We simply do not accept your self praising you are trying to expand your horizons. Your posts are evidence of denial of wrongs committed by Americans and west
US want to kill more Pakistan people
- Thread starter VelocuR
- Start date
We simply do not accept your self praising you are trying to expand your horizons. Your posts are evidence of denial of wrongs committed by Americans and west
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Drone doctrine of necessity
Waris Husain
Last week, President Obama’s chief counterterrorism advisor admitted that the US is operating a drone program in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Many have commended the Obama administration for disclosing the existence of the drone program, while the president’s advisor, John Brennan, claimed that the program was “legal”, “necessary”, and “wise” under international law. In many ways, his arguments mirrored the doctrine of necessity adopted by Pakistan’s Supreme Court justices in 1955, who claimed “that which is not legal, necessity can make legal.” It took several generations of jurists to realise the fallacy of this doctrine, and it may take the United States just as long to realise the long-term negative implications of utilising the drone program as it currently stands.
Throughout Pakistan’s history, the Supreme Court has toyed with the doctrine of necessity, which is basically used to justify military coups. This doctrine was born out of the perception that the only institution capable of handling Pakistan’s complex problems is the military, and that the Army was a benevolent guardian of the state. What Pakistani jurists have come to understand over several decades is that the Constitution is the true guardian of the people, and the doctrine of necessity is an invalid violation of the democratic principles laid out in the Constitution.
While the Supreme Court has yet to declare the doctrine of necessity null and void, its practice will hopefully not return, considering its effects. By legally justifying coups and martial law under dictators, the doctrine of necessity showed the inability of the judiciary to confront the injustice of authoritarianism. Further, the doctrine allowed for the military to sabotage civilian ruling regimes in order to justify their unconstitutional coups, which has limited the stable democratic growth of the nation. Similarly, the use of drones threatens to limit the ability of the US to legally engage with the international community.
To begin any discussion on international law, one should recognise that the major powers control the application and interpretation of international law as they have funded and created all of its institutions and treaties. Therefore, it is no mistake that the international criminal court has exclusively prosecuted African leaders, with the exception of Yugoslavia, and failed to exercise its powers on any European or American wrongdoers.
Even still, with regards to Obama’s potential violation of international law through the drone program, one must understand that most international legal doctrines were created to maintain global peace and limit the use of force by states. It is no coincidence that the first line of the United Nation’s charter is that the purpose of the organisation is to “to maintain international peace and security,” it goes onto state later that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
However, the international law does not bind the hands of nations facing attacks, whether by enemy-state actors or non-state actors, like terrorists. Under the UN Charter Article 51, a nation is allowed to take measures to defend itself “if an armed attack occurs against” it. Several motions and resolutions passed by the UN identify al Qaeda and the Taliban as willful combatants engaged in armed hostilities against the US, which validates the use of force against them.
This legal reasoning allows for the US to utilise its drone program as a supplement to troops on the ground in areas like Afghanistan, but the international law has not developed a solid ruling on whether the same program can be used in Pakistan. Pakistan does not have the same cooperation agreement with the US government as Afghanistan, and has not consented publically to the drone program, despite backdoor permission granted by General Kayani as revealed by Wikileaks. Therefore, unilateral action by the US using drones to kill militants and civilians alike without any due process in Pakistan is not as acceptable under international law as Mr. Brennan would have us believe.
The analysis of self-defense under international law is far more complex than merely accepting that nations can use any type of force against their enemies, even if those enemies do not respect borders and are attempting to fight a global jihad. The Caroline case limited the power of nations to use force only by “measures which are proportional to the armed attack and necessary to respond to it.”
It is interesting to note the facts of the Caroline case which dates back to 1837, when British naval officers shot down an American civilian ship without any provocation on American waters. The officers targeted the civilian ship to punish the Americans, who had been supporting revolutionaries in Canada that were attempting to secede from the British Crown. Like Pakistan, the US was a developing power at the time and was suspected of funding an insurgency across its border.
On the other hand, the British were a superpower much like the US today, who attempted to justify their blatant aggression as self-defense, claiming that anyone who supported Canadian secessionists deserved to be attacked by the British Crown. The US argued for a narrow interpretation of self-defense at that time but now adopts the same legal defense of drones as their former colonial tormentors – claiming that a terrorist anywhere is eligible to be killed by unilateral decision by the US.
Many have made arguments that the drone program fails to satisfy the requirements of “necessity and proportionality.” Under the necessity requirement, a nation can only utilise force when it is necessary to avoid an attack against their citizens or soldiers. Therefore, there are many scenarios where the US drone program has legally targeted individuals who were in fact actively engaged in a plot to target American soldiers or citizens abroad. However, the secretive nature of the program belies the transparency required for human rights monitors to analyze each case of drone attacks to assess its necessity.
