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

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Erm... How is the US being in Afghanistan "protecting ourselves"? Protecting oneself means that one is where one has the right to be. If the US is going to go marauding around foreign regions and expect to have things their way all over the planet, it might be time for a reality check. Calling on other nations to safeguard US forces while they are wreaking havoc all over the place is beyond unreasonable.

You can only defend yourself on your turf.




posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
You can only defend yourself on your turf.

This is so wrong on so many levels its not even funny.. If thats truely the case then islamic terrorists never should have attacked the world trade center...

either times....

or the attacks on our embassies in Africa....
or the USS cole....
or the Kohbar towers.....
or in Lebanon.....

again, war, not a court of law... Contrary to the belief of some in this thread there is a difference.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


If you want to believe that 911 was done by AlQaeda, you go right ahead, sweety. It's a free country.


But the other stuff? Was that on American soil? Do you think what's happened is proportionate to any of the rest? And do you think the US is innocent in their actions either before or after this absurd "War on Terrorism"?

Be honest now. At least be honest with yourself. Show us you're a rational person capable of critical thinking.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Show me the specific declaration of war against Pakistani citizens, in Pakistan, and the internationally accepted legal basis for undertaking action?

Also, please explain how you declare war against individuals, and not a nation state.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicEgg
 



This is exactly what I meant when I mentioned DARPA. That may be their budget but simple policy changes in funding requests will take care of their needs. You know as well as I do that "budget" means precious little in government.


Budget, government, and simple do not belong in the same paragraph, let alone sentence.

The budget is everything. Government agencies don't have the authority to raise budgets. They have the authority to allocate what they have been allowed by politicians.

DARPA doesn't get much funding because their role in things is minor.


My mentioning DARPA was to illustrate that although they seem like a fairly benign agency that just looks at cool stuff and figures it out for testing and eventually perhaps even production, there are many, many other very malevolent agencies with massive black budgets. The mention of DARPA was only pointing in a general direction. Don't get too caught up in it.


People make restricted access programs and the commands that operate them out to be some kind of super-powerful Men-In-Black sort of setup.

They aren't. They are confined by budgets just as any other command is. They don't get much in the way of budget freedoms and often have to compete for funds with operational commands (that have real hardware currently deployed that requires funding as opposed to some pet project research platform).

Most of the "black" budget goes towards supporting special warfare operations. They don't use ultra-super-squirrel technology so much as they use purpose built technology. They'll buy a drone and reconfigure it for a very narrow set of operations to a degree no other command would bother. They'll contract the manufacture of a few weapons designed specifically for a single operation.

That's what makes them classified. It's not that they are ultra-super-advaced; just that they are very purpose built and the mystique preserves the 'dark arts' of our operatives.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Show me the specific declaration of war against Pakistani citizens, in Pakistan, and the internationally accepted legal basis for undertaking action?


Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - 09/14/2001

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.


What part of the above confuses you?

International legal basis - UN Charter CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION-
specifically article 51...

UN Security Council Resolution 1377

Finally, the declaration called upon all states to intensify efforts to eliminate international terrorism.

UNSCR 1386 - International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to assist the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and surrounding areas

Reference

Originally posted by neformore
Show me the specific declaration of war against Pakistani citizens, in Pakistan, and the internationally accepted legal basis for undertaking action?


UNSCR 1390 - concerning the situation in Afghanistan and terrorism, the Council imposed further sanctions on Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and others associated with them.[1]

Specifically -

Although the Security Council had adopted sanctions resolutions against non-state entities in the past, Resolution 1390 marked the first time had adopted a resolution without a territorial connection.

International relations with the Taliban - Pakistan
Again their links and support of the Taliban are in violation of UNSCR's.

Article 1 Section 8 - US Constitution
Article 2 Section 2 of the US Constitution

What I find funny though is the thought process by you and others that the US must somehow ask for and receive international approval before defending our country. I dont recall Al Queida making adeclaration of war against the US and asking the people they slaughterd in such a cowardly and godless manner to "surrender" before attacking and murdering them. No note to the UN either so again how about you take your bias glasses off and look at the entire picture instead of just the parts you want that assist you in your flawed logic explanations and conclusions.

This should be enough but I can add more if you need more.

edit on 9-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
But the other stuff? Was that on American soil? Do you think what's happened is proportionate to any of the rest? And do you think the US is innocent in their actions either before or after this absurd "War on Terrorism"?

The attack on the WTC in the 1990's was on American soil...
The attack on a US embassy is an attack on American soil....
The attack on US military assets at sea is an attack on American soil....

The cowardly terrorist are getting exactly what they asked for and deserve.


Originally posted by CosmicEgg
Be honest now. At least be honest with yourself. Show us you're a rational person capable of critical thinking.

I am rational.. I am all for our country being able to defend itself from terrorists, as well as those people who seem to think terrorism is a cute little thing thats somehow misunderstood in thier actions and beliefs.

If you are the baseline for whats rationale I will glady take irrational any day of the week and twice on Sundays.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
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....



That makes it fun!



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
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....



That makes it fun!


Almost as fun, and as institutionalized psychopathy, as doing it in the name of religion and God.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 



These drone strikes and operations really lay outside of the President's responsibility.


Will you be sending a letter to the POTUS advising him as such?

Drone attacks in Pakistan began under the Bush administration in 2004
the first being an attack that killed the Pashtun military leader Nek Muhammad Wazir,
along with two children. According to reliable sources only only eight occurred over the
course of the next three years.

Then, 2008 the number skyrocketed to 33...


and in Obama’s first year he carried out more strikes than all of Bush’s combined:
Pakistan was hit by drones 53 times in 2009, killing between 369 and 725 people.
counterterrorism.newamerica.net...




Originally posted by Aim64C
Trials are for prosecution of a crime committed.
Defense is a much more time-sensitive operation that cannot afford such luxuries.


Chilling statement.
Do you consider your freedom and your life a luxury then?

edit on 9-6-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
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....


Wait until the drones in the US are at every other intersection and the technocrats administer law through them..

because it is coming... we will be a drone nanny state.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - 09/14/2001

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.


What part of the above confuses you?


The part where innocent civilians in Pakistan who had nothing to do with the events of 9/11 get killed by drones, and the part where people are targetted, without any proof whatsoever that they had any thing to do with the 9/11 attacks, based on an assumption that they plan to cause harm to the USA, with no recourse to a judiciary system.

Conspiracy is not grounds to act on to kill someone in war. The US Supreme Court of Justice even ruled that to be the case when they overrode Bush's military tribunal idea at Guantanamo Bay

www.bloomberg.com...



Conspiracy

Four justices also agreed with Hamdan's contention that conspiracy can't be the basis for a tribunal prosecution because it isn't a crime under the laws of war.


So again, which part of your authorisation entitles a death sentence to someone because a third party believes they may be associated in something?

You're a police officer, right?

Do you just go out an shoot/kill people you believe may be turn out to be criminals, just in case they do something wrong?

Because that is the logic at play here.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
This is all so surreal now. It just defies rational thinking. How does the US get away with this stuff? No one else would - not in a million years!

The US has to know the other boot is gonna drop before long. You just have to see it coming. It's gone too far and for too long. The world is crumbling under the weight of your crusade here. No one even believes it went down as you all say it did but still you persist! No good can come of this eternal search for vengeance.

I read that the US is planning on leaving autonomous spy drones there in Afghanistan that will monitor the situation for twenty years. WTF. Who do you think you are? That country is in tatters. Leave them alone now and let them try to rebuild into something that even vaguely resembles a human civilization. The rape has gone on for too long.

Where are the war crimes courts when you need them?



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
The part where innocent civilians in Pakistan who had nothing to do with the events of 9/11 get killed by drones, and the part where people are targetted, without any proof whatsoever that they had any thing to do with the 9/11 attacks, based on an assumption that they plan to cause harm to the USA, with no recourse to a judiciary system.


