What's new

Why Obama’s Killer Drones Violate International Law

Not yet it doesn't however, clearly it is a political matter even in the US - and this is just the beginning - I think we should be open to the fact world public opinion is evolving on this subject - it's not just Pakistan that has to "influence" the US, it's just not a issue with a single facet.

I am persuaded that we are seeing the last gasps of some of the ideas that gained greater currency immediately after 9/11 - it's time to move along with the world. (see China Bluff on "Brave New World" thread


I would agree with you on both counts - the political consensus on the use of drone technology is still evolving, and the reactive pendulum that swung over too much to one side after the perturbation of 9/11 is starting to move back to the center where it belongs.
 
It would be easier to establish the claimed illegality of the drone attacks on Pakistan if Pakistan were to make a formal complaint to the ICJ and raise the matter at the United Nations. Silence is acquiescence, and does not help the case.

In case of Pakistan i would not go for any such complaint since my govt has allowed it under an accord.

However, i would question the modus operandi of the drone attacks which indeed have flaws which led to killing more civilians than terrorists.

Secondly why everyone only see drone attacks in context of Pakistan when US is using drones in other regions too hence the American public should question its govt over violation of international law.
 
In case of Pakistan i would not go for any such complaint since my govt has allowed it under an accord.

However, i would question the modus operandi of the drone attacks which indeed have flaws which led to killing more civilians than terrorists.

Secondly why everyone only see drone attacks in context of Pakistan when US is using drones in other regions too hence the American public should question its govt over violation of international law.

This business about the use of Drones along the Pakistan/Afghanistan region or Yemen, being against International law, I don't really see carrying the day, I do see it as more of a side show - In the US, after careful deliberation and concerted action to create fear among to US population, to regard Muslims and Islam as an Enemy that must be challenged has gained a measure fo traction, for instance, you will note that before a major American Holiday, there is news of the arrest of a Muslim or Non-Muslims who seek to join the cause of the enemies of the US, coincidence?, no friends, unfortunately not.

However, this is not the totality of the situation, the American public may well be scared out of it's mind, seeking to protect their children and nation of the Evil Mouslum, but it is a decent public, it may come to the truth late, but it will come to the truth - and those who have crafted the policy to create fear in the US and to use this fear as cover for their activities, will soon be acting against Iran and then Pakistan, because they realize they are running out of time, they US public is beginning to ask questions, this is certainly not at an advanced stage, quite the opposite - but the hate mongers realize that they cannot sustain fear and hate for long in the US society, primarily because it is a decent society.

So, the future of the US use of armed Drones in the absence of a declared war or in the pursuit of a anti-terrorism policy without congressional oversight, in my view, has seen it's heyday.
 
This business about the use of Drones along the Pakistan/Afghanistan region or Yemen, being against International law, I don't really see carrying the day, I do see it as more of a side show - In the US, after careful deliberation and concerted action to create fear among to US population, to regard Muslims and Islam as an Enemy that must be challenged has gained a measure fo traction, for instance, you will note that before a major American Holiday, there is news of the arrest of a Muslim or Non-Muslims who seek to join the cause of the enemies of the US, coincidence?, no friends, unfortunately not.

However, this is not the totality of the situation, the American public may well be scared out of it's mind, seeking to protect their children and nation of the Evil Mouslum, but it is a decent public, it may come to the truth late, but it will come to the truth - and those who have crafted the policy to create fear in the US and to use this fear as cover for their activities, will soon be acting against Iran and then Pakistan, because they realize they are running out of time, they US public is beginning to ask questions, this is certainly not at an advanced stage, quite the opposite - but the hate mongers realize that they cannot sustain fear and hate for long in the US society, primarily because it is a decent society.

So, the future of the US use of armed Drones in the absence of a declared war or in the pursuit of a anti-terrorism policy without congressional oversight, in my view, has seen it's heyday.

Agreed Sir. on this very forum i had said time and again that US is doing great injustice to its people by creating undue fear in their hearts. The American people are nice folks over-all. Let them see the light dont make them cocoon prisoners.
 
Bull-Sh!t.. Obama's Drone violate US-Pak law.

It will break intl law only iff it operate without Pakistani consent..
 
