Barack Obama confirms unmanned drone programme

[VCheng]

No. Like I wrote, even the worst criminal must be apprehended alive if possible and tried in court. The Nuremberg trials are a case in point.

The only time you are allowed to summarily execute someone is in the middle of a war zone, or if they resist arrest. You simply cannot shoot someone, dump the body in the sea, and say "it's all taken care of, just trust me".

OBL resisted arrest, and thus was shot to death rightfully during the raid to capture him. Thus, he was indeed well taken care of, and whatever loose ends remain, will also be all taken care of in due course.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

OBL resisted arrest,

The US raid itself was illegal and unlawful - so anyone would be justified in resisting unidentified, armed thugs barging into their home in the middle of the night.

 

[KRAIT]

The US raid itself was illegal and unlawful - so anyone would be justified in resisting unidentified, armed thugs barging into their home in the middle of the night.

For terrorists, nothing is illegal or unlawful coz they left the right of being treated like ordinary man when they became terrorists.

Illegal and Unlawful for pakistan's people but not for OBL

 

[VCheng]

The US raid itself was illegal and unlawful - so anyone would be justified in resisting unidentified, armed thugs barging into their home in the middle of the night.

How so?

USA had already a declared policy of chasing the perpetrators of 9/11, no matter where or how they were found, making the raid perfectly justified and legal. Pakistan was informed of, and was indeed well aware of, this policy as well.

What I find telling is the hypocrisy in your position: OBL killed by Pakistani SSGs would have been okay I presume, or would that too be regarded as "illegal" by you?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Do you mean a change of policy by Pakistan to withdraw its behind-the-scenes consent, or does the change you seek come from USA? Could you please clarify.

'Behind the scenes consent' is speculation - the official position indicates pretty clearly that there is no consent.

And the change needs to come from both sides preferably - an end to internationally illegal and criminal policies by the US in conducting drone strikes in Pakistani territory, as well as Pakistan taking the issue to any relevant international platform to highlight the illegal nature of the drone strikes by the US (and I believe the Pakistani ambassador to the UN did in fact make this argument in the UN - which is a good start, but nowhere near enough).

I would agree with those venues, but it means Pakistan must take up its case there; why has it not done so till now?

Perhaps because we have a bunch of sellouts and US boot-lickers in government currently ....

The due process starts with the National Security Council, which results in a Presidential Decision Directive, a special type of an Executive Order issued by the President with the advice and consent of the NSC. This PDD carries the full force and effect of law under the US Constitution, and is subject to Congressional Review only if grounds exist.

This 'due process' is completely irrelevant under international law - as I said, you might as well claim that the entire cast of Disney characters sat down and declared US military policies an tactics abroad as 'legal and justified under US law'.

The US Establishment and legislature has gone to great lengths to argue that the US constitution and therefore US rights enshrined in the US constitution do not apply to non-US citizens being detained and prosecuted by the US for terrorism related charges - so by extension that argument itself debunks any attempt to use the 'Constitutional US due process' you outlined as the primary justification for US policy abroad.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

How so?

The UN has not sanctioned ISAF military operations outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan did not authorize this particular military operation by the US inside Pakistani territory.

USA had already a declared policy of chasing the perpetrators of 9/11, no matter where or how they were found, making the raid perfectly justified and legal. Pakistan was informed of, and was indeed well aware of, this policy as well.

The US might as well have a 'declared policy' of believing Mickey Mouse exists and chasing him down wherever they wish to around the globe - that means nothing from an international legal perspective.

Your argument essentially boils down to one where a belligerent State could 'declare an intent to be hostile to other States' and then wage war against those States, while claiming the entire time that 'We had declared our intent and followed due process domestically'. Its is an absurd and nonsensical argument that could only be expected from a shameless apologist of the US.

What I find telling is the hypocrisy in your position: OBL killed by Pakistani SSGs would have been okay I presume, or would that too be regarded as "illegal" by you?

There is nothing hypocritical in my position - the Pakistani military has been authorized by the GoP to conduct counter-terrorism operations in Pakistan - so why would I object to Pakistani forces conducting this operation and why would you consider that in anyway comparable to the illegal US raid?

 

[VCheng]

.....................
Your argument essentially boils down to one where a belligerent State could 'declare and intent to be hostile to other States' and then wage war against those States, while claiming the entire time that 'We had declared our intent and followed due process domestically'. Its is an absurd and nonsensical argument that could only be expected from a shameless apologist of the US.

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

Rather than lock horns with you unnecessarily, and end up with yet another trumped up infraction, I will just keep quiet here. (I have already resigned from the OpGrp in protest at your actions.)

Congratulations for suppressing discussion by abusing your position, exactly what you love to deride USA for!

