Pakistan Issues Demarche to US over Drone Strikes - US Argues Strikes Legal

[regular]

nothing is going to stop drone attacks except our army itself destroy them...

but I don't think that Army got b@llz to shoot them on their own....it shold be a unanimous decision by the elected democratic govt of the country......

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In the meantime, there is not much to be gained by getting too worked up, I would suggest.

I was pointing out that the US arguments claiming that the unilateral drone strikes are 'legal' are unjustified.

Edit: What options does Pakistan realistically have to get the US to stop drone attacks? Please elaborate if you can.

Escalate the situation through shooting down the drones and simultaneously raising the issue in the UNGA and UNSC - but as I pointed out, such a course of action would be highly inflammatory and restrict the space for a negotiated settlement, given the subsequently inflamed domestic political discourse in both nations.

 

[VCheng]

..........

Escalate the situation through shooting down the drones and simultaneously raising the issue in the UNGA and UNSC - but as I pointed out, such a course of action would be highly inflammatory and restrict the space for a negotiated settlement, given the subsequently inflamed domestic political discourse in both nations.

Hence, such a course is not realistic, is it?

So realistically speaking, what options does Pakistan have?

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

Edit: Added, just so that I am clear as to what I am saying:

realistic:

1. showing awareness and acceptance of reality
2. practical or pragmatic rather than ideal or moral
3. depicting or emphasizing what is real and actual rather than abstract or ideal

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Hence, such a course is not realistic, is it?

So realistically speaking, what options does Pakistan have?

Hence my point that the decision by Pakistan to avoid raising the issue at the UN does not constitute 'consent'.

I am not arguing about what options Pakistan has, but that the US claim that its unilateral drone strikes are 'legal' is an invalid one, as has been shown.

 

[VCheng]

Hence my point that the decision by Pakistan to avoid raising the issue at the UN does not constitute 'consent'.

I am not arguing about what options Pakistan has, but that the US claim that its unilateral drone strikes are 'legal' is an invalid one, as has been shown.

I understand that Sir, but I was I was referring to this statement of yours:

Pakistan has various options to escalate the situation in order to get the US to stop - Pakistan has to weight the pros and cons of each option - the choice to not escalate at the current moment does not indicate 'consent', it only indicates that Pakistan is not willing to escalate and would like to continue diplomatic negotiations to resolve the issue.

You have not so far established any realistic option that Pakistan has to get USA to stop drone strikes as you have claimed, regardless of the legal contentiousness. It is precisely this lack of any options that leaves Pakistan with very little room to maneuver. I was merely expressing my interest in your statement that Pakistan has "various options" open to it, as to what those options might be, realistically speaking of course.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I understand that Sir, but I was I was referring to this statement of yours:

You have not so far established any realistic option that Pakistan has to get USA to stop drone strikes as you have claimed, regardless of the legal contentiousness. It is precisely this lack of any options that leaves Pakistan with very little room to maneuver. I was merely expressing my interest in your statement that Pakistan has "various options" open to it, as to what those options might be, realistically speaking of course.

I made that statement in support of the main argument that the options available to Pakistan, such as going to the UN, are primarily those that would escalate the situation and make diplomatic negotiations with the US extremely hard, which is why your argument that the decision by Pakistan to not escalate and go to the UN implies 'consent' is wrong.

As I said, it was not my intention to discuss Pakistani options, feasible or otherwise, to stop drone strikes - it was my intention to show that the US argument that the drone strikes are 'legal' because of consent or lack of alternatives is an invalid one.

 

[A1Kaid]

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.

Government of Pakistan especially senior level officials in the administration do give tacit approval for these drone strikes. US first conducted drone operations as surveillance with permission of Pres. Musharraf, than US began conducting drone strikes, Pres. Musharraf simply didn't stop them. Now the Government of Pakistan led by PM Gilani and Pres. Zardari are complicit in drone strikes.

So as far as we know US isn't conducting these drone strikes with no approval at all, the approval is there, this is where the US derives it's legality from for drone ops.

 

[Windjammer]

how will Pakistani pilots who go for conversion courses in USA...Shoot down drones that are being flown by their friends and american course mates?