Army chief wanted more drone support


By Hasan Zaidi | From the Newspaper | 20th May, 2011

mullen_kayani-500.jpg

In another meeting with US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen over March 3-4, 2008, Kayani was asked for his help “in approving a third Restricted Operating Zone for US aircraft over the FATA.” The request - detailed in a cable sent from the US Embassy Islamabad on March 24 - clearly indicates that two ‘corridors’ for US drones had already been approved earlier. - File Photo (Thumbnail illustration by Faraz Aamer Khan/Dawn.com)

KARACHI: Secret internal American government cables, accessed by Dawn through WikiLeaks, provide confirmation that the US military’s drone strikes programme within Pakistan had more than just tacit acceptance of the country’s top military brass, despite public posturing to the contrary. In fact, as long ago as January 2008, the country’s military was requesting the US for greater drone back-up for its own military operations.

Previously exposed diplomatic cables have already shown that Pakistan’s civilian leaders are strongly supportive – in private – of the drone strikes on alleged militant targets in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), even as they condemn them for general consumption. But it is not just the civilian leadership that has been following a duplicitous policy on the robotic vehicles.

In a meeting on January 22, 2008 with US CENTCOM Commander Admiral William J. Fallon, Army Chief General Ashfaq Kayani requested the Americans to provide “continuous Predator coverage of the conflict area” in South Waziristan where the army was conducting operations against militants. The request is detailed in a ‘Secret’ cable sent by then US Ambassador Anne Patterson on February 11, 2008. Pakistan’s military has consistently denied any involvement in the covert programme run mainly by the CIA.

The American account of Gen Kayani’s request for “Predator coverage” does not make clear if mere air surveillance were being requested or missile-armed drones were being sought. Theoretically “Predator coverage” could simply mean air surveillance and not necessarily offensive support. However the reaction to the request suggests otherwise. According to the report of the meeting sent back to Washington by Patterson, Admiral Fallon “regretted that he did not have the assets to support this request” but offered trained US Marines (known as JTACs) to coordinate air strikes for Pakistani infantry forces on ground. General Kayani “demurred” on the offer, pointing out that having US soldiers on ground “would not be politically acceptable.”

In another meeting with US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen over March 3-4, 2008, Kayani was asked for his help “in approving a third Restricted Operating Zone for US aircraft over the FATA.” The request – detailed in a cable sent from the US Embassy Islamabad on March 24 – clearly indicates that two ‘corridors’ for US drones had already been approved earlier.

In secret cable on October 9, 2009 (previously published by WikiLeaks), Ambassador Patterson reports that US military support to the Pakistan Army’s 11th Corps operations in South Waziristan would “be at the division-level and would include a live downlink of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) full motion video.” In fact, in November 2008, Dawn had reported then commander of US forces in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, telling its reporter that US and Pakistan also share video feeds from Predator drones that carry out attacks. “We have a Predator feed going down to the one border coordination centre at Torkham Gate thats looked at by the Pakistan Military, Afghan Military, and the International Security Assistance Force,” General McKiernan had said.

Sharing of video feeds does not imply operational control by Pakistan’s military, however, and even this sharing may have subsequently been suspended.

Despite the occasionally disastrously misdirected attacks which have fed into the public hue and cry over civilian casualties, there is, in private, seeming general acceptance by the military of the efficacy of drone strikes. In a cable dated February 19, 2009, Ambassador Patterson sends talking points to Washington ahead of a week-long visit to the US by COAS Kayani. Referring to drone strikes, she writes: “Kayani knows full well that the strikes have been precise (creating few civilian casualties) and targeted primarily at foreign fighters in the Waziristans.”

Another previously unpublished cable dated May 26, 2009 details President Zardari’s meeting on May 25 with an American delegation led by Senator Patrick Leahy. “Referring to a recent drone strike in the tribal area that killed 60 militants,” wrote Ambassador Patterson in her report, “Zardari reported that his military aide believed a Pakistani operation to take out this site would have resulted in the deaths of over 60 Pakistani soldiers.”

The general support for drone strikes from both the military and civilian leadership is also evidenced by the continuous demand, documented over numerous cables, from Pakistan Government officials to American interlocutors for drone technology to be placed in Pakistani hands. The issue conveyed to the Americans is not so much that of accuracy as that of managing public perceptions.

In the meeting with Senator Leahy, Zardari is directly quoted telling the US delegation to “give me the drones so my forces can take out the militants.” That way, he explains, “we cannot be criticized by the media or anyone else for actions our Army takes to protect our sovereignty.”

