What's new

Barack Obama confirms unmanned drone programme

An act of war is not an act of criminality. Did Hitler offended US in anyway prior to US declaring war upon Nazi Germany and in doing so made him a target of war? No, Hitler did not offended US in any way.

So when a war is declared, official or otherwise, combatants are mobilized to prosecute said war. Combatants are authorized to kill each other without fear of LEGAL reprisals after the fact. If an al-Qaeda fighter killed an American -- ala Daniel Pearl -- in this unofficially declared war, then the al-Qaeda leadership would not seek legal reprisals after the fact. Same for if an American soldier kill an al-Qaeda fighter that no US government official will seek legal reprisals against the American soldier.

So when the US President committed US military forces against al-Qaeda and any who allied himself and possibly his country with al-Qaeda, the 'due process' the US President went through is well understood by the leaders of these governments, even muslim ones.

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.
 
RIP to the dead !!

What the hell Govt is doing about it..... If you fight internally then external party will exploit it for its benefits.
 
This was your argument...

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.
 
U.S. is trying to provoke Pakistan.

Since a decade now, when will the nation/leaders say enough is enough?

If the common man is kept busy to run after basic nessesities of life why would he care about other countires attacking in Pakistan under the auspices of the Army and the Parliament.
 
Thank God fall of US is near

they are gonna kicked by other countries within few decades

And what will be Pakistan as a nation doing? just saying as usual : if this will be repeated then ......
 
RIP to dead, 50s is a really big number.....

Again I ask, where is pakistany army general Kiyani, he had said any american attack will be responded adequately.

May be he said only army is important and civilians are not important. So only attack on army post will be responded.
 
what can we do is onlz to come out and hang our politions. They hav no concern with pak but with money.
 
May Allah show peace in jannat for those victims, and bring justice to American murderers.
 
............................... he might as well stop wasting our time and just state that right off the bat, and leave the discussions on the international legality/legitimacy of foreign policies pursued by nations to the rest of us.

Of course, the "rest of us" have no problems agreeing with the "rest of us", so the mutual agreement and appreciation club carries on chattering endlessly about "legitimacy". What a cozy arrangement! :lol:

No comment.

What? No pithy dialogue quotes from movies? :D

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

Back to the topic: The US President just confirmed the drone program. It is a legitimate military tactic, its use will go on, and Pakistan will continue to accept it.

If the "rest of us" are so right about the illegitimacy, why doesn't Pakistan raise the matter in the ICJ?

Otherwise, the "rest of us" are useless.
 
..................... 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.

How do you reconcile your basic argument with the following?

The Authorization for Use of Military Force is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.
 
How do you reconcile your basic argument with the following?

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom