• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. drone strikes violate Pakistan's sovereignty: U.N.[W:15]

Pilot

Banned
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
522
Reaction score
270
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
(Reuters) - The United States has violated Pakistan's sovereignty and shattered tribal structures with unmanned drone strikes in its counterterrorism operations near the Afghan border, a U.N. human rights investigator said in a statement on Friday.

U.N. special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, Ben Emmerson, visited Pakistan for three days this week as part of his investigation into the civilian impact of the use of drones and other forms of targeted killings.

"As a matter of international law, the U.S. drone campaign in Pakistan is ... being conducted without the consent of the elected representatives of the people, or the legitimate Government of the State," Emmerson said in a statement issued by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva.

"It involves the use of force on the territory of another state without its consent and is therefore a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty," he said.

Emmerson said in January he would investigate 25 drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories. He is expected to present his final report to the U.N. General Assembly in October.

Washington had little to say about Emmerson's statement.

"We've seen his press release. I'm obviously not going to speak about classified information here," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said. "We have a strong ongoing counterterrorism dialogue with Pakistan and that will continue."

Spokesman Josh Earnest said the White House would withhold judgment until it sees Emmerson's full report.

Full Story: U.S. drone strikes violate Pakistan's sovereignty: U.N. | Reuters

It looks like the Pakistan drone strikes may be ending soon. Between this and the public opinion in Pakistan, I don't see them continuing. What ramifications do you think this will have on our drone use?
 
I've always found the view that attacks from the air somehow are exempting for otherwise rules of conduct facinating accepted hypocrisy. If a county were to send a team in to toss a bomb at passing cars, that's terrorism. But if those cars are blow up by aircraft, then any innocents are just "unfortunately colllateral damage." If we sent sniper teams within other countries, that would be severely criticized as acts of war. But if we send in a flying assassination robot it's ok.

Every drone attack within another country is an act of war for which the president has never received the required declaration of war from Congress first. They are all illegal acts of war by the President. Whether they are a good thing or not in terms of national defense is a different question. They are Constitutionally illegal.
 
I've always found the view that attacks from the air somehow are exempting for otherwise rules of conduct facinating accepted hypocrisy. If a county were to send a team in to toss a bomb at passing cars, that's terrorism. But if those cars are blow up by aircraft, then any innocents are just "unfortunately colllateral damage." If we sent sniper teams within other countries, that would be severely criticized as acts of war. But if we send in a flying assassination robot it's ok.

Every drone attack within another country is an act of war for which the president has never received the required declaration of war from Congress first. They are all illegal acts of war by the President. Whether they are a good thing or not in terms of national defense is a different question. They are Constitutionally illegal.

I agree, get a declaration of war or else knock it off!!

If any country tried it on us they'd be bombed to the

stone age immediately!:rantoff:
 
I also agree. Drones are aircraft and the are no different than other aircraft except that the pilot is not on board. They are covered by aviation laws and regulations like any other aircraft. For some reason, our government (and, it seems, everyone else) doesn't understand that. Killing someone with an unmanned drone is exactly the same as killing them with a fancy new F35 fighter plane. It is an aircraft killing someone and that is not OK except in war. As far as I know we are not at war with Pakistan.
 
I'm normally against US imperialism and our international drone attacks, but **** Pakistan, and their ****ing sovereignty. Not only did they turn a blind eye to the massive insurgent base staging attacks on US forces out of Pakistan, they actively supported it.
 
What does that US foreign aid to Pakistan buy, other than permission to zap terrorists inside their "tribal regions"?
 
If Pakistan declared war on the US they would be obliterated due to the US cutting aid to them and having a superior military coupled with the fact that India would most likely join the fray and support us as an ally and also out of the fact that India and Pakistan have very tense relations.
 
I think this might actually be a topic you can get the far right and the far left to agreee on!! lol. It should really say something to the President, that the country as a whole thinks his entire drone policy is wack. Maybe we can start to bring the two sides back together, with this issue.
 
I think if paul ryan actually used this real reason to go against drone strikes i would have been behind him. it needs to end, and And just because we are not5 fully invading the other sovereign nation to remove their power structure does not mean we are not committing acts of war. We got rid of the really crappy excuse to go into Pakistan without declaring war, and now it is time to go home. But, since obam,a seems to take a very republican view of middle east war, there is only a small hope for that. really, what is the UN going to do, whine at us? besides, we paid for the flights anyway with foreign aid. Seriously, what did their leader think we were paying for? Still, we should be done with drone strikes in their land and over any other sovereign nation. I am sure we can find better and cheaper ways to assassinate people.
 
If a county were to send a team in to toss a bomb at passing cars, that's terrorism. But if those cars are blow up by aircraft, then any innocents are just "unfortunately colllateral damage." If we sent sniper teams within other countries, that would be severely criticized as acts of war. But if we send in a flying assassination robot it's ok.

Tomato Tomahto

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
 
I agree, get a declaration of war or else knock it off!!

If any country tried it on us they'd be bombed to the

stone age immediately!:rantoff:

Couldn't have said it better myself.
 
