US Drone strikes in Pakistan are illegal under international law.

[sergente rehan]

Not just Pakistan. Many nations have had their soldiers and civilians killed in the aftermath as well. Afghanistan has lost thousands of lives as has the USA.

So you are trying to compare the numbers of victims?

with due respect just count how many victims were in 9/11 and how many victims are every day in Pakistan caused mainly by this war on terror started by U.S.

 

[TruthSeeker]

US drone strike in Pakistan 'killed key al-Qaeda man'

A key al-Qaeda figure wanted for a deadly attack on a CIA base in Afghanistan has been killed in a US drone strike, US officials believe.

Hussein al-Yemeni, a top al-Qaeda planner, died in the strike in the city of Miranshah in Pakistan, they said.

He was believed to have helped plan an attack on a base in Khost in December in which a suicide bomber killed seven CIA agents and a Jordanian officer.

The CIA's director has said al-Qaeda is now in disarray in Pakistan.

A US counter-terrorism official told Agence France-Presse news agency that the drone strike in Miranshah, in North Waziristan, was "a clean, precise action that shows these killers cannot hide even in relatively built-up places".

Yemeni was said to be in his late 20s or early 30s and specialised in "bombs and suicide operations", the official said.

"He was a conduit in Pakistan for funds, messages and recruits," he said.

Yemeni had contacts with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Afghan and Pakistani Taliban groups, US officials believe.

In an interview with the Washington Post on Wednesday, CIA Director Leon Panetta said attacks against al-Qaeda had left it unable to plan sophisticated operations.

"It's pretty clear from all the intelligence we are getting that they are having a very difficult time putting together any kind of command and control, that they are scrambling. And that we really do have them on the run," Mr Panetta said.

He said that the attacks had been so effective that an al-Qaeda lieutenant had pleaded in an intercepted message to Osama Bin Laden that the al-Qaeda leader needed to come to provide some leadership.

BBC News - US drone strike in Pakistan 'killed key al-Qaeda man'

 

[TruthSeeker]

US drone strike kills four in NW Pakistan

Sunday, 21 Mar, 2010

MIRANSHAH: Missiles fired from US drones Sunday killed at least four militants in a restive Pakistani tribal area bordering Afghanistan, security officials said.

“A US drone fired two missiles on a militant compound near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Four militants were killed,” a senior security official told AFP.

“It is not immediately clear if there was any important target,” he added.

Two other security officials and an intelligence official confirmed the drone strike and death toll in the Inzar village of North Waziristan tribal district.

“The targeted compound belongs to a relative of a militant commander,” the official said, adding that the militants had not yet begun rescue activities as US drones were still flying above the site.

“Militants have not started removing bodies yet,” he said.

DAWN.COM | Pakistan | US drone strike kills four in NW Pakistan

 

[TruthSeeker]

Suspected US drone strikes kill eight in Pakistan

2010-03-22 00:31:44

Islamabad : At least eight people were killed and four injured in two suspected US drone strikes in Pakistan's northwestern tribal district of North Waziristan on Sunday, security officials said.

An unmanned drone aircraft fired three Hellfire guided missiles into a compound in the Alora Mandi area of North Waziristan, a known safe haven of Taliban and Al Qaeda militants launching cross-border raids on NATO-led international forces in Afghanistan.

'The drone attack partly demolished the compound and killed five people. Four more people were injured,' said an intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Three militants killed in US drone attack

In the second attack, another drone fired two missiles on a vehicle driving through Sanzela area of the district. Three people died, said a second intelligence official who also sought anonymity because he was not authorised to speak to the media.

Suspected US drone strikes kill eight in Pakistan

 

[TruthSeeker]

Death toll in drone strike rises to 13

Monday, 28 Dec, 2009

MIRAMSHAH: The death toll in Saturday’s drone strike on a militant compound in the Saidgai area of North Waziristan rose to 13 on Sunday after eight more bodies were retrieved from the debris of the house, sources said.

Initial reports said that five people had died in the attack. Three people were injured. Asmatullah, the owner of the house, survived the attack.

A Taliban commander, identified as Abdur Rehman Wazir, was among the dead, the sources said. Residents said the eight bodies were shifted to the Shewa village for burial.

AFP adds: “The Taliban have recovered more bodies from the debris. We have reports that a total of 13 militants were killed and three injured,” an intelligence official in Miramshah said.

The compound was used by local militants attached to the Haqqani network, which has attacked US troops in Afghanistan, said a senior security official.

Other security officials also confirmed that 13 were killed in the strike, including a local commander, but it was unclear if any foreigners were among the dead.

