US drone strikes 'raise questions' - UN's Navi Pillay

US drone strikes 'raise questions' - UN's Navi Pillay

www.bbc.co.uk

"Drone attacks do raise serious questions about compliance with international law, in particular the principle of distinction and proportionality," Ms Pillay said.

"Ensuring accountability for any failure to comply with international law is also difficult when drone attacks are conducted outside the military chain of command", she added.

Ms Pillay also voiced concerns that the strikes were being conducted "beyond effective and transparent mechanisms of civilian or military control".

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.dailytimes.com.pk
www.channel4.com
www.ibtimes.co.uk

The UN has a point, I think.

Exactly what is the difference between a terror attack by a suicide bomber, and firing missiles at a target where you don't know if there are going to be civilian casualties or not, from an unmanned drone.

When does association with a person, without necessarily carrying out a harmful action to anyone, become a death sentence just because someone thinks that harm might be caused at some point in the future?

It strikes me that the US is now playing the terror game itself, and that this isn't even thinly disguised when death can come at any moment, from any angle without any warning at all without even a chance to surrender.

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by neformore


What's worse is that it's done so remotely, without a personal stake in the outcome--just like a videogame. It's routine, thoughtless, government-approved terrorism. It's beyond even the textbook definition of psychopathy now--it's institutionalized psychopathy. It's almost as if they can't help themselves....

reply to post by neformore


The difference would be the UN is incapable of doing anything about the suicide bombers. In case people have not noticed the UN goes after the parties that have law and order while ignoring / remaining inactive against those who do not. Its like going after the US because of our no food stance towards North Korea. Its easier to go after us rather than the North Korean Regime.

If the UN did more to prevent terrorism and engage those countries that harbor and fund it we wouldnt need to invoke article VII to defend ourselves against it.

While I recognize their lofty goals of human rights are admirable, its nothing more than a joke. They are concerned about our drone strikes yet remain silent on those killed by the Taliban for singing and dancing at a wedding? For protesting in Syria and Dubai..... They will go atfer Israel and her policies yet remain silent on the policies of Hamas, Hezzbullah, Lebanon, Iran Syria etc etc...

The UN either needs to act in a consistent manner or it needs to find another country to leach of off. I am a bit tired of the US bearing the brunt of financial and military burdens while at the same time being the brunt of their indigination and criticism.

terrorist [ˈtɛrərɪst]
a. a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon
b. (as modifier) terrorist tactics
terroristic adj

The problem with the word is that the definition depends a lot on which side of the bullet your on. I love my country. I think America is one of the greatest goverment concepts ever brought fort. But now it stands perverted by the few for control of the many. May some day we return to the land of the free and keep our brave at home where they belong.

Suicide bombers are Human guided bombs
Drones are robotic/human guided bombs.

Both are weapons of terrorism.

reply to post by Xcathdra


They are in Syria risking lives... for Dubai, that's still an ally who bought some 'nice jets' from US to 'counter' Iran in a large transaction, recently UAE rebelled against Gallup pollster and a few pro democracy western institutes

UAE boot to Western groups shows wider Gulf unease
By BRIAN MURPHY | Associated Press – Sun, Apr 1, 2012

news.yahoo.com/uae-boot-western-groups-shows-wider-gulf-unease-155406125.html

For the rest, it isn't easy to simplify...

7 June 2012 Last updated at 21:38 GMT
Syria UN team 'shot at' near Qubair 'massacre site'

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18352281

The head of the UN has said monitors trying to reach the Syrian village of Qubair, where 78 people are said to have been killed, were fired upon.

None were hurt in the shooting but they have pulled back for the night.

Addressing the UN General Assembly, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemned the "killing of innocents" at Qubair as "shocking and sickening".

Envoy Kofi Annan told the UN Security Council the crisis could soon "spiral out of control", diplomats said.

(...)

I have a sneeky suspicion that the next world war will involve everyone bombing the USA. If the don't pull there heads in soon ... i think they are going to piss everyone off... and i mean everyone.