This leads to the second requirement that the use of force by a state must be proportional to the threat it faces. Katherine M. Loyal and Saad Gul argued in a 2006 law review article that the use of drones was like a farmer “burning the farm to roast the pig.” Or rather, the use of drones is not solving the problem of international terrorism, but making it worst by allowing extremists to gain more sympathisers. Unlike in Afghanistan, where troops on the ground can offer on-the-ground intelligence and take supplemental means to avoid civilian deaths, the US does not have a ground presence in Pakistan where it wishes to use drones.
Therefore, as terrorists travel with their lackeys and families embedding themselves in civilian-populated areas, they ensure that the US will face a public backlash from using a drone on them, as it will likely cost civilian lives. Pragmatically, the US is stuck between a rock and a hard place as its drone attacks have incensed the Pakistani public, who could have been an ally in a war on terror which has plagued most of the Pakistani populace in one way or another.
The secret and blanket drone policy enacted by the US military in Pakistan is unacceptable under international law because it fails to satisfy the necessity and proportionality requirements set forth in the doctrine of self defense. However, like Pakistan’s doctrine of necessity, it may take the US several generations to realise the error in attempting to manipulate the law in order to justify illegal military oppression and brutality.
The writer holds a Juris Doctorate in the US and is a researcher on comparative law and international law issues.
Drone doctrine of necessity | DAWN.COM
Waris Husain
Last week, President Obama’s chief counterterrorism advisor admitted that the US is operating a drone program in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Many have commended the Obama administration for disclosing the existence of the drone program, while the president’s advisor, John Brennan, claimed that the program was “legal”, “necessary”, and “wise” under international law. In many ways, his arguments mirrored the doctrine of necessity adopted by Pakistan’s Supreme Court justices in 1955, who claimed “that which is not legal, necessity can make legal.” It took several generations of jurists to realise the fallacy of this doctrine, and it may take the United States just as long to realise the long-term negative implications of utilising the drone program as it currently stands.
Throughout Pakistan’s history, the Supreme Court has toyed with the doctrine of necessity, which is basically used to justify military coups. This doctrine was born out of the perception that the only institution capable of handling Pakistan’s complex problems is the military, and that the Army was a benevolent guardian of the state. What Pakistani jurists have come to understand over several decades is that the Constitution is the true guardian of the people, and the doctrine of necessity is an invalid violation of the democratic principles laid out in the Constitution.
While the Supreme Court has yet to declare the doctrine of necessity null and void, its practice will hopefully not return, considering its effects. By legally justifying coups and martial law under dictators, the doctrine of necessity showed the inability of the judiciary to confront the injustice of authoritarianism. Further, the doctrine allowed for the military to sabotage civilian ruling regimes in order to justify their unconstitutional coups, which has limited the stable democratic growth of the nation. Similarly, the use of drones threatens to limit the ability of the US to legally engage with the international community.
To begin any discussion on international law, one should recognise that the major powers control the application and interpretation of international law as they have funded and created all of its institutions and treaties. Therefore, it is no mistake that the international criminal court has exclusively prosecuted African leaders, with the exception of Yugoslavia, and failed to exercise its powers on any European or American wrongdoers.
Even still, with regards to Obama’s potential violation of international law through the drone program, one must understand that most international legal doctrines were created to maintain global peace and limit the use of force by states. It is no coincidence that the first line of the United Nation’s charter is that the purpose of the organisation is to “to maintain international peace and security,” it goes onto state later that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
However, the international law does not bind the hands of nations facing attacks, whether by enemy-state actors or non-state actors, like terrorists. Under the UN Charter Article 51, a nation is allowed to take measures to defend itself “if an armed attack occurs against” it. Several motions and resolutions passed by the UN identify al Qaeda and the Taliban as willful combatants engaged in armed hostilities against the US, which validates the use of force against them.
This legal reasoning allows for the US to utilise its drone program as a supplement to troops on the ground in areas like Afghanistan, but the international law has not developed a solid ruling on whether the same program can be used in Pakistan. Pakistan does not have the same cooperation agreement with the US government as Afghanistan, and has not consented publically to the drone program, despite backdoor permission granted by General Kayani as revealed by Wikileaks. Therefore, unilateral action by the US using drones to kill militants and civilians alike without any due process in Pakistan is not as acceptable under international law as Mr. Brennan would have us believe.
The analysis of self-defense under international law is far more complex than merely accepting that nations can use any type of force against their enemies, even if those enemies do not respect borders and are attempting to fight a global jihad. The Caroline case limited the power of nations to use force only by “measures which are proportional to the armed attack and necessary to respond to it.”
It is interesting to note the facts of the Caroline case which dates back to 1837, when British naval officers shot down an American civilian ship without any provocation on American waters. The officers targeted the civilian ship to punish the Americans, who had been supporting revolutionaries in Canada that were attempting to secede from the British Crown. Like Pakistan, the US was a developing power at the time and was suspected of funding an insurgency across its border.
