Barack Obama confirms unmanned drone programme

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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?

Bad example - Pakistan had no knowledge of where OBL was hiding, and neither did the US, until PAKISTAN PROVIDED THAT LAST CRUCIAL BIT OF EVIDENCE THAT ALLOWED THE US TO CONNECT THE DOTS, AND THEN DECEIVE PAKISTAN BY NOT INFORMING HER OF OBL'S LOCATION.

Any wanted criminal in the US (at large) can also be said to be 'living in relative freedom and safety in Sovereign United States' - that does not make the community that the said criminal is hiding in complicit in sheltering him, nor does it make the law enforcement agencies of the US, who are responsible for tracking said criminal down, complicit in the duration of the time the said criminal is at large.

The argument that 'large swathes of territory are being used in said conflict' works both ways - since Afghan territory supposedly under the control of the US/ISAF is being used by the TTP, BLA/BRA and other terrorist organizations to attack Pakistani troops and civilians.

Heck, leaked US diplomatic cables clearly show that US/ISAF/Afghan authorities were aware of and sheltering one of the most wanted BLA terrorist leaders in 'safety and freedom' in Kabul, and then facilitated his exile to Europe for asylum - so if you want to talk about 'terrorist leaders living in relative safety and freedom', then the US needs to answer for its own crimes in sheltering the terrorist leader Brahamdegh Bugti first.

---------- Post added at 08:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 PM ----------

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?

As the FO made clear, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, and therefore that is reason enough to change policy.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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

You might as well claim that Dumbo exercised that authority - outside of the United States the 'POTUS's Executive Order' has no legal standing - the only standing it has is that exercised by a thug or tyrant, that is authority at the barrel of a gun.

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?

The issue has already been 'debated' and the 'rules/international law' set, which was the basis of the AI and other report posted earlier in the thread.

Any further debate would only be in an attempt to 'change the laws' to 'legalize patently illegal (under international law) US military tactics'.

But if one must go through this charade, the ICJ or panels in the UN would be good places to start.

 

[Developereo]

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

What 'due process'? Without a court conviction, this is just a fancy form of 'off with his head'.

 

[VCheng]

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

As the FO made clear, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, and therefore that is reason enough to change policy.

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.

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

But if one must go through this charade, the ICJ or panels in the UN would be good places to start.

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

What 'due process'? Without a court conviction, this is just a fancy form of 'off with his head'.

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.

 

[gambit]

Bad example - Pakistan had no knowledge of where OBL was hiding, and neither did the US, until PAKISTAN PROVIDED THAT LAST CRUCIAL BIT OF EVIDENCE THAT ALLOWED THE US TO CONNECT THE DOTS, AND THEN DECEIVE PAKISTAN BY NOT INFORMING HER OF OBL'S LOCATION.

No one -- NO ONE -- with any diplomatic experience and least of all -- the usual amount of cynicism -- believe that. Women would not believe that, and we know they have plenty of experience with lying men, do we?

Any wanted criminal in the US (at large) can also be said to be 'living in relative freedom and safety in Sovereign United States' - that does not make the community that the said criminal is hiding in complicit in sheltering him, nor does it make the law enforcement agencies of the US, who are responsible for tracking said criminal down, complicit in the duration of the time the said criminal is at large.

Osama bin Laden is no ordinary criminal. What he did, vis-a-vis 9/11, could not be possible unless it was with state support, overt or covert. Likewise, his infamy and eagerness to be on global video made his visage well known.

The argument that 'large swathes of territory are being used in said conflict' works both ways - since Afghan territory supposedly under the control of the US/ISAF is being used by the TTP, BLA/BRA and other terrorist organizations to attack Pakistani troops and civilians.

Heck, leaked US diplomatic cables clearly show that US/ISAF/Afghan authorities were aware of and sheltering one of the most wanted BLA terrorist leaders in 'safety and freedom' in Kabul, and then facilitated his exile to Europe for asylum - so if you want to talk about 'terrorist leaders living in relative safety and freedom', then the US needs to answer for its own crimes in sheltering the terrorist leader Brahamdegh Bugti first.