And when they do.. they will be all "yeah well we don't give a **** what you think NATO or UN... so go f*** yourselves.* as they usually do..

but thats OK... just eat your donuts.. nothing to see here.. move along.. move along

/endkindasarcasm

reply to post by Xcathdra


I understand that you despise the UN. Fine. However, lets not deflect away from the topic at hand because of your particular bias.

This isn't about some anti-UN stance that you, and certain Americans have.

Its about killing people without offering a chance to lay down arms, or be bought to trial.

Its about the US acting as judge, jury and executioner, in another country.

The UN are commenting on it, because of that.

I'm commenting on it, because of that.

How can anyone condemn the acts of terrorists, when behaving like terrorists themselves?

I don't want to be THAT guy, but I will for a second.

what if bringing the troops home or stopping drone strikes is the worst possible thing that could happen?
LOL. hear me out for a second. don't all gang up on me at once...

do you want the war here? they are creating a perimetre for us temporarily until the whole thing gives way.
if they stopped, we would be forced to fend for ourselves. now you're thinking that's okay, but is it really?
do you want to be fighting on OUR borders? in our neighbourhoods?
i'd rather we fought no where, at all for any reason,
but that is unrealistic when the social environment breeds the violent character to commit acts only he knows how.
I suppose our militaries reasoning for these drone strikes if they aren't pure evil is to pacify or divert their attention from getting to the core of our society and to cause it's final dissolution...

_____________________________________________________________________________

okay, who was that guy??
abolish religion, reform government, world peace, all that good stuff. I'M BACK.

reply to post by neformore


I view it as self defense and nothing more. They want to do Americans harm, and as such are fair game. If I remeber correctly over 400 people killed in the WTC attacks were from the United Kingdom, and many others from other countries. This is not a US bias as you claim, but a UN bias towards the US that goes unchalleneged way to often.

Thats my issue.. That the UN only does whats easy while ignores whats hard.

reply to post by neformore

Exactly what is the difference between a terror attack by a suicide bomber, and firing missiles at a target where you don't know if there are going to be civilian casualties or not, from an unmanned drone.

You know whether or not there will be civilian casualties.

The problem is that you don't know whether or not the media is going to classify the terrorist as a terrorist or a civilian. That depends upon the political climate and how much of the body remained intact. If all they can find is a sandal - it's not worth reporting. People don't identify with vaporized bodies - only disfigured bodies drive outrage.

When does association with a person, without necessarily carrying out a harmful action to anyone, become a death sentence just because someone thinks that harm might be caused at some point in the future?

That's not how it works.

It strikes me that the US is now playing the terror game itself, and that this isn't even thinly disguised when death can come at any moment, from any angle without any warning at all without even a chance to surrender.

The drones were primarily used to counter mortar strikes or to sweep ahead of convoys. If you are 'herding sheep' near a convoy and pull out a cell phone - you're going to get blown six ways to hell.

Of course - methods have been employed to counter the use of drones. They will freeze mortars inside a block of ice to the top of a tube. They will, then, set this up in the hot desert, and leave. By time the radars pick up the incoming round and plot its origin - the attackers are long gone.

You get a feel for what's normal and what's not; who is who in whoville, and other such things. When something is not right - you ask questions. If something -really- is not right, in theaters like Afghanistan... you blow it up.

US and partners operate under the legitimacy of a mass comfort zone. If it makes enough people feel cosy then legitimacy is secured, whatever the discomfort to those outside the zone.

The problem here is , the United States doesnt recognize International Law. However , it does try to abide by it to keep outrage down.

Drones should be used to kill enemies of the United States. I personally think more drone attacks should be initiated to deal with terrorist. They are rarely detected on radar , fast , light , and carry a respectable payload. They are the ultimate killing machine. We need them.

Originally posted by jannerfish
US and partners operate under the legitimacy of a mass comfort zone. If it makes enough people feel cosy then legitimacy is secured, whatever the discomfort to those outside the zone.

And when people outside the zone are executed for dancing and singing at weddings because of an archaic religious belief / viewpoint? When you can launch attacks from within civilian populations because those civilians know if they object / challenge / complain they are going to be killed anyways by the Taliban / terrorists its not comfort, its terror.