General Kayani also “focused on the need for surveillance assets” in the meeting with Admiral Fallon according to Patterson’s cable. “Kayani said he was not interested in acquiring Predators, but was interested in tactical Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs).” Predators are considered ‘theatre-level’ technology able to cover wide regions such as the whole of Afghanistan and Pakistan through remotely stationed operations rooms while ‘tactical’ drones are less wide-ranging and can be operated by forces on the ground.

After the first US drone strike outside the tribal areas, in Bannu on November 19, 2008 which killed four people including an alleged senior Al Qaeda member, Ambassador Patterson had presciently noted in another previously unpublished cable (dated November 24, 2008) the dangers of keeping the Pakistani public misinformed. “As the gap between private GOP acquiescence and public condemnation for US action grows,” she wrote back to Washington, “Pakistani leaders who feel they look increasingly weak to their constituents could begin considering stronger action against the US, even though the response to date has focused largely on ritual denunciation.”

Cables Referenced: WikiLeaks # 140777, 147015, 179645, 192895, 208526, 229065. All cables can be viewed on Dawn.com.

Army chief wanted more drone support | DAWN.COM
 
Thanks SOCOM for such beautiful post..


Hope other Pakistani member read your posts...

Drones are safest way to minimize casuality. Manned operation costs more life than drone operations...
 
In case of Pakistan i would not go for any such complaint since my govt has allowed it under an accord.

However, i would question the modus operandi of the drone attacks which indeed have flaws which led to killing more civilians than terrorists.

Secondly why everyone only see drone attacks in context of Pakistan when US is using drones in other regions too hence the American public should question its govt over violation of international law.

Similar to Pakistan, the drones are being used in Yemen in accord with its government too. One should also question the use of human shields by the terrorists, to be fair.
 
Similar to Pakistan, the drones are being used in Yemen in accord with its government too. One should also question the use of human shields by the terrorists, to be fair.

ME/Arab region is a totally different story. There US even is supporting Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic outfits whom it had lebelled as "terrorists".
 
This business about the use of Drones along the Pakistan/Afghanistan region or Yemen, being against International law, I don't really see carrying the day, I do see it as more of a side show - In the US, after careful deliberation and concerted action to create fear among to US population, to regard Muslims and Islam as an Enemy that must be challenged has gained a measure fo traction, for instance, you will note that before a major American Holiday, there is news of the arrest of a Muslim or Non-Muslims who seek to join the cause of the enemies of the US, coincidence?, no friends, unfortunately not.

However, this is not the totality of the situation, the American public may well be scared out of it's mind, seeking to protect their children and nation of the Evil Mouslum, but it is a decent public, it may come to the truth late, but it will come to the truth - and those who have crafted the policy to create fear in the US and to use this fear as cover for their activities, will soon be acting against Iran and then Pakistan, because they realize they are running out of time, they US public is beginning to ask questions, this is certainly not at an advanced stage, quite the opposite - but the hate mongers realize that they cannot sustain fear and hate for long in the US society, primarily because it is a decent society.

So, the future of the US use of armed Drones in the absence of a declared war or in the pursuit of a anti-terrorism policy without congressional oversight, in my view, has seen it's heyday.

I would disagree. The use of drones is here to stay, albeit with further clarification in the rules of engagement and legal cover.
 
Could you explain how can it be provided legal cover? And also whether there are any steps being taken to achieve this?

Thanks.

The formulation of a written policy that clarifies and codifies the use of drones is under active review at the White House. The draft was prepared during the previous President's era, and is now being finalized, with active input from all concerned departments.
 
Could you explain how can it be provided legal cover? And also whether there are any steps being taken to achieve this?

Thanks.

Also, there are multiple issues here from legal perspective.

1. Territorial - Are you allowed to operate in the given area?
2. Humanitarian - Is there a violation of international law?
3. Judicial - Which judiciary purview will apply? The laws of the area of operation or the law of the operator?
 
I I would invite our forum members to review the article below and comment, I think it applies primarily to the US but it can help us understand or better understand rath, some of the issues we have been discussing :


Paradoxes of Counterterrorism

Arie Kruglanski, Anna C. Sheveland
|
November 27, 2012

RIA Novosti archive, image #341035, Ivan Rudnev.Mitt Romney hit the proverbial nail on the head when he proclaimed in a presidential debate that “we cannot kill our way out of this mess.” He was undoubtedly referring to the global war on terror that the United States has been waging for over a decade. The question remains: If not killing, then what?