We have gone through this before. Bugti's cause and himself have considerable international support while ObL and al-Qaeda have none. Still, even if we 'give' you Bugti, do you really think that it will absolve Pakistan of the fundamental duty of a sovereign state, which is the absolute control of one's territory when one's country is nearly a party to a conflict? Bugti's cause have nothing to do with 9/11.

So Pakistan is either incompetent at being a sovereign state regarding territorial control, or unwilling to the same, or both. Which is it?

---------- Post added at 12:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 AM ----------

What 'due process'? Without a court conviction, this is just a fancy form of 'off with his head'.

The 'due process' here is how a US President followed US laws regarding his authority and the extent thereof. But if you want to go that route, do YOU agree with Osama bin Laden's version of 'due process' under Islamic jurisprudence when he effectively offfed the heads of nearly three thousands Americans?

 

[gambit]

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

Why should we even need to try ObL in absentia let alone convict him? Declarations of war, official or tacit, do not require such. I feel sorry for the people of Pakistan if they have to follow YOUR interpretations of the causes of war. Pakistan would cease to exist quick enough.

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.

This is not about any declared war zone. This is about sovereignty and lack thereof that enable a combatant party to use to prosecute a war. So why are there large areas of sovereign Pakistani soil that is not so 'sovereign'?

 

[Developereo]

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.

But still no court conviction, eh? Essentially, the US administration decided to act as judge, jury and executioner. In the case of OBL, there is no independent confirmation of the American claim that he was armed when the raid occurred. Even if the US claims they were apprehending a criminal resisting arrest, they would have to show that deadly force was unavoidable.

The 'due process' here is how a US President followed US laws regarding his authority and the extent thereof. But if you want to go that route, do YOU agree with Osama bin Laden's version of 'due process' under Islamic jurisprudence when he effectively offfed the heads of nearly three thousands Americans?

OBL is not the issue here. The issue is whether drone strikes violate due process rights of suspects.

 

[Developereo]

This is not about any declared war zone. This is about sovereignty and lack thereof that enable a combatant party to use to prosecute a war. So why are there large areas of sovereign Pakistani soil that is not so 'sovereign'?

The whole issue is that, outside a war zone, suspects have rights. It doesn't matter whether there's sovereignty or not. If it's not a war zone, then combat rules of engagement do not apply.

At least, that's my understanding, unless US forces have authorization to shoot 'em up anywhere, just on suspicion.

 

[gambit]

But still no court conviction, eh? Essentially, the US administration decided to act as judge, jury and executioner. In the case of OBL, there is no independent confirmation of the American claim that he was armed when the raid occurred. Even if the US claims they were apprehending a criminal resisting arrest, they would have to show that deadly force was unavoidable.

Hmmm...You must not know what 'war' is.

OBL is not the issue here. The issue is whether drone strikes violate due process rights of suspects.

Citizens have rights to 'due process' and that varies according to countries. So answer the question: Do YOU agree with ObL's version of 'due process' for the nearly three thousands Americans he acted as judge, jury, and executioner? Do not be shy. Say so if you agree.

---------- Post added at 01:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:43 AM ----------

The whole issue is that, outside a war zone, suspects have rights. It doesn't matter whether there's sovereignty or not. If it's not a war zone, then combat rules of engagement do not apply.

At least, that's my understanding, unless US forces have authorization to shoot 'em up anywhere, just on suspicion.

Sovereignty is the issue. Sovereignty, or lack of enforcement thereof, enabled and encouraged combatants to set up bases for operations, recruitment centers, rest stations, training facilities, and so on...In areas they believe they have full reigns of control. So answer the question: Why are there large areas of sovereign Pakistani soil that is not so 'sovereign'?

 

[indushek]

You might as well claim that Dumbo exercised that authority - outside of the United States the 'POTUS's Executive Order' has no legal standing - the only standing it has is that exercised by a thug or tyrant, that is authority at the barrel of a gun.


The issue has already been 'debated' and the 'rules/international law' set, which was the basis of the AI and other report posted earlier in the thread.

Any further debate would only be in an attempt to 'change the laws' to 'legalize patently illegal (under international law) US military tactics'.

But if one must go through this charade, the ICJ or panels in the UN would be good places to start.

