About them doggone drones.

[ARMCX1]

According to the UN charter, all people have a right to life that is universal, and which may not be abrogated without judicial review and the protection of the law provided by the UN charter and subsequent general assembly articles. Further, instability, political unrest and other public emergencies may not be invoked as a justification for targeted killings. This is enshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

So, the policy of using drones to kill suspected enemies in the absence of a defined judicial standard appears to violate the internationally recognized right of all people to life and the protections of international law.

 

[middleview]

To sum up the Obamabot position with regards to drones:


Killing people with drones is okay. Killing people with guns is bad. Killing should only be done by the government because we can trust them.

Killing suspected terrorists with drones is good. Waterboarding them is bad.

Warrant-less wiretapping is a violation of civil rights. Killing Americans with drones without the benefit of due process is not a violation of civil rights.

Of course, if a Republican becomes President, all bets are off.

To summarize the dimbulb position on anything....Make sure you completely twist anything and everything to the point where it isn't a discussion of fact.

1. Killing those who are at war with you is acceptable, regardless of the weapons used. Killing people for the fun of it is not.
2. Killing those who are at war with you is acceptable. Torturing them once they've surrendered is not. If you don't like the rules then elect a president who will clearly state that we have no intention of adhering to the Geneva convention.
3. Warrantless wiretaps is a violation of civil rights. Killing people who are at war with you is acceptable, regardless of their nationality, if they operate beyond the borders of the US. If they are also breaking the laws of the nation they happen to be operating from and can be apprehended, they should be. If they cannot be put in custody then killing them is a great alternative.

*Due process stops at the water's edge. Try to excercise your constitutional rights in Somalia....

 

[Queen Titania]

The population of Pakistan is more than 176 million. 40 deaths out of a population of 176 million is (approximately) 0.000023% of the populaton of Pakistan. You have a uniquely bizarre definition of the term 'genocide'.

The whole of Pakistan is not being targeted only the Tribal areas are which is 2% of the whole population.

For seven years this has been going on ..........40 innocent people every 2 weeks for seven years = 6,000 ish ? The estimates are between 3 and 5 thousand until now ...and strikes are escalating.

Tribal Elders have been particular targets, the fabric of their social structures are being eradicated.

But hey, 40 deaths every few weeks ain't worth worrying about eh ?

 

[NightSwimmer]

Queenie,

I seriously doubt that you'd enjoy being a part of the fabric of the social structure of the tribal regions of Pakistan.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

According to the UN charter, all people have a right to life that is universal, and which may not be abrogated without judicial review and the protection of the law provided by the UN charter and subsequent general assembly articles. Further, instability, political unrest and other public emergencies may not be invoked as a justification for targeted killings. This is enshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

So, the policy of using drones to kill suspected enemies in the absence of a defined judicial standard appears to violate the internationally recognized right of all people to life and the protections of international law.

Gee. I guess war is just plain illegal then, huh?

On April 6, The New York Times also reported that President Obama had authorized the killing of al-Aulaqi.[33] The CIA and the U.S. military both maintain lists of terrorists linked to al-Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing.[33] Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council.[33] U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.[33] The New York Times reported that international law allows the use of lethal force against people who pose an imminent threat to a country, and U.S. officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the target list.[33] In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qaeda after 9/11.[33] People on the target list are considered military enemies of the U.S., and therefore not subject to a ban on political assassinations approved by former President Gerald Ford.[201

LeRoy: The relevant portion of that is this: International law allows the use of lethal force against people who pose an imminent threat to a country.

 

[Queen Titania]

Queenie,

I seriously doubt that you'd enjoy being a part of the fabric of the social structure of the tribal regions of Pakistan.

What has what I would enjoy or not enjoy got to do with it ?

 

[Queen Titania]

Gee. I guess war is just plain illegal then, huh?