Incorrect.. The MCA (Militry Commission Act) of 2006 was found unconcstitutional because of the lack of Congressional approval and oversight. The MCA of 2008 and 2009 in addition to the ruling sin Hamden and Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld resolved the outstanding issues that cleared the way for military tribunals. Something International law also allows and required when people are determined to be enemy combatants who fall outside of the scope of the geneva convention. Again if people did research instead of just attacking what they dont understand we wouldnt need to have these discussions and could address the main issue at hand, which coincaidentally has already been resolved both at home on the legal front and abroad on the international law front.

See UNSCR's and links to rules of war an geneva conventions I linked prior.

As far as their part in 9/11 again you are ignoring the international laws in place that state Taliban, Al Queida, individuals who support those groups, regrdless of citizenship. Trying to make your argument by ignoring the facts that dont support your position abnd replacing them with catch phrases that rely on an emotional response of tose who dont grasp the entire picture undermines your response and position. As I responded before to your accusation, you are the biased one, not me. Your logic is flawed and is based on that bias and refusal to acknowledge the laws that you demanded in an apparent gaffe because you didnt know they existed.



Originally posted by neformore
Conspiracy is not grounds to act on to kill someone in war. The US Supreme Court of Justice even ruled that to be the case when they overrode Bush's military tribunal idea at Guantanamo Bay

Again incorrect... And again learn the differnece between actions occuring on the battlefield and actions occuring in the court room. There is a difference, as has been explained to you before, and yet you still ignore it because once again it does not cupport the position you are trying to lay out.

While your at it review the requirements for the Genve convention when it comes to i nternational requirements on whats required in order to be considered an enemy military force.

Not only is the US Supreme Court telling you you are wrong, so is international law.



Originally posted by neformore
www.bloomberg.com...



Conspiracy

Four justices also agreed with Hamdan's contention that conspiracy can't be the basis for a tribunal prosecution because it isn't a crime under the laws of war.


So again, which part of your authorisation entitles a death sentence to someone because a third party believes they may be associated in something?

Again learn the difference between court room and legal actions and battlefield and acts of war. There is a difference and no amount of denial on your part is going to change that. Secondly, if your going to cite court cases, make damn sure you know the full outcome because Hamdi and Hamden vs. Rumsfeld were resolved and they both lost their actions.

The MCA of 2006 was rectified by the MCA of 2008 qnd 2009. The majority of Supreme Court rulings on terrorist related laws deal solely with US citizens and their status. They have NOTHING to do with what occurs on a battlefield.



Originally posted by neformore
You're a police officer, right?

Do you just go out an shoot/kill people you believe may be turn out to be criminals, just in case they do something wrong?

Because that is the logic at play here.

Now you are really grasping at straws and are showing your ignorance. When I respond to a call and someone is armed, I am not required to wait for them to shoot me or someone else prior to taking action. The domestic laws that govern my actions are state with federal guidelines in terms of 42 USC 1983 violations. Those laws do NOT apply to outside the boundaries of the United States nor to fedreal agencies who are governed by federal law.

Even the patriot act, the MCA's etc have nothing to do with cuivilian law enforcement. Please, respectfully, learn the difference in how the laws work, what laws are in play and why, instead of graspiong at straws, making ill informed comparisons and accusations solely to try and salvage and argument you lost the moment you posted the article.

None of what you raised in this post has anything to do with the last post or the post before that. Your position is faulty based on lack of knowledge.

Learn and understand before accusing.
edit on 10-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicEgg
 


Laws for one group not applicable to other...

Case in point was less than 2 weeks ago, Liberia, Taylor case.

Prosecutors saying after 50 year sentence verdict, to the effect of "This ruling means leaders cannot hide behind their positions' immunity protections anymore, this case is now precedent for those that will be held accountable in future[in ref to his position as leader]".

They are in appeals timeframe, but what was said by the prosecutors now in record.

Do people think this ruling will stand for western leaders or be confined to Africa?
edit on 10-6-2012 by mlirenr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by mlirenr
 


This is exactly what I'm talking about. The law always applies to some but not others. No, Taylor was a long time in being held accountable. Does anyone here see Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Hu or anyone else (I could go on listing names for a very long time there) will suddenly be taken to task over their actions in the past? Not a chance. Little "leaders", sure. Big (and thereby far more harmful) leaders, no way.