On the other hand, the British were a superpower much like the US today, who attempted to justify their blatant aggression as self-defense, claiming that anyone who supported Canadian secessionists deserved to be attacked by the British Crown. The US argued for a narrow interpretation of self-defense at that time but now adopts the same legal defense of drones as their former colonial tormentors – claiming that a terrorist anywhere is eligible to be killed by unilateral decision by the US.
Many have made arguments that the drone program fails to satisfy the requirements of “necessity and proportionality.” Under the necessity requirement, a nation can only utilise force when it is necessary to avoid an attack against their citizens or soldiers. Therefore, there are many scenarios where the US drone program has legally targeted individuals who were in fact actively engaged in a plot to target American soldiers or citizens abroad. However, the secretive nature of the program belies the transparency required for human rights monitors to analyze each case of drone attacks to assess its necessity.
This leads to the second requirement that the use of force by a state must be proportional to the threat it faces. Katherine M. Loyal and Saad Gul argued in a 2006 law review article that the use of drones was like a farmer “burning the farm to roast the pig.” Or rather, the use of drones is not solving the problem of international terrorism, but making it worst by allowing extremists to gain more sympathisers. Unlike in Afghanistan, where troops on the ground can offer on-the-ground intelligence and take supplemental means to avoid civilian deaths, the US does not have a ground presence in Pakistan where it wishes to use drones.
Therefore, as terrorists travel with their lackeys and families embedding themselves in civilian-populated areas, they ensure that the US will face a public backlash from using a drone on them, as it will likely cost civilian lives. Pragmatically, the US is stuck between a rock and a hard place as its drone attacks have incensed the Pakistani public, who could have been an ally in a war on terror which has plagued most of the Pakistani populace in one way or another.
The secret and blanket drone policy enacted by the US military in Pakistan is unacceptable under international law because it fails to satisfy the necessity and proportionality requirements set forth in the doctrine of self defense. However, like Pakistan’s doctrine of necessity, it may take the US several generations to realise the error in attempting to manipulate the law in order to justify illegal military oppression and brutality.
The writer holds a Juris Doctorate in the US and is a researcher on comparative law and international law issues.
Drone doctrine of necessity | DAWN.COM
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,413
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
Considering that history is the winner's version of events, if it takes several generations to realize any errors, it comes too late to help Paksitan in any way.
To quote the second Bush, "Who cares about history? We'll all be dead!"
The time to contest the perceived illegality is now, not a hundred years from now!
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Certainly - but the point being established here is that US military operations in Pakistan are illegal under international law/UN Charter, and you already have my opinion on why the current government is not escalating the matter.
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,413
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
I do consider your position as firmly and immovably established, but how does reiterating it yet again help the discussion move forward without any additional developments of rationale, events or logic, and with persistence of the status quo?
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
I am providing arguments further supporting the position that US Military Strikes are illegal under international law/UN Charter - and the argument does need reiterating in order to get to as broad an audience as possible.
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,413
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
Not to argue, but why reiterate something that you regard as firmly established? You have made your point quite forcibly many times before, but its acceptance cannot be forced, unless their is some additional tangible developments, can it?
On a positive note, if Pakistan can get the drone attacks to stop as part of its deal to reopen the supply routes, now that would be a worthwhile achievement indeed!
ARSENAL6
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,676
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
...because you keep up with anti-muslim attitude and at times it seems that you will be happy to see a simple innocent Muslim under your boot.
On a positive note, if United States can stop terrorist attacks both black ops and false flagging to stop, then arabs supposly wouldn't have to fly planes into buildings , now that would be a worthwhile achievement indeed vcheng !
VCheng you are sick man in the head justifying drone attacks on the innocent
If you hate muslims that much then why come here - your post says it all
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,413
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
Drone attacks on the innocent?!
While there have been a proportion of collateral deaths, both sides admit that a majority of those killed were militants, albeit with some contention as to the ratio.
Also, the drone attacks were necessitated by lack of effective governance in the areas where they have been carried out. No other strategy could have been more effective in those circumstances.
Perhaps your desire to wrongfully vilify me occluded these facts in your mind?
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Shoot the drones
By Clive Stafford Smith
Published: May 16, 2012
The writer is director of the British charity Reprieve
The question asked by the Foundation for Fundamental Rights (FFR) in its litigation filed in Peshawar last week is why the Pakistan government allows the US to kill its citizens firing Hellfire missiles from Predator drones in sovereign Pakistan territory. I suspect that the Pakistan government will find it impossible to give an honest answer.
In 2008, former Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Tanvir Mahmood Ahmed said that the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) is fully capable to stop drones flights and missile strikes.Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman said a year ago that the PAF is prepared to shoot US drones down and waits only for the government to give the order.