Agno can you state in clear terms what Pakistan can do other than talk bad about USA in backrooms?? Stopping the supply lines is only a part of that answer and even that cannot be called conclusive, till now they haven't opened right but what if after another month or two reopen it??

If they were serious they could have taken a propaganda course by raising the illegality on International forums like UN or get China talk on this, i mean something worth while which will gain atleast some attention. Let us not talk of whether forums are useful or not as it will move from the point i am making. What i want to say is, the report of PA on the border incident was provided swiftly no doubt but no diplomatic action further on this was taken, the reactive measure of stopping supply lines seems to be fordomestic consumption only. Inspite of the collateral damage don't you think the FO stating publicly about advantages of these "illegal" drone strikes is accepting that the stake holders in Pakistan were involved in the decision making and on one side they think these strikes are needed??

 

[Developereo]

Hmmm...You must not know what 'war' is.

I always thought even in war you can't kill someone unless your life is in danger. If someone is surrendering or not resisting, you have to take them prisoner, not just kill them and throw away the body and tell everybody 'just trust me'.

Even the worst criminal must be taken alive unless they offer armed resistance.

Citizens have rights to 'due process' and that varies according to countries. So answer the question: Do YOU agree with ObL's version of 'due process' for the nearly three thousands Americans he acted as judge, jury, and executioner? Do not be shy. Say so if you agree.

What a question! How can anyone agree with a terrorist? Are you now using a terrorist as a yardstick to measure American military rules of conduct? Are you saying American troops have the right to shoot suspects, possibly unarmed at the time, because they are not American citizens?

Sovereignty is the issue. Sovereignty, or lack of enforcement thereof, enabled and encouraged combatants to set up bases for operations, recruitment centers, rest stations, training facilities, and so on...In areas they believe they have full reigns of control. So answer the question: Why are there large areas of sovereign Pakistani soil that is not so 'sovereign'?

Again, I accept that the Pakistani government has been remiss in its duties of law enforcement. It still does not confer any right to foreign governments to conduct extrajudicial killings, though.

 

[VCheng]

But still no court conviction, eh? Essentially, the US administration decided to act as judge, jury and executioner. In the case of OBL, there is no independent confirmation of the American claim that he was armed when the raid occurred. Even if the US claims they were apprehending a criminal resisting arrest, they would have to show that deadly force was unavoidable...........................

I think you are way off here: USA was attacked, and the sovereign authority and might was rightfully used to bring the perpetrators to swift justice. End of story. None of your arguments apply.

 

[amedhejed]

They were behind this the whole time? I have always believed they were not.

 

[Developereo]

I think you are way off here: USA was attacked, and the sovereign authority and might was rightfully used to bring the perpetrators to swift justice. End of story. None of your arguments apply.

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".

 

[gambit]

I always thought even in war you can't kill someone unless your life is in danger. If someone is surrendering or not resisting, you have to take them prisoner, not just kill them and throw away the body and tell everybody 'just trust me'.

Even the worst criminal must be taken alive unless they offer armed resistance.

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.

What a question! How can anyone agree with a terrorist?

What a question indeed...!!! Am certain by now you have heard of the phrase "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"? The reason that 'anyone' can agree with a terrorist -- or freedom fighter -- is an adoption and/or change of frame of reference.

Are you now using a terrorist as a yardstick to measure American military rules of conduct? Are you saying American troops have the right to shoot suspects, possibly unarmed at the time, because they are not American citizens?

No, I am not. 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?

Again, I accept that the Pakistani government has been remiss in its duties of law enforcement. It still does not confer any right to foreign governments to conduct extrajudicial killings, though.

Wars always involved extrajudicial killings. Osama bin Laden is not a capo of a criminal enterprise. He saw himself as heroic, sage, and sacrificial visions. What he did, he did it not for selfish material gains but for the greater good of a community who is both blinded and chained and brainwashed to the point of self enslavement to the West. People like him do not regards their acts as 'criminal' but as part of greater struggle, spiritual and otherwise, against what he believes to be an 'evil'. You do not war unless there is an existential threat to your way of life, or at least you perceive there is. What happened on 9/11 was very much an act of war and plenty of extrajudicial killings.