There is actually no pilot sitting in flying a drone. !!

 

[HappinessMark!]

Government of Pakistan especially senior level officials in the administration do give tacit approval for these drone strikes. US first conducted drone operations as surveillance with permission of Pres. Musharraf, than US began conducting drone strikes, Pres. Musharraf simply didn't stop them. Now the Government of Pakistan led by PM Gilani and Pres. Zardari are complicit in drone strikes.

So as far as we know US isn't conducting these drone strikes with no approval at all, the approval is there, this is where the US derives it's legality from for drone ops.

But, Pakistan is crying hard to an end of Drone...so if we assume they are lauching with approval, then what is the point USA is digesting all Pakistan's HARSH WORDS (as Hina said it's USA is not listening to us. its listening will improve..sherry said same..Pakistan even yesterday issued some dem) before the world openly...WHY not USA is showing the word that we doing with their approval...I'm not overlooking the possibility that Musharraf approved...What is the strategy of USA behind being silent when PAKISTAN MEDIA, IMRAN KHAN all striking against it...WHY it can't say I'm doing with approval ....

 

[VCheng]

I made that statement in support of the main argument that the options available to Pakistan, such as going to the UN, are primarily those that would escalate the situation and make diplomatic negotiations with the US extremely hard, which is why your argument that the decision by Pakistan to not escalate and go to the UN implies 'consent' is wrong.

As I said, it was not my intention to discuss Pakistani options, feasible or otherwise, to stop drone strikes - it was my intention to show that the US argument that the drone strikes are 'legal' because of consent or lack of alternatives is an invalid one.

I see. Understood then.

It seems that US will continue with the strikes as legal and effective tools in the war, and Pakistan will continue to "protest" without escalating the issue any further. Unpleasant, but stable situation.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So as far as we know US isn't conducting these drone strikes with no approval at all, the approval is there, this is where the US derives it's legality from for drone ops.

Any 'approval' from the GoP is at the moment a speculative argument.

What we know for a fact is that the GoP has officially denied any approval and argued that the strikes are illegal.

 

[A1Kaid]

Any 'approval' from the GoP is at the moment a speculative argument.

What we know for a fact is that the GoP has officially denied any approval and argued that the strikes are illegal.

What we know is the Musharraf administration did give approval for drone operations first as surveillance and then the drone operations escalated into drone strikes and Pres. Musharraf simply succumbed to them and for all intensive purposes became accepting of them. Even after drone strikes began he visited the White House and met with Pres. Bush held conference. If he was so disapproving of them and strongly against them I doubt that conference or meeting would occur. The story is the same with the current administration, they have given approval to what extent we don't know, whether case by case approval or some other method. Nonetheless, neither Government has taken direct and strong measures to stop the drone strikes, because they could end the day they really decide to they want to put an end to them.

Public condemnations don't help.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Escalate the situation through shooting down the drones and simultaneously raising the issue in the UNGA and UNSC - but as I pointed out, such a course of action would be highly inflammatory and restrict the space for a negotiated settlement, given the subsequently inflamed domestic political discourse in both nations.

Pakistan needs to clarify which side it is on.

If a non-nuclear power like Iran can bring down drones without any compunction, then so can Pakistan.

Otherwise support the drones fully and sincerely.

 

[Rank]

what **** nonsense by United State of ***** and Pakistani Govt and Military.. who have evidence that the person who died in the STRIKE He or She is TERRORISTS???? US even don't know where is MULLAH omar they even not capable to hold Afghanistan properly... massive strikes over NATO and US forces in Kandahar and Kabul... they even FAILED to know WHO IS TERRORIST and WHO IS NOT.. how they know from thousands of feet above that the person who is driving a car on the road or a group of people standing somewhere are TERRORIST ?? Which F*** B**** Intelligence ?????????

LOL @ SENIOR AND SO CALLED PRO ON THIS FORUM!

 

[Awesome]

They should at least physically slap Munter after each drone strike. Summon him, slap him and let him go. To make it all legit, Zardari should have Asifa slap him and then blame it on "Teenagers, what can you do about em?"

Aur toh kuch karte nahi hain, chapair hi laga doh.