On April 6, The New York Times also reported that President Obama had authorized the killing of al-Aulaqi.[33] The CIA and the U.S. military both maintain lists of terrorists linked to al-Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing.[33] Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council.[33] U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.[33] The New York Times reported that international law allows the use of lethal force against people who pose an imminent threat to a country, and U.S. officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the target list.[33] In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qaeda after 9/11.[33] People on the target list are considered military enemies of the U.S., and therefore not subject to a ban on political assassinations approved by former President Gerald Ford.[201

LeRoy: The relevant portion of that is this: International law allows the use of lethal force against people who pose an imminent threat to a country.

Neither the Tribal peoples of Pakistan, nor the Taliban of Pakistan have ever been a threat to the USA only to the business interests of the USA.

 

[NightSwimmer]

What has what I would enjoy or not enjoy got to do with it ?

I just think that it would be wise for you to consider the moral and ethical behavior of those you choose as your allies.

 

[Queen Titania]

To summarize the dimbulb position on anything....Make sure you completely twist anything and everything to the point where it isn't a discussion of fact.

1. Killing those who are at war with you is acceptable, regardless of the weapons used. Killing people for the fun of it is not.
2. Killing those who are at war with you is acceptable. Torturing them once they've surrendered is not. If you don't like the rules then elect a president who will clearly state that we have no intention of adhering to the Geneva convention.
3. Warrantless wiretaps is a violation of civil rights. Killing people who are at war with you is acceptable, regardless of their nationality, if they operate beyond the borders of the US. If they are also breaking the laws of the nation they happen to be operating from and can be apprehended, they should be. If they cannot be put in custody then killing them is a great alternative.

*Due process stops at the water's edge. Try to excercise your constitutional rights in Somalia....

Who is at War with you ? No one. You are talking about the resistance against US Occupation ? Well so would we all resist a brutal foreign Occupation of our Lands.

 

[ARMCX1]

 

[Saladin2]

Many of the Locals welcome US action against the Taliban & Al Queada thugs (many of whom are foreigners)....No longer can they use these areas as safe havens to terrorize the locals and creep back into Afghanistan at will......One can respect the anti-war stance...To defend these thugs as Tribal Peoples ...Is false and naive...Please stop

 

[Queen Titania]

I just think that it would be wise for you to consider the moral and ethical behavior of those you choose as your allies.

Allies ? ........ Moral ? ethical ? The Tribals are not the Taliban btw except in Oboma speak, wherein all males between the age of 15 and 50 ( I think it is ) is automatically counted asTaliban and or Al Qaeda fighter.

But even so what you are saying to me is, these people must die because we think they might not like us and do something though we know not what and because they do not have the moralities or ethics that we think correct, you should thank us for killing them ......Do you know we honored them ............... we fought them and lost and we honored them. You you make 'bug splats' out of them and you call morality and ethics ................. I prefer honor, they have it you don't.

And you lecture me over my past Empire ...................

 

[ARMCX1]

middleview wrote: ...So clearly the attacks have happened in countries that are suffereing from sufficient chaos that a government cannot control the presence of Al Qaeda.....

What does international law say about targeted killings in response to unrest, chaos, emergencies?

Moreover, article 4, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any derogation from the right to life and security of the person. The general recognition of the right to life of every person in the aforementioned international instruments constitutes the legal basis for the work of the Special Rapporteur. Various other treaties, resolutions, conventions and declarations adopted by competent United Nations bodies contain provisions relating to specific types of violations of the right to life. They, too, form part of the legal framework within which the Special Rapporteur operates (see E/CN.4/1993/46, Chapter II).

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Executions/Pages/InternationalStandards.aspx

 

[middleview]

From 1943 to 1945 we bombed France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, a number of eastern European countries, China, the Phillipines....and even Alaska...we weren't at war with any of those countries (or the territory of Alaska).....There is a war underway in Yemen and we are supporting the government there.

Jury trial? I can see it now....
Honolulu Gazette December 8th, 1941. Warrants have been issued against the 353 Japanese pilots and subpoenas sent to the 12,000 sailors of the Japanese fleet that is alleged to have attacked the US fleet at Pearl Harbor.....

Rules? Ever hear of Posse Comitatus? Have you heard of any Predator drones being used to kill people on the run in the US? The seige at Waco could have been ended in a few minutes, but it wasn't. The reason was that every attempt was made to take the people there into custody. The use of military vehicles there was made much more difficult to comply with Posse.

