US want to kill more Pakistan people

[VCheng]

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

Legally speaking, the US is clearly in violation of the UN Charter and international law, for reasons provided earlier and in other threads.

So when are you taking all that robust legal theorizing to the ICJ or UN to get the drone attacks to stop?

Otherwise, only words that represent only one side of a complex issue.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So when are you taking all that robust legal theorizing to the ICJ or UN to get the drone attacks to stop?

Otherwise, only words that represent only one side of a complex issue.

The question is one that should be directed at the GoP, and I have offered my opinion on why the GoP does not want to take that route - as it stands, the US has not offered anything other than 'words' to justify its case that the strikes are legal either, and those 'words' are easily refuted based on international law.

 

[VCheng]

The question is one that should be directed at the GoP, and I have offered my opinion on why the GoP does not want to take that route - as it stands, the US has not offered anything other than 'words' to justify its case that the strikes are legal either, and those 'words' are easily refuted based on international law.

I respect your right to your opinion.

It is important to note that you rightly identify the party to which this question should be asked of, namely the Government of Pakistan. The people of Pakistan are the only ones who have the authority to ask this of their own government, since failure to do so would represents an abject failure of statesmanship. Why blame anyone else for that?

After all, USA seems to be doing a pretty job of presenting its own point of view internationally, at least so far.

 

[joekrish]

You can pick and throw stones at each other for as long as you want at the end of the day what matters most is that some innocent person dies due to the drone strikes and it is the resposblity of the GOP to take care of them if they are serious.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

How about you think long and hard before doing that?

I believe the point being made is that Iraq or NK could, using the flawed logic being advanced here in support of US military actions, argue that they were invading/attacking Kuwait/South Korea out of 'Self Defence' against covert and 'terrorist' acts emanating out of those nations.

This is why the provision of 'Self Defence' in the UN Charter does not authorize unconditional and un-reviewed military action by a State claiming it.

You can pick and throw stones at each other for as long as you want at the end of the day what matters most is that some innocent person dies due to the drone strikes and it is the resposblity of the GOP to take care of them if they are serious.

Correct!

At the end of the day it is the following that needs to be addressed, as mentioned earlier:

Jon Turner
Jon Turner went to Iraq with an Arabic phrase tattooed on his wrist. It says ‘**** you.’ “I got that because it was my choking hand. Anytime I felt the need to take out aggression, I would go ahead and use it.” But in his video testimony, and through the use of video and photographs from his tour, Turner recounts the mistakes that he made. That everybody in Iraq made. “On April 18, 2006, I had my first confirmed kill. This man was innocent,” he says. In case of such mistakes, the company carried Iraqi weapons to drop, Turner recalls. They instigated fights and sprayed bullets like sugar.


Jason Lemieux
In Iraq, the rules of engagement are being loosely defined and broadly enforced at the expense of the Iraqi people, says Jason Lemieux. "Anyone who tells you different is either a liar or a fool." When he got to Baghdad, he says he was explicitly instructed by his commanders that he could shoot anyone who made him uncomfortable and refused to move when he ordered them to do so. "Better them than us," was the prevailing philosophy, he says, and everyone on the street was considered an enemy combatant who could be killed.


Jason Washburn
Jason Washburn’s unit was told to shoot anyone digging near the side of the road because they might be planting a bomb. They carried spare weapons and shovels in their vehicles. If they killed an innocent Iraqi, they could throw a shovel on the corpse and say the person had been digging. At one point, Washburn’s commander called the unit together to praise Marines for accurate shooting, his pride apparently undiminished by the fact that the victim was not an insurgent but the local mayor.


Sergio Kochergin
As the casualties grew in Sergio Kochergin's platoon, the rules of engagement eroded. After seeing their friends blown up, "We were angry," he says, "we just wanted to do our job and come back." At one point, that meant that an Iraqi carrying a heavy bag and a shovel was at risk of being shot. Within months, Kochergin says that the rules of engagement were left entirely up to he and his fellow soldiers. "I want to apologize to all the people in Iraq," says a shaken Kochergin.


