| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Military - Naval Forum » US drone strikes may break international law: UN... |
|
Page 1 of 10 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Jack Linthicum... |
 Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston says
the drone strikes are arbitrary executions, and therefore violate
international law.
"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.
"Secondly, what precautions the United States is taking to ensure that
these weapons are used strictly for purposes consistent with
international humanitarian law.
"Third, what sort of review mechanism is there to evaluate when these
weapons have been used? Those are the issues I'd like to see
addressed,"
US drone strikes may break international law: UN
* Published: 28/10/2009 at 11:03 AM
* Online news: Asia
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.
Alston said he presented a report on the matter to the UN General
Assembly.
He urged the United States to be more forthright about how and when it
uses drone aircraft, something about which the US Defense Department
and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) usually keep silent.
"We need the United States to be more up front and say, 'OK, we're
willing to discuss some aspects of this program,' otherwise you have
the really problematic bottom line that the CIA is running a program
that is killing significant numbers of people and there is absolutely
no accountability in terms of the relevant international laws," Alston
said.
Since August 2008, around 70 strikes by unmanned aircraft have killed
close to 600 people in northwestern Pakistan.
"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.
"Secondly, what precautions the United States is taking to ensure that
these weapons are used strictly for purposes consistent with
international humanitarian law.
"Third, what sort of review mechanism is there to evaluate when these
weapons have been used? Those are the issues I'd like to see
addressed," the UN official said.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/158356/us-drone-strikes-may-break-international-law-un |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David E. Powell... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Of course,what is the UN reaction to terrorists targeting people for
murder, who have nothing to do with hurting anyone? Not even a half-
interested finger waving in most cases.
If they want to cut missile strikes they might ask Hamas to stop using
UN buildings as rocket bases, and if they are upset about murder they
might spare a moment of time to condem the murderers of UN personnel
in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It seems to me that the UN is responding to those murders by taking
the side of the murderers against the US.
On Oct 28, 10:14 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net>
wrote:
[quote]UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston says
the drone strikes are arbitrary executions, and therefore violate
international law.
"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.
"Secondly, what precautions the United States is taking to ensure that
these weapons are used strictly for purposes consistent with
international humanitarian law.
"Third, what sort of review mechanism is there to evaluate when these
weapons have been used? Those are the issues I'd like to see
addressed,"
US drone strikes may break international law: UN
* Published: 28/10/2009 at 11:03 AM
* Online news: Asia
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.
Alston said he presented a report on the matter to the UN General
Assembly.
He urged the United States to be more forthright about how and when it
uses drone aircraft, something about which the US Defense Department
and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) usually keep silent.
"We need the United States to be more up front and say, 'OK, we're
willing to discuss some aspects of this program,' otherwise you have
the really problematic bottom line that the CIA is running a program
that is killing significant numbers of people and there is absolutely
no accountability in terms of the relevant international laws," Alston
said.
Since August 2008, around 70 strikes by unmanned aircraft have killed
close to 600 people in northwestern Pakistan.
"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.
"Secondly, what precautions the United States is taking to ensure that
these weapons are used strictly for purposes consistent with
international humanitarian law.
"Third, what sort of review mechanism is there to evaluate when these
weapons have been used? Those are the issues I'd like to see
addressed," the UN official said.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/158356/us-drone-strikes-may-brea...[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Wiser... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 8:50 am, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3... at (no spam) msn.com>
wrote:
[quote]Of course,what is the UN reaction to terrorists targeting people for
murder, who have nothing to do with hurting anyone? Not even a half-
interested finger waving in most cases.
If they want to cut missile strikes they might ask Hamas to stop using
UN buildings as rocket bases, and if they are upset about murder they
might spare a moment of time to condem the murderers of UN personnel
in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It seems to me that the UN is responding to those murders by taking
the side of the murderers against the US.
On Oct 28, 10:14 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston says
the drone strikes are arbitrary executions, and therefore violate
international law.
"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.
"Secondly, what precautions the United States is taking to ensure that
these weapons are used strictly for purposes consistent with
international humanitarian law.
"Third, what sort of review mechanism is there to evaluate when these
weapons have been used? Those are the issues I'd like to see
addressed,"
US drone strikes may break international law: UN
* Published: 28/10/2009 at 11:03 AM
* Online news: Asia
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.
Alston said he presented a report on the matter to the UN General
Assembly.
He urged the United States to be more forthright about how and when it
uses drone aircraft, something about which the US Defense Department
and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) usually keep silent.
"We need the United States to be more up front and say, 'OK, we're
willing to discuss some aspects of this program,' otherwise you have
the really problematic bottom line that the CIA is running a program
that is killing significant numbers of people and there is absolutely
no accountability in terms of the relevant international laws," Alston
said.
