Where exactly is the 'legal' argument/justification for the drone strikes in his comments?
Pakistan has offered:
1. To conduct drone strikes itself if provided the technology
2. Joint drone strikes with the US with both Pakistani and US officials involved in the targeting and authorization of the strikes
3. Strikes by the PAF, in case of US reluctance to provide drones to Pakistan, based on intelligence provided by the US
So in light of the above proposals by Pakistan, what 'legality' do unilateral US drone strikes, in the absence of any official authorization by the GoP, or sanction by the UN, have?
Brennan is talking out of his rear-end and trying to obfuscate the issue and paint patently illegal and counter-productive US drone strikes as something that they are not.