Not yet anyway. I've said before that NASA could really make use of their death trap rockets by allowing us to load up a few of them with our old rubbish leaders and uber-wealthy and just shoot them off into space. Naturally they would be expected to take their money with them to remind them of the value of their actions.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by mlirenr
 


Since the country invited the SCSL in to prosecute it only applies to that country. If we want to go down the road of universal jurisdiction, where a crime occurs and any country is free to correct the action, dont you think it would further undermine the argument of some people in this thread?



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Let me put this another way - suppose the UK enacted an internal law to do the same thing as you are defending, with regard to terrorists attacking the UK mainland, or British people abroad.

You would - given by your staunch defence of the military actions taken so far - be happy, for the British SAS, to walk into an Irish bar in New York, shoot up the whole place and kill an awful lot of people, because a couple of them might have connections to the Real IRA?

Or for the RAF to use a Reaper to take out a couple of properties in the Washington suburbs - under the auspices of the British defending themselves against terrorists.

Of course, they wouldn't tell the US government that they were going to do it, because the US may be harbouring potential terrorists.

Can you see the point people are trying to make now?


edit on 10/6/12 by neformore because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Can you see the point people are trying to make now?


Nope because again you keep coming back with a legal argument and not a valid military argument. The Unied States supported the British and urged communications between the parties with the IRA struggle. The US refused visa's for several IRA members at the behest of the British government at the time. While we can make the argument the IRA is a terrorist group, they would disagree with that classification, as does al Queida, the Taliban etc etc etc.

As I stated before we have tried to negotiate with them, only to have peace negoiators assasinated by the cowardly godless terrorists.

The point you and others are trying to make is so off kilter its not even funny. Not only does it ignore the entire pircture, the facts involved etc its also ignores history. By history I mean back before the US was even an idea.

How quickly you forget and downplay the 7/7 attacks on your subway system. Or the attacks on the Spanish train network. Appeasement does not nor has it ever worked, and as a European with UK / British citizenship you should know first hand what im referring to.

We are done with the "until its to late" mentality. The threat is real, its present, and it does not matter where it exists. You guys see this issue as something its not and I fail to see how you are coming to your conclusions. You seem to ignore the fact its a war and not some civil issue. We have begged and pleaded with Pakistan to resolve the issue using their methods and Pakistan has failed to do that.

Pakistans inability to be upfront and honest was made very apparent with the death of Bin Laden 30 miles from their capital, within walking distance of one of their largest military bases. Pakistan has a choice - they can deal with the attacks / resources coming from their territory that is directed at the US, or we will deal with the threat directly. Attacking and then retreating across an international border does not make one immune from counter attacks / preemptive attacks.

While the UN, as well as you and others are more than welcome to disagree and voice your concerns / opinions, the fact remains that you nor the UN is responsible for the safety of the Amerian people. Its evident the UN is not capable of doing what it was designed to do and its apparent those who favor appeasement over taking a stand and doing whats right have no issue going after the party who is able to listen to reason.

Take your argument and concrns to Al Queida, terrorists the Taliabn etc and see what there reaction will be to you. I noticed your quiet on the homicide bombing that occured in Afghanistan where the coward dressed up as a woman and approached a checkpoint.

Where was his warning to the 4 soldiers to lay down their arms and surrender first?

Dont lecture me on the legalities involved...
Dont lecture me on the ethics involved....
Dont lecture me on the defense of my country...

Especially from the severely biased manner in which you are choosing to do it.
edit on 10-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
the US passed a law allowing sex with beasties in the baraks
that don't make it right either
Pakistan is an ALLY
to be killing the innocent there is the supremem hall mark of who the real Terrorists are
the same government that did 911
the US government

preemptive attack based oin false flag is a NAZI thing

edit on 10-6-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-6-2012 by Danbones because: ususal spelling gramma content






top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join