Please do carry on Sir!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

For terrorists, nothing is illegal or unlawful coz they left the right of being treated like ordinary man when they became terrorists.

Illegal and Unlawful for pakistan's people but not for OBL

Does not matter who the target was - the raid was illegal and therefore everything that happened subsequent to the raid was illegal by the US, and therefore the actions of those targeted/affected by the raid were justified.

This is not about OBL specifically, but the entire situation created by the illegal US raid.

Had Pakistan detected unauthorized military activity and decided to respond militarily, Pakistan would have been completely justified in shooting down US air craft and neutralizing US forces present on Pakistani territory.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Rather than lock horns with you unnecessarily, and end up with yet another trumped up infraction, I will just keep quiet here.

Congratulations for suppressing discussion by abusing your position, exactly what you love to deride USA for!

Please do carry on Sir!

You can find whatever excuse you wish to avoid responding to the fact that your argument and logic was flawed.

And you have received no 'trumped up infractions' each was completely justified since in both instances you refused to follow specific moderator instructions and were either flaming/trolling the forum (first infraction and ban) or deriding the moderators for deleting a post of yours that only had a silly image in it.

 

[fd24]

OBL resisted arrest, and thus was shot to death rightfully during the raid to capture him. Thus, he was indeed well taken care of, and whatever loose ends remain, will also be all taken care of in due course.

Were you their Cheng to verify this? Who are you going to believe? Their version was changed 4 times and when we all saw Obama and Hilary looking at live footage rather than the actual footage - it says it all. Why do you always believe people that we have shown on numerous occasions to be international liars?
On whose authority had they entered our nation? They had no permission or clearance to enter our nation - why is that minor point overlooked? Your blind love for USA and natural hatred for Pakistan tarnishes your posts - your avatar amuses me mr attention seeker.
The question of the unmanned drone programme is simply a tool for the USA to continue their gun ho attitude in our region. An authority to themselves to behave barbarically whenever they chose.

 

[VCheng]

You can find whatever excuse you wish to avoid responding to the fact that your argument and logic was flawed........................

excerpt from: Brennan maps out Osama bin Laden raid doctrine - Boston.com

The U.S. will keep targeting al-Qaida anywhere in the world, including in countries unable or unwilling to do it themselves, the top U.S. counterterror official said Friday.

White House counterterror chief John Brennan laid out what could be called the Osama bin Laden raid doctrine, in remarks at Harvard Law School. He says under international law, the U.S. can protect itself with pre-emptive action against suspects the U.S. believes present an imminent threat, wherever they are.

That amounts to a legal defense of the unilateral Navy SEAL raid into Pakistan that killed al-Qaida mastermind bin Laden in May, angering Pakistan. It also explains the thinking behind other covert counterterrorist action, like the CIA’s armed drone campaign that only this week killed a top al-Qaida operative in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

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

Oh BTW, I would be okay if the standard of deleting posts were applied equally, which it is not. But, it is your website; please do whatever I you wish with it; I will respect that right.

 

[KRAIT]

Does not matter who the target was - the raid was illegal and therefore everything that happened subsequent to the raid was illegal by the US, and therefore the actions of those targeted/affected by the raid were justified.

This is not about OBL specifically, but the entire situation created by the illegal US raid.

Had Pakistan detected unauthorized military activity and decided to respond militarily, Pakistan would have been completely justified in shooting down US air craft and neutralizing US forces present on Pakistani territory.

I already said that the raid was illegal by US for pakistani people. But if GOP had given the consent behind the curtain, it also has some positive point. Yeah people of pakistan shouted at their government, but if GOP admitted it allowed US to raid, wouldn't AL qaeda make target innocent people of pakistan.

But again, GOP should have taken the action rather than allowing US.

This argument is also valid for topic in discussion

If GOP takes action against Afghan taliban, then already battling with Pakistan taliban, Army has to fight with Afghan taliban.

Atleast for now US is taking care of few terrorists, while Pak Army is rooting out the terrorist element.

If you see recent news, number of counter terrorist acts by Pak army are significantly fruitful then unmanned drone strikes. Once situation gets under control, Pak Army can openly ask US to stop these strikes.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

but if GOP admitted it allowed US to raid, wouldn't AL qaeda make target innocent people of pakistan.

They have already been attacking Pakistan - it would not make much of a difference really.

 

[VCheng]

............They had no permission or clearance to enter our nation.....................

Are you sure about that? US attacks may very well have the GoP's approval; let's see what "understandings" are made public during the PNSC review.

 

[VCheng]

They have already been attacking Pakistan - it would not make much of a difference really.

It does make a huge difference, or are you implying that Pakistani consent is valueless from a legal standpoint, if nothing else?