It is, indeed, ludicrous to suggest that the PAF could not stop US drones from killing Pakistani citizens. Predator drones generally putter around at roughly 140 mph, well below their maximum altitude of 25,000 feet. A Pakistani F16 (paradoxically purchased from the US) can fly twice the speed of sound (1,500 mph) up to 60,000 feet; 70 years ago in World War Two, even a Spitfire could have done the job, at 600 mph and climbing to 51,000 feet.
I should say that, as an American, I would never advocate anyone trying to kill my fellow citizens. I dont believe in violence, I believe in the rule of law. Neither am I going to tell the Pakistan government that it should shoot down drones, even though nobody would be harmed in the destruction of an American Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). However, as an American lawyer, it is my job to analyse the law. Pakistan is a nation of laws, and officials of any government whether American or Pakistani must follow the rules.
It grieves me to say that the US drone attacks on Waziristan are patently illegal. The drones, and those who fly them, are violating Pakistan law. I dont believe in the death penalty, but Section 121 of the Pakistan Penal Code provides that whoever wages war against Pakistan, or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life
The Pakistan government is obliged to enforce this law, as well as the Constitution: Article 9 guarantees all citizens the fundamental right to security of person. Article 4 provides that no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law. The Oath of Office commits the president, the prime minister and other ministers to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and to do right to all manner of people, according to law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.
In other words, the primary duty of a Pakistani politician (as with political figures in any country) is to protect its citizens from harm. And Article 245(1) of the Pakistan Constitution provides that [t]he Armed Forces shall, under the directions of the Federal Government, defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war .
My own government tried for many months to avoid admitting that the CIA was waging war on Pakistan, though missiles were raining down. Of late, American officials have started to try to justify the unjustifiable: a US official announced that while courts are one option, drones also deliver justice. Such assertions (a snub to the rule of law) risk transforming the current tragedy in Fata into farce.
The legal question posed by the FFR lawsuit is therefore an intriguing one. The Pakistan government will no doubt try to dodge it, relying on Article 245(2): the validity of any direction issued by the Federal Government [to the Armed Forces to defend the nation] shall not be called in question in any court. That argument fails the plain English test: the government has not, apparently, given an order to defend Pakistan citizens from external aggression rather, remaining devoted to inactivity. Article 245(2) therefore does not apply.
We will see, then, whether a judge issues the most obvious verdict: that the Pakistan government is duty bound to instruct the PAF to shoot the drones down. For my part, I hope my own government will render the issue moot by remembering the lessons of history. This illegal intrusion into Pakistan (supposedly targeting enemies who have crossed the border from Afghanistan) is no wiser than Operation Menu, President Richard Nixons 1969 bombing of Cambodia and Laos (which purported to target Viet Cong terrorists who had slipped across the border from Vietnam).
The Nixon administration suggested that the Cambodian and Lao governments had given secret consent to this illegal war. If this was true, it did nobody any good. In the wake of Nixons bombing campaign, in order to neutralise American goals, Vietnam joined forces with the extremists in both countries: Cambodia sank into the twenty-year genocide of the Khmer Rouge; decades later, Laos still retains the totalitarian government imposed in 1975.
Remembering the lessons of history, the US should end the drone war, and avoid driving Waziristan deeper into the morass.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 17th, 2012.
Shoot the drones – The Express Tribune
By Clive Stafford Smith
Published: May 16, 2012
The writer is director of the British charity Reprieve
The question asked by the Foundation for Fundamental Rights (FFR) in its litigation filed in Peshawar last week is why the Pakistan government allows the US to kill its citizens firing Hellfire missiles from Predator drones in sovereign Pakistan territory. I suspect that the Pakistan government will find it impossible to give an honest answer.
In 2008, former Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Tanvir Mahmood Ahmed said that the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) is fully capable to stop drones flights and missile strikes.Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman said a year ago that the PAF is prepared to shoot US drones down and waits only for the government to give the order.
It is, indeed, ludicrous to suggest that the PAF could not stop US drones from killing Pakistani citizens. Predator drones generally putter around at roughly 140 mph, well below their maximum altitude of 25,000 feet. A Pakistani F16 (paradoxically purchased from the US) can fly twice the speed of sound (1,500 mph) up to 60,000 feet; 70 years ago in World War Two, even a Spitfire could have done the job, at 600 mph and climbing to 51,000 feet.
I should say that, as an American, I would never advocate anyone trying to kill my fellow citizens. I dont believe in violence, I believe in the rule of law. Neither am I going to tell the Pakistan government that it should shoot down drones, even though nobody would be harmed in the destruction of an American Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). However, as an American lawyer, it is my job to analyse the law. Pakistan is a nation of laws, and officials of any government whether American or Pakistani must follow the rules.
