What's new

Barack Obama confirms unmanned drone programme

That argument was addressed earlier in the thread in the article I posted:

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the “threat or use of force” against another state. The Charter allows for the use of force in only one form, ie, under Article 42, wherein the Security Council may allow the use of force as an enforcement measure when all peaceful means are exhausted.

There, however, is one exception to this rule: States are allowed to use force in self-defence against an armed attack. This is a temporary right, ie, until the Security Council is activated to respond to an armed attack – an issue of international peace and security.

The US has traditionally relied on the argument of the right of self-defence. However, al Qaeda and its affiliates are non-state actors – hence three conditions must be satisfied before the use of force against them can be justified. The first condition is that there must be an ‘armed attack’ against the US which necessitates the use of force in self-defence. The key question here is: What constitutes an armed attack? The severity and scale of damage done by the attack of a non-state actor must be such that it would amount to an armed attack had it been carried out by the regular forces of a state. The second condition is that there must a link between the non-state actor and the host state. In Nicaragua v. USA, 1986, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the host state must exercise an “effective control” over the non-state actor to trigger the right to use force in self-defence. The ICJ reaffirmed the test of “effective control” in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro 2007 (paragraphs 399 and 401). Article 8 of the 2001 International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts, reflecting customary law, states that the “conduct of a person or group of persons shall be considered an act of a State under international law if the person or group of persons is in fact acting on the instructions of, or under the direction or control of, that State in carrying out the conduct”. The factual link between the host and non-state actor must be established before resorting to use force.

In addition, the host state shall either not be willing or unable to control the non-state actor. Once these two conditions are met, then proportionate use of force is permitted – which is the third condition.

Let us turn to the US claim of self-defence against al Qaeda and its affiliates in Pakistan. First, Pakistan does not have effective control over al Qaeda or its affiliates. On the contrary, al Qaeda and its affiliates, such as the Pakistani Taliban, are banned under the terrorism legislation in Pakistan. The security forces of Pakistan are actively engaged in fighting al Qaeda and its affiliates. Pakistan clearly does not have “effective control” over al Qaeda and its affiliates and their acts cannot be attributed to Pakistan. The argument that the Pakistan is not willing to do enough to suppress armed groups inside its borders is not convincing: Hundreds of Taliban fighters and Pakistani troops are killed in the ongoing armed conflict.

Evidence also suggests that, very often, civilians were killed and property destroyed in access of “concrete and direct military advantage”, i.e. violating the customary principle of proportionality. The law of armed conflict allows killing and being killed in the battlefield by combatants – but the CIA, a civilian organ of the state, targets individuals away from the battlefield who they regard either as terrorists or supporters of terrorism. The CIA has virtually become a judge, a jury and an executioner violating international human rights law.

Let there be no doubt: Drone attacks violate the UN Charter, the principle of proportionality and international human rights law.


In addition to that, OBL offered no 'imminent threat' - the man had long been considered, even by US analysts, to have become irrelevant to AQ operationally and financially. Even his 'videos/tapes' were increasingly infrequent.

Brennan's justification does not hold water under scrutiny - it mainly relies on the hope that people will get distracted listening to the rhetoric of 'self defence'.

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.
The standard of deleting posts with nonsensical images in them is applied equally by me, at least most of the time. No need to act as if your post with an irrelevant image was somehow the only one ever deleted on this forum.
 
They have already been attacking Pakistan - it would not make much of a difference really.
Yes they are, actually i forgot to add few words. I wanted to say sudden upsurge and higher frequency of attacks. This was the same reason given by Obama of not showing OBL's pic afer death. Can't say anything more it will go off topic.

@topic
Unmanned drone strikes are known for precision but in pakistan's case collateral damage has been high. But if that same work was done by Pak army, there would be some collateral damage again. Not to forget that this action will fuel anti-pak feelings rather than anti-US feelings. But pakistan shouldn't allow these strikes and should oppose it at international level.
 
That argument was addressed earlier in the thread in the article I posted:

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

Brennan's justification does not hold water under scrutiny - it mainly relies on the hope that people will get distracted listening to the rhetoric of 'self defence'.


The standard of deleting posts with nonsensical images in them is applies equally by me, at least most of the time. No need to act as if your post with an irrelevant image was somehow the only one ever deleted on this forum.

Right you are. To carry on discussing this would further risk your ire, so let us just disagree on on both points. :D
 
Right you are. To carry on discussing this would further risk your ire, so let us just disagree on on both points. :D
I see no reason to agree with you on either point given the flawed arguments advanced by you.

Of course it is your choice to bow out of the discussion without attempting to properly support your claims and/or refute mine.
 
I see no reason to agree with you on either point given the flawed arguments advanced by you.

Of course it is your choice to bow out of the discussion without attempting to properly support your claims and/or refute mine.

Let's just say there is no point in even trying to convince each other; you may assume the moral high round all you want, and I will let the real world events support my positions.

Pakistan is slowly and inexorably sinking into a morass of its own making. The WoT and drone atacks are only one small aspect of that mess.
 
'Behind the scenes consent' is speculation - the official position indicates pretty clearly that there is no consent........................

Well, similarly, the US official position is that the drone strikes are legal. So there, where does that leave Pakistan's official position?

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

Currently? That has been the case, and likely will remain the case, I'm sad to say.

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'.

Irrelevant or not, it would seem to apply just fine.

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.

Well, the US Constitution applies only to US citizens and residents by definition; if OBL had not masterminded the deaths of thousands of US citizens, he would not be counting fish, but rather would be playing chess with Ratko Mladic. See the difference there, I hope?
 