DAWN.COM | Front Page | Death toll in drone strike rises to 13

 

[TruthSeeker]

US missile strike kills six in North Waziristan

Wednesday, 24 Mar, 2010

MIRAMSHAH: Missiles fired from US drones Tuesday killed at least six militants in a restive Pakistani tribal area bordering Afghanistan, security officials said.

“US drones fired two missiles on a militant vehicle parked outside a compound. At least six militants were killed and three others were wounded,” a senior security official told AFP.

“The compound, being frequented by militants recently, was also destroyed in the attack,” he added.

Another security official and two intelligence officials confirmed the missile strike and death toll.

The official said it was not immediately clear whether any “high value target” was present at the time of the attack, which took place in the suburbs of Miramshah, the main town in the lawless tribal district of North Waziristan.

Residents said that militants had started sifting through the debris and removing the bodies.

Militants immediately cordoned off the area around the destroyed vehicle and the compound, a local tribesman told AFP on condition of anonymity.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Administration Says Drone Strikes Are Legal and Necessary

Mar 26 2010, 11:15 AM ET

Last night, the State Department's legal adviser, Harold Koh, delivered a keynote address to the American Society of International Law's annual meeting in Washington. He spoke in part about the administration's use of lethal force against terrorists, specifically drone attacks, and whether this was legal under international law and the laws of armed conflict. Koh's remarks were the most consequential on this subject to date, and the ripple effects will be felt throughout the Obama administration's foreign policy for months and possibly years to come.

The bottom line was this: Lethal strikes against terrorists, including those involving unmanned drone aircraft, "comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war," Koh said. If you'd missed the roiling controversy over this question that's been playing out in recent months, know that this question is one that many experts had been waiting for Koh to address, and that it goes to the very heart of the Obama administration's war on terrorists.

Said Koh:

...t is the considered view of this administration...that targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war....As recent events have shown, al Qaeda has not abandoned its intent to attack the United States, and indeed continues to attack us. Thus, in this ongoing armed conflict, the United States has the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks....[T]his administration has carefully reviewed the rules governing targeting operations to ensure that these operations are conducted consistently with law of war principles...

Koh had said recently that the administration had formed a legal basis for the controversial drone program, and that soon it would be revealed. His speech last night certainly leaves a number of questions unanswered, but this is basically the unveiling of the legal policy.

Here's one very significant portion of his remarks, which make clear that Koh has reviewed the program and its attendant, all-important targeting procedures:

Our procedures and practices for identifying lawful targets are extremely robust, and advanced technologies have helped to make our targeting even more precise. In my experience, the principles of distinction and proportionality that the United States applies are not just recited at meetings. They are implemented rigorously throughout the planning and execution of lethal operations to ensure that such operations are conducted in accordance with all applicable law...

Those two principles, distinction and proportionality, have been the main points of contention in the drone program. The first, distinction, requires that any attack in an armed conflict be limited to military objectives, and that civilians can't be targets. In counterterrorism operations, this can be a hard principle to follow if a stateless attacker tries to blend back into the civilian population. Is he a combatant? Is he a protected civilian? Lawyers have to make that call in the heat of battle.

As for the second principle, proportionality, it requires that attacks must be judged in light of the civilian deaths they may cause, as well the damage expected to civilian property and objects. This potential loss must be weighed against the military advantage that would come from carrying out the strike. Many of the drone program's critics have pointed out these calculations are made in secret, likely by officials from the CIA and the National Security Council, who draw up the lists of drone targets. Therefore, it's difficult to know whether proportionality is taken into consideration, and how that happens. Even some U.S. military commanders have ridiculed the drone strikes for doing more harm than good because they kill many civilians and engender tremendous animosity in countries where American forces are trying to forge alliance with local citizens.

If the drone program didn't adhere to the principles of distinction and proportionality, it could be devastating to the Obama administration's counterterrorism operations. If officials can't legally kill al Qaeda and Taliban figures in places like Pakistan, even when they're using that country as a home base to plan lethal strikes against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, as well as targets in the United States, then there are few good options left for fighting them.

Koh responded to these issues last night, which is something that no official had yet done:

In U.S. operations against al Qaeda and its associated forces--including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles--great care is taken to adhere to these principles in both planning and execution, to ensure that only legitimate objectives are targeted and that collateral damage is kept to a minimum.

Essentially, Koh's saying there is a process, it's legitimate, and it's closely followed for every drone attack.