After all, the U.S. struggle against terrorism boasts impressive achievements: the elimination or arrests of major Al Qaeda leaders, dismantlement of terrorists’ logistical infrastructures and severe blows to financial networks that supported terrorism. Despite these successes, experts disagree as to whether we are safer now than on the eve of 9/11, and Islamic extremism seems far from subsiding. If anything, radicalization seems to be on the rise in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. There is a growing danger that the Arab Spring is turning into a deadly winter, as the waves of democracy meet the rocks of fanaticism.

Counterterrorism, by its very nature, is fraught with paradoxes, and any of its tactics has unintended consequences that may exact a dear price. Consider the much discussed drone campaign. In some ways, it might seem like a dream solution to many of the problems besetting sustained antiterrorism efforts. Its surgical nature minimizes both the loss of innocent lives known as “collateral damage” and our own casualties. Moreover, the use of drones has yielded spectacular successes. It has afforded the elimination of major terrorist figures and disruption of radicalization and recruitment efforts.

Yet, on the other hand, the drone campaign has arguably been one of the most objectionable American military strategies of recent years. It has considerably exacerbated tensions between the United States and both the people and governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Moreover, the concept of sudden death by a remotely controlled device inspires a portrayal of the United States as a heartless technological empire bent on killing and destruction. This in turn fuels powerful anti-American sentiments and augments the resolve to fight. Thus, the most effective tactical tool in the fight against terrorism turns out to be a major hindrance to U.S. strategic objectives, causing Washington to be hoisted by our own petard.

Consider also the vow to never to negotiate with terrorists. First, a refusal to deal with terrorist demands may mean sacrificing the lives of one’s own countrymen, contrary to most governments’ sacred obligation to protect their citizens. Secondly, negotiations are the only logical alternative to fighting. A refusal to negotiate with terrorists paradoxically impels them to carry on their combat to the death.

Finally, governments rarely adhere to their tough-minded declarations. Whether directly or through mediators, talks typically form part and parcel of behind-the-scenes dealings in which governments engage with terrorist organizations. Even Israel, the toughest of the tough, has engaged in extensive contact with the Fatah and Hamas factions in reference to prisoner swaps, for example. Similar cases abound, including the U.S. negotiations with the Taliban. Paradoxically, to boast toughness and then to fold would only betray weakness and indecision—the opposite of what was intended.

A further paradox is that a global war against terrorism arguably contributes to its spread. An indiscriminate policy of combating terrorism, wherever it exists and irrespective of its ends, unites networks and forges marriages among unlikely bedfellows united against a common foe. For example, right-wing militias in the United States have been in contact with jihadist organizations and the German Baader-Meinhof terrorists trained with the PLO.

The dictum that “the ends do not justify the means,” which justifies the global war on terrorism, does not hold up on a closer analysis. The real justification of terrorism prevention is more complicated: a means that vitiates another moral end, like the preservation of innocent lives, is therefore inadmissible.

Yet Washington’s manifest willingness to tolerate “collateral damage” in pursuit of victory belies that presumption and betrays a willingness to sacrifice others for ends it deems of supreme importance. So in practice, ends do justify their means—both for terrorists and for ourselves. And a global war against all those who use terror inadvertently unites them against us and augments their strength.


Finally, the paradox of paradoxes is our psychological response to terrorism. The shock, fear and dismay caused by a major terrorist attack induces an existential angst, inviting both a desire to remove the uncertainty and a quest for quick closure.

This encourages simplistic black and white, “with us or against us” thinking—admitting no nuances, no shades of gray. But such thinking is naïve and unrealistic. It’s the very opposite of what is needed, as the complexities of counterterrorism defy ready categorization. An effective policy of combating terrorism requires a fine balancing act. It must reconcile tactical means with strategic ends, and forge a comprehensive battle plan aimed at reversing the tide of radicalization that threatens to erupt into violence.


Arie W. Kruglanski is Distinguished University Professor in Psychology at the University of Maryland, and Senior Investigator at START, The Center for the Study of Terrorism and the Response to Terrorism. Anna C. Sheveland is a Research Associate at the Department of Psychology at the University of Maryland.
 
Back
Top Bottom