- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) – US drone strikes against suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan could be breaking international laws against summary executions, the UN's top investigator of such crimes said.
"The problem with the United States is that it is making an increased use of drones/Predators (which are) particularly prominently used now in relation to Pakistan and Afghanistan," UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston told a press conference.
"My concern is that drones/Predators are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law," he said.
US strikes with remote-controlled aircraft against Al-Qaeda and Taliban targets in Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan have often resulted in civilian deaths and drawn bitter criticism from local populations.
"The onus is really on the United States government to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary extrajudicial executions aren't in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons," he added.
War is all about "extrajuducal executions"."My concern is that drones/Predators are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law," he said.
"The onus is really on the United States government to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary extrajudicial executions aren't in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons," he added.
Without a doubt.It's obvious whose side the UN is really on.
The exact same basis that we've been operating under since October 2001."I would like to know the legal basis upon which the United States is operating, in other words... who is running the program, what accountability mechanisms are in place in relation to that," Alston said.
Wait...using unmanned planes to kill a bunch of civilians is against international law! Absurd.
What I dont get is how the issue apparently hinges on the use of unmanned drones -- if the airstrikes had been carried out by B52s, would there be no issue?Yep, that is all we do is kill innocent civilians...
Yep, that is all we do is kill innocent civilians....Not.
j-mac
My concern is that drones/Predators are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law
Which treaty, and how does the use of unmanned drones (as opposed to cruise missiles or manned aircraft) make any difference regarding same?So now it is the fault of the UN, that a treaty written decades ago, decades before the technology was made available, suddenly is at fault when the treaty does not meet the realities of the world today?
War is all about "extrajuducal executions".Perhaps we should contact the local LEO's so we can serve a warrant for their arrest? Oh wait, there isn't anything resembling law in those areas. Capture operations simply aren't always possible, especially in Pakistan where we can't put people on the ground.
So now it is the fault of the UN, that a treaty written decades ago, decades before the technology was made available, suddenly is at fault when the treaty does not meet the realities of the world today?
Not to mention this..
So now UN officials are not allowed to asked relevant questions? He is concerned that the treaty/law might not be up to date to meet the new reality of warfare.. is that now a crime? Does it violate the treaty and law or not? I for one would love to know if it did, and if it did I would love for the treaty and law to be amended so that drone attacks were not illegal if against enemy targets.
War is all about "extrajuducal executions".
And, in war, there's absolutely NO prohibition against using unmanned drones as a platform for launching airstrikes.
A state of war can exist w/o an offical declaration of war by one side or the other.You'd have a stronger case had we a Declaration of war instead of authorization to deploy troops.
Combat means innocent people can and will die.
People need to accept this instead of sounding like morons whining about "Well, if you hadn't..."
War is hell. Period.
A state of war can exist w/o an offical declaration of war by one side or the other.
Your tune would changed if it was your family killed and labeled collateral damage.
Not at all.Your tune would changed if it was your family killed and labeled collateral damage.
My case is plenty strong enough as it is.The Declaration of War officially puts us at war and authorizes use of military as well as supersedes other treaty. As I said, you'd have a stronger case if we had an official Declaration of War.
My case is plenty strong anough as it is.
Its unfair that we should be able to use our technology to kill the enemy w/o any chance for him to protect himself or to respond. Clearly, the UN needs to address this, as this situation is intolerable.How is it different to kill a civilian with a drone than to kill him with an assault rifle or an aerial bomb? Seriously, what's the difference? It's no more a "summary execution" than any other military action that causes collateral damage.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?