It grieves me to say that the US drone attacks on Waziristan are patently illegal. The drones, and those who fly them, are violating Pakistan law. I dont believe in the death penalty, but Section 121 of the Pakistan Penal Code provides that whoever wages war against Pakistan, or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life
The Pakistan government is obliged to enforce this law, as well as the Constitution: Article 9 guarantees all citizens the fundamental right to security of person. Article 4 provides that no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law. The Oath of Office commits the president, the prime minister and other ministers to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and to do right to all manner of people, according to law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.
In other words, the primary duty of a Pakistani politician (as with political figures in any country) is to protect its citizens from harm. And Article 245(1) of the Pakistan Constitution provides that [t]he Armed Forces shall, under the directions of the Federal Government, defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war .
My own government tried for many months to avoid admitting that the CIA was waging war on Pakistan, though missiles were raining down. Of late, American officials have started to try to justify the unjustifiable: a US official announced that while courts are one option, drones also deliver justice. Such assertions (a snub to the rule of law) risk transforming the current tragedy in Fata into farce.
The legal question posed by the FFR lawsuit is therefore an intriguing one. The Pakistan government will no doubt try to dodge it, relying on Article 245(2): the validity of any direction issued by the Federal Government [to the Armed Forces to defend the nation] shall not be called in question in any court. That argument fails the plain English test: the government has not, apparently, given an order to defend Pakistan citizens from external aggression rather, remaining devoted to inactivity. Article 245(2) therefore does not apply.
We will see, then, whether a judge issues the most obvious verdict: that the Pakistan government is duty bound to instruct the PAF to shoot the drones down. For my part, I hope my own government will render the issue moot by remembering the lessons of history. This illegal intrusion into Pakistan (supposedly targeting enemies who have crossed the border from Afghanistan) is no wiser than Operation Menu, President Richard Nixons 1969 bombing of Cambodia and Laos (which purported to target Viet Cong terrorists who had slipped across the border from Vietnam).
The Nixon administration suggested that the Cambodian and Lao governments had given secret consent to this illegal war. If this was true, it did nobody any good. In the wake of Nixons bombing campaign, in order to neutralise American goals, Vietnam joined forces with the extremists in both countries: Cambodia sank into the twenty-year genocide of the Khmer Rouge; decades later, Laos still retains the totalitarian government imposed in 1975.
Remembering the lessons of history, the US should end the drone war, and avoid driving Waziristan deeper into the morass.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 17th, 2012.
Shoot the drones – The Express Tribune
Yea well this nonsense mortifies most Pakistanis too. American seem never to learn that upsetting an entire nation of people is counterproductive. They should have learned that with their experiences in Iran supporting leaders against peoples wishes or interfering in countries does no good long term for them. Pakistan is ripe for an anti American patriot to lead the country.
Anyway as they say when empires start thinking they are omnipotent that is when they have reached their zenith and start receding. Pakistan will I believe in historical terms be responsible for bringing down not just the Soviet empire but America as well
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
And here is an example of the US 'Deep State' (Government/Military/Intelligence Establishment) trying to ensure that only their propaganda, lies and smear campaign against Pakistan succeed:
Drone filmmaker denied visa
A Pakistani student is unable to accept his film festival award because he is denied the right to enter the U.S.
BY GLENN GREENWALD
Muhammad Danish Qasim is a Pakistani student at Iqra University’s Media Science and is also a filmmaker. This year, Qasim released a short film entitled The Other Side, a 20-minute narrative that “revolves around the idea of assessing social, psychological and economical effects of drones on the people in tribal areas of Pakistan.” A two-minute video trailer of the film is embedded below. The Express Tribune provided this summary of the film, including an interview with Qasim:
The Other Side revolves around a school-going child in Miranshah, the capital of North Waziristan. The child’s neighborhood gets bombed after the people of the region are suspected for some notorious activities. He ends up losing all of his loved ones during the bombing and later becomes part of an established terrorists group who exploit his loss and innocence for their own interests.
On the reasons for picking such a sensitive topic, the film-maker said, “Most of the films being made right now are based on social issues, so we picked up an issue of international importance which is the abrogation of our national space by foreign countries.”
When asked how this film on terrorism will be different from all the others that have been released since 9/11, he said, “The film takes the audience very close to the damage caused by drone attacks. I have tried my best to connect all the dots that lead to a drone attack and have shot the prevailing aftermath of such attacks in a very realistic and raw manner.”
In particular, “the film identifies the problems faced by families who have become victims of drone missiles, and it unearths the line of action which terrorist groups adopt to use victimised families for their vested interests.” In other words, it depicts the tragedy of civilian deaths, and documents how those deaths are then successfully exploited by actual Terrorists for recruitment purposes.