Vincent Emanuele
Marine Corps Rifleman Vincent Emanuele was deployed to an Iraqi village, near the border with Syria, in August 2004. During his eight months there, he witnessed and participated in: the aimless shooting at Iraqi vehicles; the random firing of rifles and mortars into the village rather than at specific targets; the physical abuse of Iraqi prisoners and the driving of prisoners out into the desert where they were abandoned; and the disrespectful handling of the Iraqi dead. And in his testimony, Rifleman Vincent Emanuel repeatedly said: “These were not isolated incidents.”

Iraq Veterans Against the War | You are not alone

===

As the unprovoked murder of 24 Pakistani troops and the countless massacres of innocent Afghans and Pakistanis in air-strikes and raids show, these attitudes are by no means 'isolated', nor have these attitudes shown any sign of changing.

 

[VCheng]

I believe the point being made is that Iraq or NK could, using the flawed logic being advanced here in support of US military actions, argue that they were invading/attacking Kuwait/South Korea out of 'Self Defence' against covert and 'terrorist' acts emanating out of those nations.

This is why the provision of 'Self Defence' in the UN Charter does not authorize unconditional and un-reviewed military action by a State claiming it.

That actually is a fair point. Of course Pakistan has the right to retaliate against any attacks on its sovereignty. I only hope that it responds wisely. That is all. If after thinking long and hard, Pakistan decides to go to war, then so be it.

 

[lem34]

The problem with American govt approach is that they have tried to fight terrorism by trying to catch the perpetrators and not winning hearts and minds. In fact they have done the reverse. They have done little in the way of getting the high moral ground and showing us their way of life is better etc. Instead by their collateral damage for every one terrorist they eliminate they have produced dozens of terrorists. Not only that by their disproportionate actions after the twin towers they have converted people like me from being pro American in the Clinton years to never trust Americans again and to be anti American.

An interesting article that I came across its not new its before Osama was killed but I think it shows the frustrations America faces. Even Americans other than may be first generation Americans who are trying to be more American than America themselves recognise the irony.


How Osama bin Laden Won the War on Terrorism

As the Bush presidency comes to the waning days of power, it is time to evaluate how well or poorly the administration has done in the one defining issue of his time in office: the international war against terrorism.

Sadly, it must be said … we lost. Osama bin Laden has extracted from the United States, more than anyone could have imagined, and he did so at a surprisingly low cost. In fact, we were complicit in our own failures.

Why attribute victory to bin Laden? After all, post Sept. 11, his safe harbor in Afghanistan was destroyed, he is holed up hiding somewhere (we presume) in a cave in the rugged hills of Pakistan, his al-Qaida network is without a home and without state protections … that sounds like defeat to most.

But bin Laden wasn’t trying to gain territory or treasure, the conventional measures of victory in war. His goal was to tarnish the U.S. image as a force for good to reveal the “real America” as an evil influence or make our country something it was not, taking us a far cry from the ideals on which the nation stood for centuries. In that he has won an overwhelming victory. We abandoned our commitment to the rule of law, to humane treatment of prisoners, to the international agreements we had such a big role in developing. In short, we started down a road to becoming the thing we opposed.

In the wake of that tragic and shocking day in September when hijackers destroyed nearly 3,000 innocent lives, Vice President Dick Cheney said we might now have to go over to “the dark side;” and indeed we did with tragic results. By going to the dark side, we have ceded the moral high ground and played right into the hands of bin Laden. “You see” he can now say to the world, “this is what the United States is really like.”

The dark side? The Bush administration has all but shredded the Constitution in its quest for victory over terrorism. It was a very high price to pay. Think of what has been done in the name of the people of the United States - the United States condoned and administered torture to prisoners. We were embarrassed and shocked by the gross revelations of what went on in the Abu Grahab prison. Several people who were tortured ultimately died. We engaged in “extraordinary rendition” or the kidnapping of suspects around the globe who were then taken to secret prison facilities and some were tortured. We opened the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay and warehoused hundreds of suspected terrorists. We denied them the right to an attorney. We failed to charge them with a crime or to give them a chance to prove their innocence before a judge. We engaged in illegal domestic spying on American citizens. We were misled into a costly and tragic war in Iraq. Bush instilled a culture of fear at home; our moral claim to leadership evaporated and our standing in the world plummeted. We ushered in the era of the “unitary presidency” or an imperial executive. We abandoned the rule of law and suspended the constitutional right of habeas corpus. And the list goes on and on.