Because I have a strong suspicion that if we found out that Obama ordered a suspected terrorists to be executed right here in the US, without trial, the mere fact that it was Obama who ordered it would have all the usual suspects telling me it was perfectly OK for such and such a reason.

Your "suspicion" is of little value in the absence of any evidence to support it. Suspect whatever you like, but there is no point in debating it.

 

[Saladin2]

Ah...Wrong again.....Many Many Foreigners flooded into Pakistan through out the 90's and continue to do so...They are not Tribal People....Much of the Taliban come from radical Pushtan tribes not from the area....You seem very naive and uninformed on the ,local culture...it's history...Make No mistake...Locals have been killed in the Drone strikes...But they are not the targets....If you are outraged by War...Fair enough...But these Drone strikes are better than a invasion of ground troops and aerial bombing....and the strikes have been effective on these unwanted thugs hiding out in Pakistan..Believe it

 

[Queen Titania]

Many of the Locals welcome US action against the Taliban & Al Queada thugs (many of whom are foreigners)....No longer can they use these areas as safe havens to terrorize the locals and creep back into Afghanistan at will......One can respect the anti-war stance...To defend these thugs as Tribal Peoples ...Is false and naive...Please stop

Taliban and 'Al Qaeda' are not the Tribal peoples who are being targeted under the guise of killing Taliban and 'Al Qaeda'.

The Tribes work for all sides, they always have, in the same family there can be one working for CIA another for the Resistance another for Gov and so on; 'so long as some one in the family is working': but the first and only loyalty is to the Tribe. They call it 'The Game' ..............they know how to play Cricket though and are good at it ..........

Even so, why may the peoples of Afghanistan and Pakistan not move around as they wish ? ............Who are you to tell them what to do ? How dare you sit in other peoples Lands killing and maiming and allowing soldiers to rape their women, imprison them, another Illegal enterprise building Prisons in other peoples Lands. How dare you have bombs hanging in the skies 24/7 to kill them every time they move ................. How are you not a hundred times worse than those you purport to be Terrorists ?

 

[Queen Titania]

Ah...Wrong again.....Many Many Foreigners flooded into Pakistan through out the 90's and continue to do so...They are not Tribal People....Much of the Taliban come from radical Pushtan tribes not from the area....You seem very naive and uninformed on the ,local culture...it's history...Make No mistake...Locals have been killed in the Drone strikes...But they are not the targets....If you are outraged by War...Fair enough...But these Drone strikes are better than a invasion of ground troops and aerial bombing....and the strikes have been effective on these unwanted thugs hiding out in Pakistan..Believe it

Ground troupes against the Tribes in their terrain ? Lol

No, I am not naive .........you are just blindly Patriotic

The Taliban are Outlaws in Pakistan, the Gov reluctantly agreed to the Drones to help oust the Taliban. Fighting in Tribal Lands has been tried so many times, the idea was not relished..

Obama has overstepped that mark as all of those who have any love for and connection with Pakistan are saying ............

He will go down as a Tyrant, The US is now being compared to the Mongolian raiders of old.

The Taliban are a Saudi/USA invention, most were taken from refugee camps and indoctenated, As Al Qaeda is CIAs baby

 

[Saladin2]

Actually you extremely naive and uninformed...The Talliban are a US invention?....Wow that is weird and completely false....The Drone attacks are a necessary device to prevent these radical ideologues from re-grouping....Hopefully soon they can end and the local people can decide for themselves what type of government they want free from interference from either side

 

[Queen Titania]

Actually you extremely naive and uninformed...The Talliban are a US invention?....Wow that is weird and completely false....The Drone attacks are a necessary device to prevent these radical ideologues from re-grouping....Hopefully soon they can end and the local people can decide for themselves what type of government they want free from interference from either side

The dear sweet kind Pilgrim Fathers live ..................

How dare you call yourself صلاح الدين ( Saladin)

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

Here on Political Jack, I have seen Barack Obama equated to Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, but I must say this is the first time I have seen him equated to Genghis Khan.

You are a never-ending source of amusement, Titania.