We can’t have the U.S. public learning about any of that. In April, Qasim was selected as the winner of the Audience Award for Best International Film at the 2012 National Film Festival For Talented Youth, held annually in Seattle, Washington. Qasim, however, along with his co-producers, were prevented from traveling to the U.S. to accept their award and showcase their film because their request for a visa to travel to the U.S. was denied. The Tribune reported: “Despite being chosen for the award, the filmmakers were unable to attend the award ceremony as their visa applications were rejected twice. ’If we got the visa then it would have been easy for us to frame our point of view in front of the other selected youth filmmakers,’ Qasim said.” And:
“I believe the most probable reason for the visa denial was the sensitive subject of my film,” says Qasim. He recalls that when the visa officer asked about the subject matter of the film, he suggested making changes in the letter issued by his University upon hearing that the film dealt with terrorism and drone attacks.
“Although I made the changes to the letter according to the visa officer’s recommendation, they still rejected the visa and did not disclose the reason for it,” says a disappointed Qasim.
According to Qasim, “NFFTY is considered to be the biggest event for young film-makers of the world. Film schools as well as potential Hollywood producers attend the event in order to interact with young, talented film-makers. I’m disappointed that my team, especially my crew members Atiqullah, Ali Raza Mukhtar Ali and Waqas Waheed Awan, who made the film possible with their hard work and support, missed out on a major opportunity to represent Pakistan on an international forum.”
Although it’s not proven why the visa was denied — the U.S. government, needless to say, refuses to comment on visa denials — this case is similar to that of Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer who had sued the CIA on behalf of civilian drone victims and was also denied a visa to travel to the U.S. to attend last month’s Drone Summit in Washington; the Obama administration relented and permitted him to travel to the U.S. only once a serious outcry arose. The Bush administration also routinely excluded Muslim critics of U.S. foreign policy from entering the U.S.
Banning filmmakers, lawyers, political activists, and scholars from entering your country out of fear of their criticisms is the behavior of an insecure, oppressive nation. It’s also natural behavior for political leaders eager to maintain an impenetrable wall of secrecy around their conduct.
Just to underscore how extreme is the Obama administration’s reflexive secrecy in such matters: yesterday, ABC News‘s Jake Tapper asked National Security Advisor Tom Donilon whether the U.S. Government compensates the innocent victims it kills outside of Afghanistan, and Donilon simply refused to answer (“I’m just not going to go there”
. There’s no legitimate reason that this information should be concealed, but for a government that views disclosure as inherently unnecessary, that is enamored of its own secrecy power for its own sake, and that is desperate to prevent its citizens from knowing what it is doing, this sort of imperious decree of secrecy is the natural course (for an even more egregious case, see this amazing summary from the ACLU’s Ben Wizner on how Obama DOJ lawyers defend the U.S. government’s secret, definitively Kafkaesque, unappealable no-fly and Terrorist watch lists).
That the U.S. is routinely killing innocent civilians in multiple Muslim countries is one of the great taboos in establishment media discourse. A film that documents the horrors and Terror brought by the U.S. to innocent people — and the way in which that behavior constantly strengthens the Terrorists, thus eternally perpetuating its own justification — threatens to subvert that taboo. So this filmmaker is simply kept out of the country, in Pakistan, where he can do little harm to U.S. propaganda (as usual, U.S. government claims of secrecy based on national security are primarily geared toward ensuring effective propagnada — of the American citizenry). Isn’t it time for another Hillary Clinton lecture to the world on the need for openness and transparency? “Those societies that believe they can be closed to change, to ideas, cultures, and beliefs that are different from theirs, will find quickly that in our internet world they will be left behind,” she so inspirationally intoned last month.
Drone filmmaker denied visa - Salon.com
Drone filmmaker denied visa
A Pakistani student is unable to accept his film festival award because he is denied the right to enter the U.S.
BY GLENN GREENWALD
Muhammad Danish Qasim is a Pakistani student at Iqra University’s Media Science and is also a filmmaker. This year, Qasim released a short film entitled The Other Side, a 20-minute narrative that “revolves around the idea of assessing social, psychological and economical effects of drones on the people in tribal areas of Pakistan.” A two-minute video trailer of the film is embedded below. The Express Tribune provided this summary of the film, including an interview with Qasim:
The Other Side revolves around a school-going child in Miranshah, the capital of North Waziristan. The child’s neighborhood gets bombed after the people of the region are suspected for some notorious activities. He ends up losing all of his loved ones during the bombing and later becomes part of an established terrorists group who exploit his loss and innocence for their own interests.
On the reasons for picking such a sensitive topic, the film-maker said, “Most of the films being made right now are based on social issues, so we picked up an issue of international importance which is the abrogation of our national space by foreign countries.”
When asked how this film on terrorism will be different from all the others that have been released since 9/11, he said, “The film takes the audience very close to the damage caused by drone attacks. I have tried my best to connect all the dots that lead to a drone attack and have shot the prevailing aftermath of such attacks in a very realistic and raw manner.”
In particular, “the film identifies the problems faced by families who have become victims of drone missiles, and it unearths the line of action which terrorist groups adopt to use victimised families for their vested interests.” In other words, it depicts the tragedy of civilian deaths, and documents how those deaths are then successfully exploited by actual Terrorists for recruitment purposes.