Well, similarly, the US official position is that the drone strikes are legal. So there, where does that leave Pakistan's official position?
Your argument was that US military strikes inside Pakistan had Pakistani consent, which I pointed out was speculative and that officially Pakistan's position was that the strikes were illegal - my comment in this case was very specific to your argument about 'unofficial Pakistani consent'.

The arguments the US has raised to justify its strikes have been refuted in the previous post.

Currently? That has been the case, and likely will remain the case, I'm sad to say.
Perhaps - I was merely answering your question.

Irrelevant or not, it would seem to apply just fine.
It does not apply in terms of offering a legal justification for US military operations in Pakistan - the only place a US 'due process' applies or holds any legal, ethical or moral legitimacy is inside the US, unless also supported by international law and and/or the nation in which the US is implementing certain policies.
Well, the US Constitution applies only to US citizens by definition; if OBL had not masterminded the deaths of thousands of US citizens, he would not be counting fish, but rather would be playing chess with Ratko Mladic. See the difference there, I hope?
I see the difference, you do not, since you raised an example that had little to do with the point I was making with regards to the US Establishment and Legislature arguing that 'the US constitution only applies to US citizens'.

My point was not that OBL deserved US constitutional protection, but that the entire argument that you raised about 'US military actions in Pakistan being justified by the US due process' are debunked by the fact that the US itself has argued that its constitution applies only to US citizens, which means that, by themselves, the US constitution and/or processes (such as the 'due process' used by the US to authorize military strikes inside Pakistan) are inapplicable, irrelevant and meaningless when it comes to finding legal justification for military operations in other States.

---------- Post added at 11:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 AM ----------

Let's just say there is no point in even trying to convince each other; you may assume the moral high round all you want, and I will let the real world events support my positions.
It is not even just about 'high moral ground' - US policies in this case have no legal grounds either.
 
................
My point was not that OBL deserved US constitutional protection, but that the entire argument that you raised about 'US military actions in Pakistan being justified by the US due process' are debunked by the fact that the US itself has argued that its constitution applies only to US citizens, which means that, by themselves, the US constitution and/or processes (such as the 'due process' used by the US to authorize military strikes inside Pakistan) are inapplicable, irrelevant and meaningless when it comes to finding legal justification for military operations in other States......................

Perhaps you missed the part about the murderous deaths of thousands of US citizens, which made it imperative on the US government to provide them with justice under the authority of the Constitution? That has been done, and will be done.
 
That post is now edited, though I appreciate you hanging on to a post of mine from two years ago. :D

Edited..fine..but that doent change that you supported the drone strikes as long as pak enemies are killed without giving a second thought to the "innocents" killed.

Dont tell me that till that day no innocent was killed....and only after baitullah's killing it all started...


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

Yes, even hateful ranting is protected

who cares man...if you want to second guess the americans be my guest...i give a damn...

just remember that threat to kill (which is just murder, a crime) and terrorism are not the same...and you are not a white caucasian where the benefit of doubt will be given to him....you are pakistani..need i say how you will be viewed ? be frank..



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

read my post clearly admin...clearly...

i said, "prior to today's acceptance " ...surely your views did not change today after obama accepted it right...? even before obama officially accepted it today you were maintaining that usa does this, usa does that...did you wait for offficial word of usa before doing that ?..no ..because its common sense...

similarly its common sense that both establishment and govt of pak are in american pockets and will not hesitate in selling the common pakistani as long as their pockets are being filled....and one day the pak establishment will tell too...like obama did today
 
If that is the case, then snipers, artillerymen, pilots, sailors, and just about anyone who is not within line-of-sight of the enemy is disqualified from participating in a war.

Where did I say anything about line of sight? I specifically talked about life in danger. Anyone in a plane or a tank or wielding any kind of weapon would be reasonably suspect. Someone driving in a family sedan would be more circumspect. In a war zone, the rules are relaxed but even then, an explicit surrender must be honored -- with due caution, obviously.

Am asking you that since ObL must have performed his own version of 'due process' prior to his engagement in a war against US, do you agree with his version?

It doesn't matter what his version of due process was, it was illegal by international standards, so his acts were illegal. The issue here is not OBL per se, but the question of extrajudicial killings. Criminals, by definition, break the law but the 'good guys', by definition, must act within the law.

What happened on 9/11 was very much an act of war and plenty of extrajudicial killings.

Of course it was. No one ever denied it. The point being raised is whether the US is justifying their actions by pointing to criminals and saying "he did it first".
 
.................... The point being raised is whether the US is justifying their actions by pointing to criminals and saying "he did it first".

The counter-point is that the authority and the means to bring the perpetrators to justice have been amply provided by the US Constitution. War is a messy business and can be debated for decades to come, but the decisions and actions must be taken now. Hindsight of course is 20/20, isn't it?
 
Barack Obama is the worst president in the history of the United States and he HATES Pakistan.

Pakistani-Americans should not vote for him in November. Vote Republican.
 
Barack Obama is the worst president in the history of the United States and he HATES Pakistan.

Pakistani-Americans should not vote for him in November. Vote Republican.

I know tons of Pakistani's they are working for democrats. Generally people care about their personal gain first, rational man don't think emotionally and don't take emotional decisions. Sorry your request will go in drain ..
 
Developereo: I did read your post above before you deleted it. :)

Like I said to AM too, there is no point in trying to convince each other; let the differences of opinion be recognized and accepted so we can move on, if possible, as events evolve around us.

Sooner or later, one point of view or another will stand vindicated.
 
Developereo: I did read your post above before you deleted it. :)

Dude, you have a habit of saying things as it there was something bad in my post. I deleted the post because there was nothing new. Both of us are just repeating our lines over and over; the discussion wasn't going anywhere.
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom