control the location, a drone strike is the most effective way of attacking the bad guys who are there. BUT, the post strike analysis is immediately clouded by propaganda, especially anti-American propaganda.

Miranshah and Angoor Adda are not controlled by miscreants as far as i know.

 

[Developereo]

I would agree with the first two points, your sarcasm notwithstanding, but diplomatically, Pakistan can play a much better game than it has been of late.

There was no sarcasm intended. It was an acknowledgment of reality reflecting Pakistan's impotence in the matter.

 

[VCheng]

There was no sarcasm intended. It was an acknowledgment of reality reflecting Pakistan's impotence in the matter.

Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Am i lying?

No you are not ( I had forgotten about that comment from two years ago) but my views on US drone strikes and Pakistan's relations with the US have changed significantly since then as well, given US duplicity and the realization that Pakistan has little to no control over the strikes.

That post is now edited, though I appreciate you hanging on to a post of mine from two years ago.

So, what else?

that was not a threat..i dont believe in online threats..you sit in usa and you are calling their president as a global terrorist in chief....that is enough for fbi to book you...consider it an advice...it is not worth damaging one's real life over some internet bravery...

Under what law is it enough for the 'FBI to book me'?

Read this for example:


A San Diego-area man who used the "N-word" to describe Barack Obama and said that he "will have a 50 cal in the head soon" was guilty of despicable conduct. What he wasn't guilty of, a federal appeals court has ruled, was the crime of threatening a then-presidential candidate. Not for the first time, a loathsome individual has benefited from a robust — and correct — interpretation of the 1st Amendment.

1st Amendment and Walter Bagdasarian: Yes, even hateful ranting is protected - Los Angeles Times

this is like a us citizen asking prior to today's disclosure, "give me official proof of cia operating drones"..

The US president just admitted it officially - when has the GoP or PA officially accepted that they approve US drone strikes?

Consider the Official Statement from the US President and the Pakistani official statement:

Pakistan has said that its stance on drone attacks is unambiguously clear: drones attacks are harmful to it and that they are unlawful and counter-productive.

The spokesman of Pakistan Foreign Office Abdul Basit calling drone attacks on Pakistani territory unlawful and counter-productive also termed them against the national sovereignty.

Drone strikes unlawful counterproductive: FO,2/1/2012 7:33:39 PM

---------- Post added at 09:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 AM ----------

Well, even the Pakistan FO has admitted to the advantages offered by the drone attacks. Any comments on that?

Tactical advantages, outweighed, according the the same FO statement, by the other effects of the drone strikes.

Any comments on the latter part?

 

[VCheng]

.........................

Tactical advantages, outweighed, according the the same FO statement, by the other effects of the drone strikes.

Any comments on the latter part?

Yes: Those advantages and disadvantages accrue asymmetrically, with Pakistan left holding the bag on consequences. But that is not enough to change the policy, is it?

 

[gambit]

The anti-Americanism is justified since America is acting outside the law. Unless it declares war on Pakistan, America has no right to kill people 'suspected' of being terrorists. For a country that prides itself on being a 'nation of laws', American actions are the epitome of immorality and illegality.

A nation's character is judged in times of adversity; anyone can be at their best behavior in good times. Is America holding true to its ideals, or is all the fancy rhetoric dispensable when it becomes inconvenient?

Nobody ever expected Pakistani authorities of being standard bearers of legality. How exactly does that justify the illegal American actions?

Well, if the actions are clearly illegal as you say, then what is stopping Pakistan from reacting, even pursuing justice in ICJ, for example? Such inaction only serves to indicate agreement.

Economically, militarily or diplomatically, Pakistan is in no position to challenge the reigning superpower.

Might makes right.

The issue is not Pakistan challenging the US, but meeting responsibilities befitting a sovereign state...

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.

Art. 6.
The responsibility of a neutral Power is not engaged by the fact of persons crossing the frontier separately to offer their services to one of the belligerents.

The issue is Pakistan's control of sovereign territory befitting a responsible state. If the spiritual leader of al-Qaeda, a combatant and interested party in a conflict involving the US, lives in relative safety and freedom in sovereign Pakistan, and large swaths of Pakistani territory is being used in said conflict, then the other combatant and interested party in said conflict have the right to respond as it see fit in Pakistani territory. Article 1 is inviolable only if Articles 2-5 are enforced by Pakistan.

So is Pakistan a neutral party in this conflict or not?

 

[amalakas]

The issue is not Pakistan challenging the US, but meeting responsibilities befitting a sovereign state...

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

The issue is Pakistan's control of sovereign territory befitting a responsible state. If the spiritual leader of al-Qaeda, a combatant and interested party in a conflict involving the US, lives in relative safety and freedom in sovereign Pakistan, and large swaths of Pakistani territory is being used in said conflict, then the other combatant and interested party in said conflict have the right to respond as it see fit in Pakistani territory. Article 1 is inviolable only if Articles 2-5 are enforced by Pakistan.

So is Pakistan a neutral party in this conflict or not?

Gambit it ain't so clear cut. Pakistan may claim they have no knowledge of of said actions since your 'Enemy' is not a sovereign country or forces under colours, but an organisation ..

 

[Developereo]

If the spiritual leader of al-Qaeda, a combatant and interested party in a conflict involving the US, lives in relative safety and freedom in sovereign Pakistan, and large swaths of Pakistani territory is being used in said conflict, then the other combatant and interested party in said conflict have the right to respond as it see fit in Pakistani territory. Article 1 is inviolable only if Articles 2-5 are enforced by Pakistan.

So is Pakistan a neutral party in this conflict or not?

But that begs the question that I raised by underlining the word 'suspected'. Was even OBL convicted in absentia?

I can understand that, in a war zone, the rules are relaxed and you shoot at anyone reasonably perceived as a threat. But drone strikes outside a declared war zone seem to cross the line. Again, this is why it should be debated in a court of law.

 

[VCheng]

But that begs the question that I raised by underlining the word 'suspected'. Was even OBL convicted in absentia?

The President of the United States exercised that authority via Executive Order following due process.

I can understand that, in a war zone, the rules are relaxed and you shoot at anyone reasonably perceived as a threat. But drone strikes outside a declared war zone seem to cross the line. Again, this is why it should be debated in a court of law.

You raise a good point, but what court of law would you suggest to exercise jurisdiction over an international military tactic, and based on what sort of plaintiff complaint?