We can’t have the U.S. public learning about any of that. In April, Qasim was selected as the winner of the Audience Award for Best International Film at the 2012 National Film Festival For Talented Youth, held annually in Seattle, Washington. Qasim, however, along with his co-producers, were prevented from traveling to the U.S. to accept their award and showcase their film because their request for a visa to travel to the U.S. was denied. The Tribune reported: “Despite being chosen for the award, the filmmakers were unable to attend the award ceremony as their visa applications were rejected twice. ’If we got the visa then it would have been easy for us to frame our point of view in front of the other selected youth filmmakers,’ Qasim said.” And:
“I believe the most probable reason for the visa denial was the sensitive subject of my film,” says Qasim. He recalls that when the visa officer asked about the subject matter of the film, he suggested making changes in the letter issued by his University upon hearing that the film dealt with terrorism and drone attacks.
“Although I made the changes to the letter according to the visa officer’s recommendation, they still rejected the visa and did not disclose the reason for it,” says a disappointed Qasim.
According to Qasim, “NFFTY is considered to be the biggest event for young film-makers of the world. Film schools as well as potential Hollywood producers attend the event in order to interact with young, talented film-makers. I’m disappointed that my team, especially my crew members Atiqullah, Ali Raza Mukhtar Ali and Waqas Waheed Awan, who made the film possible with their hard work and support, missed out on a major opportunity to represent Pakistan on an international forum.”
Although it’s not proven why the visa was denied — the U.S. government, needless to say, refuses to comment on visa denials — this case is similar to that of Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer who had sued the CIA on behalf of civilian drone victims and was also denied a visa to travel to the U.S. to attend last month’s Drone Summit in Washington; the Obama administration relented and permitted him to travel to the U.S. only once a serious outcry arose. The Bush administration also routinely excluded Muslim critics of U.S. foreign policy from entering the U.S.
Banning filmmakers, lawyers, political activists, and scholars from entering your country out of fear of their criticisms is the behavior of an insecure, oppressive nation. It’s also natural behavior for political leaders eager to maintain an impenetrable wall of secrecy around their conduct.
Just to underscore how extreme is the Obama administration’s reflexive secrecy in such matters: yesterday, ABC News‘s Jake Tapper asked National Security Advisor Tom Donilon whether the U.S. Government compensates the innocent victims it kills outside of Afghanistan, and Donilon simply refused to answer (“I’m just not going to go there”
. There’s no legitimate reason that this information should be concealed, but for a government that views disclosure as inherently unnecessary, that is enamored of its own secrecy power for its own sake, and that is desperate to prevent its citizens from knowing what it is doing, this sort of imperious decree of secrecy is the natural course (for an even more egregious case, see this amazing summary from the ACLU’s Ben Wizner on how Obama DOJ lawyers defend the U.S. government’s secret, definitively Kafkaesque, unappealable no-fly and Terrorist watch lists).That the U.S. is routinely killing innocent civilians in multiple Muslim countries is one of the great taboos in establishment media discourse. A film that documents the horrors and Terror brought by the U.S. to innocent people — and the way in which that behavior constantly strengthens the Terrorists, thus eternally perpetuating its own justification — threatens to subvert that taboo. So this filmmaker is simply kept out of the country, in Pakistan, where he can do little harm to U.S. propaganda (as usual, U.S. government claims of secrecy based on national security are primarily geared toward ensuring effective propagnada — of the American citizenry). Isn’t it time for another Hillary Clinton lecture to the world on the need for openness and transparency? “Those societies that believe they can be closed to change, to ideas, cultures, and beliefs that are different from theirs, will find quickly that in our internet world they will be left behind,” she so inspirationally intoned last month.
Drone filmmaker denied visa - Salon.com
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
... the House will vote on an amendment offered by Reps. Kucinich and Conyers that would prohibit the military from conducting drone strikes against unidentified targets -- so-called "signature strikes." To my knowledge, this is the first time Congress will have considered any attempt to limit drone strikes in any way.
Some things worth noting about the Kucinich-Conyers amendment to prohibit the military from conducting "signature strikes":
-- Whatever one thinks about drone strikes against specific suspected terrorist leaders, nothing in the amendment would prevent them. If the amendment were law and policy, it would not have prevented the recent killing of Fahd al Quso, the senior commander of al Qaeda's wing in Yemen, who was killed in a drone strike two weeks ago; he was specifically targeted based on intelligence indicating where he was. The amendment only prohibits the military from conducting a drone strike when it does not know who it is targeting.
-- The amendment only applies to the military, that is, to the Joint Special Operations Command, not to the CIA. According to press reports, JSOC is not carrying out drone strikes in Pakistan. According to the Washington Post, JSOC did not ask for authority to conduct "signature" drone strikes in Yemen, but they were granted it anyway.