This isn't likely to silence groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which recently filed a lawsuit demanding the government turn over documentation about this very process. But coming from Harold Koh, this statement carries considerable weight in human rights and international law circles. Koh is a prolific writer and authority on human rights, civil liberties, and the application of international law. And in his former position as the dean of Yale Law School, he was a vocal critic of Bush's counterterrorism policies.

Koh wasn't offering an across-the-board endorsement of drone killings in all cases, and no one I know expected him to. But what he did say puts the administration's drone program on a more solid legal foundation than it has ever been.

Administration Says Drone Strikes Are Legal and Necessary - Politics - The Atlantic

 

[sergente rehan]

Administration Says Drone Strikes Are Legal and Necessary
As for the second principle, proportionality, it requires that attacks must be judged in light of the civilian deaths they may cause, as well the damage expected to civilian property and objects. This potential loss must be weighed against the military advantage that would come from carrying out the strike. Many of the drone program's critics have pointed out these calculations are made in secret, likely by officials from the CIA and the National Security Council, who draw up the lists of drone targets. Therefore, it's difficult to know whether proportionality is taken into consideration, and how that happens. Even some U.S. military commanders have ridiculed the drone strikes for doing more harm than good because they kill many civilians and engender tremendous animosity in countries where American forces are trying to forge alliance with local citizens.

If the drone program didn't adhere to the principles of distinction and proportionality, it could be devastating to the Obama administration's counterterrorism operations. If officials can't legally kill al Qaeda and Taliban figures in places like Pakistan, even when they're using that country as a home base to plan lethal strikes against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, as well as targets in the United States, then there are few good options left for fighting them.

Administration Says Drone Strikes Are Legal and Necessary - Politics - The Atlantic

For sure CIA and National Security Council doesn't bother how many pakistani civilians lost their lives in their planned attacks bcz they are not american civilians. Regarding the damage to properties i don't know if U.S. is refunding the GoP and the GoP is refunding the civilians. Kindly enlist us if you know the other good options left for fighting terrorism rather then drone attacks?

For almost every pakistani drones attacks are an insult to our sovereignty and are considered as bad as the terrorists doing terrorist activities in Pakistan. No matter if U.S. has secret deals with the GoP but even if these attacks killed some key terrorists we will never accept any foreign force to bring out attacks inside our borders, espescially killing our innocent civilians (which are mentioned as collatral damage). Never immagined if your own brother, sister, child or parent get killed in an attack bring out by an other foreign army, would you be pleased with all this and shake hands with the attackers or will get angry and hate the attackers even if they are doing these attacks to kill terrorists? U.S. started this war on terror bcz few thousands U.S. civilians (including other nationals, pakistani, etc) were killed by these terrorists and all americans were upset and angry. The same goes for these pakistani civilians which lost their lives in U.S. drones attacks.
If U.S. is really sincere like they stated in diffrent occasions then the only good option is to let Pak-Armed forces to operate in pakistan without U.S. interfrence and give drone tecnology to Pakistan so we can take out these terrorists. doing this U.S. will have a positive image in Pakistan and among Muslim world.

 

[TruthSeeker]

only good option is to let Pak-Armed forces to operate in pakistan without U.S. interfrence and give drone tecnology to Pakistan so we can take out these terrorists. doing this U.S. [/B]will have a positive image in Pakistan and among Muslim world.

Yes, that is your viewpoint. But as an American I can say that Pakistan could not be trusted do as you suggest. Pakistan's confusion between wanting to control Afghanistan and confront India versus help America fight the people who attacked us on 9/11/2001 has necessitated the drone strikes. Perhaps Pakistan has now gotten over its confusion. I'm not really sure. Pakistan did not really accept the USA dictat "you are with us or with them" and so the consequences have ensued. It was Pakistan's choice.

 

[SekrutYakhni]

Yes, that is your viewpoint. But as an American I can say that Pakistan could not be trusted do as you suggest. Pakistan's confusion between wanting to control Afghanistan and confront India versus help America fight the people who attacked us on 9/11/2001 has necessitated the drone strikes. Perhaps Pakistan has now gotten over its confusion. I'm not really sure. Pakistan did not really accept the USA dictat "you are with us or with them" and so the consequences have ensued. It was Pakistan's choice.

You are 100 percent right.
We can't trust you and you guys can't trust us but there is a way to enhance mutual cooperation.

Pakistan got confused because the U.S. was on a bull who shared no intention with others. If the U.S. shared things with us more comprehensively than we could help the victims of 9/11..

Killing people cannot be justified at all. 2,973 people died on the day of 9/11 but more than 300,000 people died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As I said before that killing innocent people cannot be justified so taking revenge of 2,973 people by killing more than 300,000 people cannot be justified at all.