Since August 2008, around 70 strikes by unmanned aircraft have killed
close to 600 people in northwestern Pakistan.
"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.
"Secondly, what precautions the United States is taking to ensure that
these weapons are used strictly for purposes consistent with
international humanitarian law.
"Third, what sort of review mechanism is there to evaluate when these
weapons have been used? Those are the issues I'd like to see
addressed," the UN official said.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/158356/us-drone-strikes-may-brea...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Concur with David. The UN doesn't wave a finger when terrorists strike
at Americans, but when the terrorists are terrorized, the UN (and the
idiots at Amnesty Crapnational and Human Rights Wretch) scream bloody
murder. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Wiser... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 10:31 am, Andrew Swallow <am.swal... at (no spam) btopenworld.com>
wrote:
[quote]Jack Linthicum wrote:
UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston says
the drone strikes are arbitrary executions, and therefore violate
international law.
{snip}
The USA has been too kind on this sort of silliness.
The ban on arbitrary executions applies to non combatants such as
civilians in peacetime and POWs. During war time the United States
re-asserts its right under international war to attack and kill enemy
combatants and their commanders. Persons engaged in hostilities have no
right to a trial.
> "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.
Legal basis - Osama bin Laden declared jihad against the United
States of America, like all declarations of war, that action
authorised the USA military to kill him and his supporters
without trial or further warning.
As for the identities of the people running the program and
accountability mechanisms that is war time military information.
Trying to obtain this information will be considered an illegal
act of espionage. The appropriate punishments for a spy apply.
Andrew Swallow
[/quote]
Agreed. And since this is wartime, we know the punishment for wartime
espionage, don't we? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Andrew Swallow... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jack Linthicum wrote:
[quote]UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston says
the drone strikes are arbitrary executions, and therefore violate
international law.
[/quote]
{snip}
The USA has been too kind on this sort of silliness.
The ban on arbitrary executions applies to non combatants such as
civilians in peacetime and POWs. During war time the United States
re-asserts its right under international war to attack and kill enemy
combatants and their commanders. Persons engaged in hostilities have no
right to a trial.
[quote]"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.
[/quote]
Legal basis - Osama bin Laden declared jihad against the United
States of America, like all declarations of war, that action
authorised the USA military to kill him and his supporters
without trial or further warning.
As for the identities of the people running the program and
accountability mechanisms that is war time military information.
Trying to obtain this information will be considered an illegal
act of espionage. The appropriate punishments for a spy apply.
Andrew Swallow |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David E. Powell... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 5:54 pm, William Black <william.bl... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]Peter Skelton wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:24:20 +0000, William Black
william.bl... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Ray O'Hara wrote:
"William Black" <william.bl... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hca73r$g8u$4 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
Matt Wiser wrote:
Agreed. And since this is wartime, we know the punishment for wartime
espionage, don't we?
If it's a war then the killing of US soldiers on active service by
insurgents is not murder.
who has been so charged Willie?
No idea.
I'm sure you do though.
There are very few reports of Taliban being taken prisoner.
But they must catch some.
I wonder what happens to them...
Handed over to the civil authority or kept if they can be charged
under US law, I presume. That is the procedure other NATO forces
use (Canadain law for Canadian forces etc.).
They're technically combatants.
They are entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions.
[/quote]
The first doesn't necessarily mean the second though.
See "Battle of the Bulge WW2"
[quote]They may not be handed over to the civil power without safeguards as to
their welfare.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ray O'Hara... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:70f13dde-84cf-4778-b9ba-92c4d59b60aa at (no spam) l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
[quote]UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston says
the drone strikes are arbitrary executions, and therefore violate
international law.
[/quote]
these routine accusations have lost any meaning.
its just a knee jerk reaction by those making them and even they understand
its pure bullshit.
it's a "round up the usual suspects" type response. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| William Black... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jack Linthicum wrote:
[quote]UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston says
the drone strikes are arbitrary executions, and therefore violate
international law.
[/quote]
So?
Everyone knows they're illegal, nobody seems to care, including
President Obama.
It will be interesting to see if the loony left start trying for
warrants for the arrest of senior US political and military figures in
the same way they go after Israeli ones...
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| William Black... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David E. Powell wrote:
[quote]Of course,what is the UN reaction to terrorists targeting people for
murder, who have nothing to do with hurting anyone? Not even a half-
interested finger waving in most cases.
If they want to cut missile strikes they might ask Hamas to stop using
UN buildings as rocket bases, and if they are upset about murder they
might spare a moment of time to condem the murderers of UN personnel
in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It seems to me that the UN is responding to those murders by taking
the side of the murderers against the US.