UN denounces US drone use in Pakistan

The United States has violated Pakistan's sovereignty and destroyed tribal structures with unmanned aerial drone strikes in its counterterrorism near the Afghan border, a UN human rights investigator has said."As a matter of international law, the US drone campaign in Pakistan is ... being conducted without the consent of the elected representatives of the people, or the legitimate Government of the State," Ben
Emmerson, the UN's special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, said in a statement issued by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva on Friday.


Emmerson visited Pakistan for three days this week as part of his investigation into the civilian impact of the use of drones and other forms of targeted killings.


"It involves the use of force on the territory of another state without its consent and is therefore a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty," he said.


Emmerson said in January that he would investigate 25 drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories. He is expected to present his final report to the UN General Assembly in October.


Read more @: UN denounces US drone use in Pakistan - Central & South Asia - Al Jazeera English

To me it seemed pretty obvious that is was violating the sovereignty of Pakistan
 
Re: UN denounces US drone use in Pakistan

Moderator's Warning:
Threads merged
 
I'm pretty sure the US has publicly tacit permission from Pakistan to blow up militant-appearing targets/camps.
 
It looks like the Pakistan drone strikes may be ending soon. Between this and the public opinion in Pakistan, I don't see them continuing. What ramifications do you think this will have on our drone use?

I agree that is its a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty. I know if the UK, Canada or some other country was flying drones in the US to kill alleged terrorists and killing innocent bystanders I would most certainly see it as a violation of America's sovereignty and if any elected or appointed official authorized those drone strikes in the US I would want their heads on a silver platter.
 
Actually, the wikileaks wires showed that the Pakistan government secretly approved of the US drone program while publicly criticizing it to save face with their people.
 
Good. Targeting with force that kills more than 1 person when 1 person is on their "YEEEE HAWW!" hitlist is an obvious strategy by the war machine to keep the war going. I wonder how many civilian deaths creates another iron willed terrorist on average? Every 50 headcount? More? Less?


Someone/something has to stop the warhawks from always targeting as much as they can with lawyers seeking maximum engagement at all times. I mean when people are arguing thats its okay to target kids digging holes..... Father of all that is True please help humanity with your grace.
 
I think this might actually be a topic you can get the far right and the far left to agreee on!! lol. It should really say something to the President, that the country as a whole thinks his entire drone policy is wack. Maybe we can start to bring the two sides back together, with this issue.

It is refreshing to see at least a few people on the left, those who normally support every breath that escapes this President's mouth, question the morality and legality of this program. I'm fully supportive of the use of drones in war zones - use them in Afghanistan, even into the disputed mountainous border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan, all you want - using them further into Pakistan and in Yemen, Somalia, etc. is far less justified, particularly when so many innocent people in the thousands have been slaughtered by drones.

Rand Paul, regardless of how you view him or his politics, did your country a great service by highlighting the drone program and making it front page, top of program, news for at least a couple of days. I'm sure the calls and emails from constituents into their member of congress on both sides has made oversight of this program a new priority.
 
It is refreshing to see at least a few people on the left, those who normally support every breath that escapes this President's mouth, question the morality and legality of this program. I'm fully supportive of the use of drones in war zones - use them in Afghanistan, even into the disputed mountainous border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan, all you want - using them further into Pakistan and in Yemen, Somalia, etc. is far less justified, particularly when so many innocent people in the thousands have been slaughtered by drones.

Rand Paul, regardless of how you view him or his politics, did your country a great service by highlighting the drone program and making it front page, top of program, news for at least a couple of days. I'm sure the calls and emails from constituents into their member of congress on both sides has made oversight of this program a new priority.

I would agree that it is refreshing, though I am no way, nor have I ever been someone who supports the President unilaterally. I voted for him because he was the lesser of two evils in my opinion, but I don't support a lot of the overall decisions he makes. Most notably so, being the drone policy, and really the overreaching use of the CIA as a whole. That is something that has been gathering steam through the last two presidencies and is real source of concern for me.

As much as I dislike Senator Paul as a politician, I was absolutely appreciative of his conviction on this issue. I would never in a million years vote for him, but I can always appreciate someone who has the balls to actually filibuster the way it was intended. Hopefully, it drives more of the electorate to pay more attention to what's going on in DC. Rather then watching Meet the Press or FOX and Friends once a week and calling it good.
 
Kinda a segway but being a big American History geek I always like to find comparisons between current events and events in US history. The drone strike campaign in Pakistan, Yemen, and the African Horn strikes me as some-what a parallel to many of the campaigns waged by the United States against the American Indian tribes of the Plains and Southern-West during the later half of the 19th century (allusive enemy, lots of collateral damage, justification of atrocity through fears of violence against American civilians, etc).

What I find most interesting is the lack of outrage over these drone attacks, either via the main-stream press, or among the US population, or any vocal authority figure for that matter...despite the large number of civilian deaths. During the 19th century there tended to be widespread outrage over incidents such as the Sand Creek Massacre ( Sand Creek massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), even calls and attempts to put army officers on trial for their roles in the various incidents. It makes me wonder if we truly have come as far as we think we have, especially in the light of the fact that our current administration claims to be "progressive".
 
Back
Top Bottom