Why did we let Osama bin Laden have such control over our Constitution? Why did we allow him to turn us into the thing we opposed? Our ideals are what animated us for two centuries. Were they so fragile that they had to be abandoned when the going got tough? Or were those the very ideals on which we should have relied to see us through yet another test of will and power? The Bush administration has given him a victory he neither deserves nor earned. He brought out the worst in us. And we let him.

In war, as in all things, choices are made. The Bush administration chose to abandon what was best about America, what gives us strength, what was the key to our international leadership. We played the terrorists’ game and we lost. We lost the war and we lost an important part of ourselves. In a world hungry for constructive leadership, the American “brand” has become tainted.

The in-box of the next president is overflowing. Economic meltdown, partisan sniping, the environment threatened, oil markets ruling our behavior, our international reputation in tatters, new threats emerging and new powers rising. The first step in meeting these grave challenges is to return to that which gave us strength: a country that stood for grand ideals and powerful ideas; a country committed to doing the right thing in a dangerous world; that led by example and demonstrated that right makes might.



Michael A. Genovese holds the Loyola Chair of Leadership at Loyola Marymount University. He is the author of eighteen books, including Memo to a New President from the Oxford University Press.


What price a brand?? There were great hopes when Obama came to power that things would be reversed. Obama's dealings with Pakistan prove that America is no longer a country that stands for grand ideals or what is right. Why expect America to follow law and international norms any more

 

[VelocuR]

10 hours ago, did you catch this news?

US secretly releasing Taliban prisoners from Bagram prison
America has secretly been releasing high-level Taliban prisoners from a top security military prison as part of negotiations with insurgents

Up to 20 prisoners have been released from Bagram prison in the past two years after giving assurances they would give up their struggle and reconcile with the government. The clandestine "strategic release" programme at the prison north of Kabul has allowed America to use prisoners as bargaining chips when trying to reach local deals with insurgents. Officials admitted the scheme was risky however and difficult to police. They would not say whether any of those released had resumed attacks on Nato or Afghan forces.

"Everyone agrees they are guilty of what they have done and should remain in detention," one official told the Washington Post. "Everyone agrees that these are bad guys. But the benefits outweigh the risks."

Gavin Sundwall, spokesman for the US embassy in Kabul, said the programme was two years old and "rarely used". Commanders from both the American and Afghan forces deliberated on releasing prisoners who were "willing to denounce violence and engage in the process of reconciliation".

He said: "Fewer than 20 detainees have ever been released under this program, and the decision to release a detainee takes into account whether they pose any further security threat." The release of prisoners has become a significant hurdle to embryonic peace contacts aimed at finding a political settlement to the conflict.

Contacts in Qatar appeared to founder earlier this year when Taliban negotiators pulled out saying America had broken a promise to transfer five leaders from Guantánamo Bay, in Cuba, to looser custody in the Gulf state. Releasing the men from Guantánamo requires congressional approval and is seen by analysts as a risky move for Barack Obama during a presidential election campaign.

However while Bagram prison is second only to Guantánamo for holding the most senior Taliban prisoners from the decade-long Nato-led campaign, their release does not need approval from Congress, the Washington Post reported. The United States agreed to hand over control of Bagram prison to the Afghan army earlier this year, during negotiations over a 10-year strategic deal governing American aid to the country after 2014.

Senior prisoners have in the past been transferred to Afghan custody only to be then released under murky circumstances and Western officials have said Afghan custody is a "revolving door" for any insurgent with money or political links. In the most notorious example, Mullah Abdul Qayum Zakir, was released into Afghan custody from Guantánamo in 2007 only to be freed to rejoin his Taliban comrades and rise quickly through the ranks to a senior leadership post.