[/quote]
If the soldiers have been murdered then those accused of murder are
entitled to a fair trial.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| William Black... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Matt Wiser wrote:
[quote]
Agreed. And since this is wartime, we know the punishment for wartime
espionage, don't we?
[/quote]
If it's a war then the killing of US soldiers on active service by
insurgents is not murder.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ray O'Hara... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"William Black" <william.black at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hca73r$g8u$4 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
[quote]Matt Wiser wrote:
Agreed. And since this is wartime, we know the punishment for wartime
espionage, don't we?
If it's a war then the killing of US soldiers on active service by
insurgents is not murder.
[/quote]
who has been so charged Willie? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| William Black... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ray O'Hara wrote:
[quote]"William Black" <william.black at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hca73r$g8u$4 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
Matt Wiser wrote:
Agreed. And since this is wartime, we know the punishment for wartime
espionage, don't we?
If it's a war then the killing of US soldiers on active service by
insurgents is not murder.
who has been so charged Willie?
[/quote]
No idea.
I'm sure you do though.
There are very few reports of Taliban being taken prisoner.
But they must catch some.
I wonder what happens to them...
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ray O'Hara... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"William Black" <william.black at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hca99m$7tk$2 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
[quote]Ray O'Hara wrote:
"William Black" <william.black at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hca73r$g8u$4 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
Matt Wiser wrote:
Agreed. And since this is wartime, we know the punishment for wartime
espionage, don't we?
If it's a war then the killing of US soldiers on active service by
insurgents is not murder.
who has been so charged Willie?
No idea.
I'm sure you do though.
There are very few reports of Taliban being taken prisoner.
But they must catch some.
I wonder what happens to them...
[/quote]
"reports" reports from who? taken prisoner by who?
oh right. he enemy of the west is always the victim. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Skelton... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:34:56 -0700 (PDT), Matt Wiser
<mattwiser_99 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 8:50 am, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3... at (no spam) msn.com
wrote:
Of course,what is the UN reaction to terrorists targeting people for
murder, who have nothing to do with hurting anyone? Not even a half-
interested finger waving in most cases.
If they want to cut missile strikes they might ask Hamas to stop using
UN buildings as rocket bases, and if they are upset about murder they
might spare a moment of time to condem the murderers of UN personnel
in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It seems to me that the UN is responding to those murders by taking
the side of the murderers against the US.
On Oct 28, 10:14 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston says
the drone strikes are arbitrary executions, and therefore violate
international law.
"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.
"Secondly, what precautions the United States is taking to ensure that
these weapons are used strictly for purposes consistent with
international humanitarian law.
"Third, what sort of review mechanism is there to evaluate when these
weapons have been used? Those are the issues I'd like to see
addressed,"
US drone strikes may break international law: UN
* Published: 28/10/2009 at 11:03 AM
* Online news: Asia
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.
Alston said he presented a report on the matter to the UN General
Assembly.
He urged the United States to be more forthright about how and when it
uses drone aircraft, something about which the US Defense Department
and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) usually keep silent.
"We need the United States to be more up front and say, 'OK, we're
willing to discuss some aspects of this program,' otherwise you have
the really problematic bottom line that the CIA is running a program
that is killing significant numbers of people and there is absolutely
no accountability in terms of the relevant international laws," Alston
said.
Since August 2008, around 70 strikes by unmanned aircraft have killed
close to 600 people in northwestern Pakistan.
"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.
"Secondly, what precautions the United States is taking to ensure that
these weapons are used strictly for purposes consistent with
international humanitarian law.
"Third, what sort of review mechanism is there to evaluate when these
weapons have been used? Those are the issues I'd like to see
addressed," the UN official said.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/158356/us-drone-strikes-may-brea...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Concur with David. The UN doesn't wave a finger when terrorists strike
at Americans, but when the terrorists are terrorized, the UN (and the
idiots at Amnesty Crapnational and Human Rights Wretch) scream bloody
murder.
[/quote]
There is selection process between what happens at the UN and
what is reported in the American press.
Peter Skelton |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Skelton... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:24:20 +0000, William Black
<william.black at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]Ray O'Hara wrote:
"William Black" <william.black at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hca73r$g8u$4 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
Matt Wiser wrote:
Agreed. And since this is wartime, we know the punishment for wartime
espionage, don't we?
If it's a war then the killing of US soldiers on active service by
insurgents is not murder.
who has been so charged Willie?
No idea.
I'm sure you do though.
There are very few reports of Taliban being taken prisoner.
But they must catch some.
I wonder what happens to them...
[/quote]
Handed over to the civil authority or kept if they can be charged
under US law, I presume. That is the procedure other NATO forces
use (Canadain law for Canadian forces etc.).
Peter Skelton |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:24 pm
|
|