So, the U.S. is basically saying that if she kills 2,973 Pakistani people than Pakistan should kill 300,000 people of the U.S.

Can you justify it?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Can you justify it?

What happens in war can never be "justified" in a satisfactory way. That is one reason that the way a war is fought often just sets up the next war. Essentially human beings are not angels and cannot be sufficiently rational to see that war may not be justified nor may not solve the problem. I would maintain that Pakistan is not "rational" over India in the same way that the USA is not rational over al Qaeda. So no, I don't justify the deaths of many innocents that have followed our search for justice after we were attacked on 9/11/2001. I would just say that it made us way, way, way mad and we are still not over it. Maybe when bin Laden and Zawahiri are known to be dead we will let it go. I don't know. In the mean time we are not going to be rational, we are not going to forget, and more people are going to die.

 

[TruthSeeker]

US missiles kill four in North Waziristan

Sunday, 28 Mar, 2010

PESHAWAR: A US missile strike in northwest Pakistan near the Afghan border killed four people in a suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban hideout on Saturday, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

One of the two missiles fired by a pilotless drone aircraft hit a village house used by militants as a hideout, killing four people and wounding five others, officials said.

The identities of the people killed could not be ascertained. A second missile landed in a nearby field.

The strike took place near Mir Ali, the second major town of North Waziristan and a safe-haven for fighters loyal to Pakistani militant commander, Hafiz Gul Bahadur, who is allied with al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban.

“The militants have cordoned off the area and no one is allowed to go there,” an intelligence official said by telephone from North Waziristan.—Reuters

DAWN.COM | Provinces | US missiles kill four in North Waziristan

 

[TruthSeeker]

Suspected US drone kills 6 in N.Waziristan

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

BANNU: At least six persons were killed in a US unmanned plane attack on Tapi area located on Miranshah road in Bannu of North Waziristan district, sources told media late on Tuesday night.

Two missiles were fired from US drone, killing six persons and injuring few more, according to preliminary information as reported by sources.

More drones’ flights are still underway over the area, sources further said.

According to details reached here as released by a foreign news agency, an unmanned US aircraft fired three missiles, destroying a compound in tribal belt near the Afghan border early Wednesday and killing six militants, security officials said.

"A US drone attack targeted a compound owned by Zamir Khan, a local tribesman, and used by militants. Two missiles were fired," a Pakistani security official told media on condition of anonymity.

"Four people were killed," the official said. The strike took place at the village of Tapi, in the district of North Waziristan about 20 kilometres (13 miles) east of the town of Miranshah.

Another intelligence official confirmed the first attack and said another US drone fired a third drone into the same compound killing, another two suspected militants and bringing the overall death toll to six.

The identities of the dead were not immediately known, nor whether they included any high-value targets.

The area is a known stronghold of the Haqqani network active in attacks on US troops in Afghanistan and of Afghan warlord Hafiz Gul Bahadur, who is reputed to control up to 2,000 fighters in the nine-year Afghan insurgency.

After the first attack at about 12:45 am (1945 GMT) local residents saw flames leaping out of the compound and said more drones were hovering over the area, preventing them from collecting the dead.

Local security officials said the targeted compound was a residence for militants and Wednesday's attack was the second in North Waziristan in days.

Two militants were also wounded in the attack, they said.

Suspected US drone kills 6 in N.Waziristan

 

[SekrutYakhni]

It is off topic question but kindly clear me on this issue..

What does "suspected" drone attacks mean?
What does "suspected" Al Qaeda members mean?

Is it the same suspicion upon which Iraq war was waged (weapons of mass destruction)

Or it is a different suspicion..

 

[SekrutYakhni]

What happens in war can never be "justified" in a satisfactory way. That is one reason that the way a war is fought often just sets up the next war. Essentially human beings are not angels and cannot be sufficiently rational to see that war may not be justified nor may not solve the problem. I would maintain that Pakistan is not "rational" over India in the same way that the USA is not rational over al Qaeda. So no, I don't justify the deaths of many innocents that have followed our search for justice after we were attacked on 9/11/2001. I would just say that it made us way, way, way mad and we are still not over it. Maybe when bin Laden and Zawahiri are known to be dead we will let it go. I don't know. In the mean time we are not going to be rational, we are not going to forget, and more people are going to die.

So you said more people will die...
Well okay its fine...
Lets see what happens to the mad bull..
Either it will wall or it will make other falls..
You will choose the second one but I am with the first one i.e. Bull will fall