Settlement agreement is nonsense, this secret deal must be something to attack on Pakistan. It was happened before same method.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That actually is a fair point. Of course Pakistan has the right to retaliate against any attacks on its sovereignty. I only hope that it responds wisely. That is all. If after thinking long and hard, Pakistan decides to go to war, then so be it.

Here is a better articulated form of the argument that is being made to illustrate the illegality of US Military actions in Pakistan:

A critical—yet unmentioned—assumption in this discussion is that the United States and Israel have the right to attack Iran if they desire. Even the liberal extreme automatically accepts, with no need for justification, that U.S. force is always justified. The only appropriate question is whether it would be strategically sound, and the only consequences that need to be weighed are the costs to us. It likely never occurred to Lesley Stahl to raise the question what right do we have to do any of this? The occasionally mentioned pretext for attacking Iran is generally that a nuclear-armed Iran would represent an imminent threat to Israel and U.S.-aligned Arab states in the Middle East; this assumes, of course, that Iran’s leaders are utterly irrational and intend to commit their country to national suicide. But if that is a suitable justification for a U.S./Israeli attack on Iran, then we have to conclude that Iran certainly has the right to preemptively attack the United States and Israel. Any threat represented by Iran is paltry compared to the very clear and imminent threats to Iran at present. Remember that its borders are surrounded by U.S. military bases and hundreds of thousands of deployed forces. It is threatened with attack on a daily basis, including regular threats from the U.S. president. These threats are also highly credible, as several of Iran’s immediate neighbors have already been invaded and occupied by the United States (as opposed to the threats represented by Iran, which are all conjectural). No one anywhere, of course, would dream of publicly suggesting that Iran has the right to a preemptive military strike against the United States or Israel, and neither do I. But if such an attack by Iran is not warranted, despite the threats it currently faces, then the United States has little ground to stand on in claiming justification to launch a preventive war.

War and the Role of the Media | Iraq Veterans Against the War

 

[VCheng]

Here is a better articulated form of the argument that is being made to illustrate the illegality of US Military actions in Pakistan:..................

War and the Role of the Media | Iraq Veterans Against the War

Actually, that is in keeping with what I said before: If Iran thinks long and hard, and comes to the conclusion that it needs to attack USA and/or Israel preemptively, then it is free as a sovereign nation to do so, from my point of view.

 

[lem34]

Here is a better articulated form of the argument that is being made to illustrate the illegality of US Military actions in Pakistan:

But Agno I think even Americans other than first generation who are trying to prove they are Americans accept that America has given up on laws and legality that was the point I was trying to make with post 52

 

[ARSENAL6]

Didn't see anywhere it says U.S. wants to kill more Pakistanis by Leon's comments. I can write it as U.S. wants to kill more terrorists like Osama.

I'm sure the people who committed the 9/11 terrorist attacks for aguement sake were thinking of all those devils in the White house thats why they attacked the two towers instead of the white house.

The US hides its true action for Islamic Genocide and you are just delibratly playing it low like a Nazi.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Actually, that is in keeping with what I said before: If Iran thinks long and hard, and comes to the conclusion that it needs to attack USA and/or Israel preemptively, then it is free as a sovereign nation to do so, from my point of view.

I have not read your arguments on Iran - I was using that piece to point out that the arguments in defence of unilateral military operations by the US, put up by the US Administration and various Western commentators and US apologists such as yourself, TS and Solomon, are inherently flawed like the arguments advanced to attack Iran.

The US and its apologists have essentially started acting like the US Government/Military/Intelligence Establishment is some sort of infallible deity, and whatever it claims is correct, international law be damned.

 

[lem34]

Translation please^^^^

 

[DRaisinHerald]

How about you think long and hard before doing that?

But that's exactly it; isn't the US abusing it's power to bully both the UN and Pakistan?

The UN depends too much on the US to take legal action against them; and Pakistan can't really retaliate because the US has got the world by the balls: if they support Pakistan or fail to condemn Pakistan retaliating to protect itself against the US, the Yanks are going to squeeze their nuts till they beg and apologise for not blindly supporting them.

Isn't this terrorism; or is this perfectly justifiable? Talk about "peace missions"...