We cannot not respond, and they know this, which is how the civilian body count gets run up.

Yet drone strikes by the US only seems to be the one on the UN's radar.

reply to post by w3nd1g0

I have a sneeky suspicion that the next world war will involve everyone bombing the USA. If the don't pull there heads in soon ... i think they are going to piss everyone off... and i mean everyone.

See how that works out for you.

You're either going to commit economic suicide by winning... or military suicide by provoking a war you cannot win.

My money is on the former. The U.S. military is geared toward picking apart organized military opposition. You cannot invade a country with an unorganized military - unless you have a large amount of loyal nationals on the inside (Mexico is doing it right).

We'd lose a lot of good people and a lot of our toys - but we could strip the rest of the world pretty bare in terms of its offensive inventory.

but thats OK... just eat your donuts.. nothing to see here.. move along.. move along

The difference between your analysis and mine?

Mine is devoid of prejudice stereotyping and utilizes intellectual faculties.

You think there is power in numbers. There is. But the U.S. is really one of the few nations that still invests heavily in force projection. Most of the world's military forces are defensive in nature and lack the logistical assets to reach the U.S.

It's not an issue of what the rest of the world has. It's an issue of what the rest of the world could actually use to attack us - at home or at our foreign points of interest.

Further compound the fact that the U.S. has trained most of the world in its military strategy/tactics having hosted joint exercises for decades.... and only the European nations really have much experience in hosting/leading multinational operations involving three or more friendly nations. The problem with sharing communications across "the rest of the world's" participating forces is a daunting one.

Different encryption standards, age-old rivalries, the list of complications goes on.

Information and the effective sharing of it is essential to success on the battlefield. You can have all the power in the world and it's worthless if you never know where the enemy is, where your stuff is, or have a consistent goal/purpose for doing what you are doing.

It sounds nice: "we'll get together and kick the U.S.A.'s arrogant ass."

The real thing would ultimately go down in history as one of the worst military strategic blunders in human history for the next several millennia or more.

reply to post by Aim64C


In all honesty , most of the US tactics are common sense. Any nation would figure them out. We just train a lot more to ensure absolute dexterity and fluidity to the plan / doctorin.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Strawman and off-topic deflection.

Again, we're talking about the actions of the US here.

Why are you so intent on trying to deflect this topic into something its not?

Originally posted by Aim64C
The drones were primarily used to counter mortar strikes or to sweep ahead of convoys.

The drones are being used on a weekly basis still to destroy "targets of opportunity" in Pakistan, despite the Pakistani's asking for it to stop.

Why are you referring to this in the past tense? Its very much happening now.

ter·ror·ism   [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
noun

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Origin: 1785–95; terror + -ism

What government doesn't utilize precisely terrorism to control their population? Is there any other way to change government once it's decided what's best for you and your opinion is no longer relevant?

We pretend that this whole "terrorism" thing is due to a bunch of ragtag Islamic fundamentalist or rogue leaders in the Middle East, but is that what's really going on? Mr Panetta has just recently stated that "the US has had just about enough of Pakistan". So get out of Pakistan. Stop blowing up their people and they might be a little more cooperative. We don't need to mention Iraq or any of the other pies the US have their little mitts in, do we? And truly, the behavior of our soldiers abroad toward the indigenous populations and toward their own comrades in arms is worse than inhuman. They alone are sufficient reason to resist any exploits the US might wish to engage upon. The US has lost any and all credibility with the rest of the world. It is only for fear of being the next US target that keeps anyone along side. It's time that be said. The US is a world-wide psycho killer.

Every aspect of society is governed by terrorism. If you want to travel, be prepared to strip (kids and infirms too!). Need the police to help you - to protect and serve? Huge chance you'll end up losing an eye, being raped, being killed, or worse. I wonder how many are in prison now because of police misconduct and subsequent cover-up. You've basically just brought your bad behavior abroad home to roost.

North America is sick. It's sicker than anything we've seen to date. It needs to be ... handled.