UN Backs Probe into Legality of US Drone Strikes and Civilian Casualties

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No, and no. That's not true, not in the smallest bit. If you want to contradict me, cite fact, law, and precedence and stop making things up. I'm not one of the hoi polloi to be bamboozled by a smooth talking bureaucrat wearing a suit.

The only one attempting to 'bamboozle' on this forum is you - with your 'mental contortions' in trying to concoct a non-existent interpretation out of UNSCR 1373 to argue that it authorizes NATO military activity in Pakistan.

Before I provide the UN language to support my contention, try and absorb a simple analogy of Mexico (or some other State) choosing to unilaterally declare that they no longer consider Texas to be part of the US, and consider it to be 'part of Mexico'. Your interpretation of Clinton's comments amounts to the same thing - a State unilaterally declaring that it will break apart another Sovereign State.

And now here is the UN language debunking the imperial, colonial mindset of you and your government:

6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.

Sure, it's not the fault of the Afghans or Pakistanis to secure their mutual border, no sir, no sir, that can never be....

The Afghans fall under US control (primarily), given that it is NATO (the US primarily) that is funding and training the Afghan security forces.

Given the many magnitudes more economic, military and human resources of NATO and Afghanistan combined, compared to Pakistan, the larger responsibility for controlling the border through deploying more assets along the border lies on NATO, and, by virtue of being the main member, the US.

 

[Solomon2]

Before I provide the UN language to support my contention, try and absorb a simple analogy of Mexico (or some other State) choosing to unilaterally declare that they no longer consider Texas to be part of the US -

No need for false analogies where real ones serve: Georgia, Vietnam, and Korea are the first that come to mind.

6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.

I expect that considering drone strikes to be a violation of #6 is too much of a stretch for anyone other than a Pakistani.

So, now look at the U.N. Charter carefully. Does UNSCR 1373 modify #7 or not, and if so, how?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No need for false analogies where real ones serve: Georgia, Vietnam, and Korea are the first that come to mind.

Georgia at least is not a good example, given that the overwhelming majority of the residents of the tribal areas are not actively participating in any movement for independence from Pakistan - even the TTP goal is expansionist in nature, of eventually establishing some sort of 'Islamic Caliphate' based on their perverted interpretation of Islam, that would encompass Afghanistan, Pakistan and perhaps even parts of Central Asia.

The spin you are putting on Clinton's comments is that the US would unilaterally declare FATA to be 'an independent nation separate from Pakistan', which simply has no basis given no little to no FATA sentiment in favor of independence from Pakistan.

I expect that considering drone strikes to be a violation of #6 is too much of a stretch for anyone other than a Pakistani.

My post was in the context of your interpretation of Clinton's comments that the US would 'unilaterally declare FATA to be independent of Pakistan', and not specifically on US drone strikes, and your interpretation of Clinton's comments is a clear violation of #6.

US drone strikes in Pakistan, so long as they continue to be not sanctioned by any existing UN resolution or ICJ judgement, and continue to be conducted without Pakistani authorization are a clear violation of #7, on multiple counts.

So, now look at the U.N. Charter carefully. Does UNSCR 1373 modify #7 or not, and if so, how?

I do not see any language in UNSCR 1373 that modifies #7 and authorizes US military action inside Pakistani territory for the reasons currently provided by the USG. If you do, perhaps you could quote the language and explain exactly how this 'modification in favor of the US interpretation' occurs.

 

[Solomon2]

I do not see any language in UNSCR 1373 that modifies #7 and authorizes US military action -

You are focusing too narrowly, concentrating only on those factors that support your argument. By not considering the other side you risk engaging in self-deception which, if you act on it, likely will lead to failure.

Time to grow a little, AM. I'm not going to make the case for you. Look at what supports the other side and bring it out here.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You are focusing too narrowly, concentrating only on those factors that support your argument. By not considering the other side you risk engaging in self-deception which, if you act on it, likely will lead to failure.

Time to grow a little, AM. I'm not going to make the case for you. Look at what supports the other side and bring it out here.

As I said (and have asked you to do repeatedly in the past as well), please quote the relevant language from UNSCR 1373 and explain how you believe it can be interpreted to 'modify' #7.

I have pointed out the language that I believe supports my point of view, you have not - all you have given us is your own 'spin' on what you 'think' UNSCR 1373 implies. The onus is on you to make your case - I have made mine and quoted the relevant UN documents.