-- According to the Washington Post, senior U.S. officials expressed concern about authorizing "signature" drone strikes in Yemen, both because it would increase the risk of civilian casualties, and because by killing "militants" who have a dispute with the Yemeni government but not with the U.S., such strikes would increase the perception that the U.S. is taking sides in Yemen's civil war.
-- Just in the last week, Yemeni officials say that a U.S. drone strike killed eight civilians in Yemen, CNN reported. [The New York Times reported the same attack without noting that Yemen officials said eight civilians were killed in a U.S. drone strike.]
-- If you were concerned by what the Administration did in Libya without Congressional authorization, you should be concerned by what the Administration is doing in Yemen without Congressional authorization. If the Administration wants to engage the United States in Yemen's civil war, it should ask for Congressional authorization to do that.
-- Senior U.S. officials have expressed concern that drone strikes in Pakistan are counterproductive: they cost the U.S. more in terms of Pakistani ill-will towards the United States and by destabilizing the Pakistani government than the benefit to the U.S. of killing low-level militants.
-- AP reported in April that signature strikes in Pakistan (conducted by the CIA in any event) have been all but curtailed. Thus, even if this amendment applied to the CIA, which it doesn't, ending "signature strikes" in Pakistan would merely formalize existing policy.
-- In the recent U.S.-Afghanistan partnership agreement, the U.S. pledged not to use Afghan territory to launch attacks on other countries. U.S. officials subsequently claimed that this would not obstruct drone strikes in Pakistan, because the U.S. has the right of "self-defense." But "signature strikes" are not self-defense: it cannot be "self-defense" to kill somebody if you don't know who they are.
Voting on these amendments is expected to begin in the late afternoon Thursday. There's still time to raise your voice.
Robert Naiman: GOP Admits It Lacks Votes for Afghan War; House to Vote on Drone Strikes, Afghan Exit & Indefinite Detention
Some things worth noting about the Kucinich-Conyers amendment to prohibit the military from conducting "signature strikes":
-- Whatever one thinks about drone strikes against specific suspected terrorist leaders, nothing in the amendment would prevent them. If the amendment were law and policy, it would not have prevented the recent killing of Fahd al Quso, the senior commander of al Qaeda's wing in Yemen, who was killed in a drone strike two weeks ago; he was specifically targeted based on intelligence indicating where he was. The amendment only prohibits the military from conducting a drone strike when it does not know who it is targeting.
-- The amendment only applies to the military, that is, to the Joint Special Operations Command, not to the CIA. According to press reports, JSOC is not carrying out drone strikes in Pakistan. According to the Washington Post, JSOC did not ask for authority to conduct "signature" drone strikes in Yemen, but they were granted it anyway.
-- According to the Washington Post, senior U.S. officials expressed concern about authorizing "signature" drone strikes in Yemen, both because it would increase the risk of civilian casualties, and because by killing "militants" who have a dispute with the Yemeni government but not with the U.S., such strikes would increase the perception that the U.S. is taking sides in Yemen's civil war.
-- Just in the last week, Yemeni officials say that a U.S. drone strike killed eight civilians in Yemen, CNN reported. [The New York Times reported the same attack without noting that Yemen officials said eight civilians were killed in a U.S. drone strike.]
-- If you were concerned by what the Administration did in Libya without Congressional authorization, you should be concerned by what the Administration is doing in Yemen without Congressional authorization. If the Administration wants to engage the United States in Yemen's civil war, it should ask for Congressional authorization to do that.
-- Senior U.S. officials have expressed concern that drone strikes in Pakistan are counterproductive: they cost the U.S. more in terms of Pakistani ill-will towards the United States and by destabilizing the Pakistani government than the benefit to the U.S. of killing low-level militants.
-- AP reported in April that signature strikes in Pakistan (conducted by the CIA in any event) have been all but curtailed. Thus, even if this amendment applied to the CIA, which it doesn't, ending "signature strikes" in Pakistan would merely formalize existing policy.
-- In the recent U.S.-Afghanistan partnership agreement, the U.S. pledged not to use Afghan territory to launch attacks on other countries. U.S. officials subsequently claimed that this would not obstruct drone strikes in Pakistan, because the U.S. has the right of "self-defense." But "signature strikes" are not self-defense: it cannot be "self-defense" to kill somebody if you don't know who they are.
Voting on these amendments is expected to begin in the late afternoon Thursday. There's still time to raise your voice.
Robert Naiman: GOP Admits It Lacks Votes for Afghan War; House to Vote on Drone Strikes, Afghan Exit & Indefinite Detention
Please use our strong voices against illegally drones attacks on Pakistan.
Don't forget more inputs on this thread- Re: Illegal US Drone Strikes in Pakistan
Don't forget more inputs on this thread- Re: Illegal US Drone Strikes in Pakistan
Similar threads
