• 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!

US drone strikes may break international law: UN

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
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.

US drone strikes may break international law: UN - Yahoo! News


.... Disband the UN please.
 
"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.
War is all about "extrajuducal executions".
And, in war, there's absolutely NO prohibition against using unmanned drones as a platform for launching airstrikes.
 
It's obvious whose side the UN is really on.
 
It's obvious whose side the UN is really on.
Without a doubt.

"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.
The exact same basis that we've been operating under since October 2001.
 
Last edited:
Wait...using unmanned planes to kill a bunch of civilians is against international law! Absurd.


Yep, that is all we do is kill innocent civilians....Not. :cool:


j-mac
 
Yep, that is all we do is kill innocent civilians...
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?
 
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.
 
Yep, that is all we do is kill innocent civilians....Not. :cool:


j-mac

It's not all we do, but we certainly do it. The contention is that the use of unmanned drones has caused significant civilian casualty, not that the base use of them is wrong or illegal. I mean, you can ignore reality if you want. Think we're getting all the nasty terrorists and nothing more. But that sort of head in the sand attitude isn't going to fix the problem. Especially when significant civilian death leads to exacerbating the anti-American attitudes of entire groups of people. Attitudes which are used as propaganda for terrorists. But whatever. There are no negative consequences for our actions....ever. Got it.
 
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..

My concern is that drones/Predators are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law

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.
 
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?
Which treaty, and how does the use of unmanned drones (as opposed to cruise missiles or manned aircraft) make any difference regarding same?
 
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.
War is all about "extrajuducal executions".
And, in war, there's absolutely NO prohibition against using unmanned drones as a platform for launching airstrikes.
 
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.
 
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.

Of course you would. Anything to hinder the American effort to keep us and pathetic pussified Europe safe.
 
War is all about "extrajuducal executions".
And, in war, there's absolutely NO prohibition against using unmanned drones as a platform for launching airstrikes.

You'd have a stronger case had we a Declaration of war instead of authorization to deploy troops.
 
You'd have a stronger case had we a Declaration of war instead of authorization to deploy troops.
A state of war can exist w/o an offical declaration of war by one side or the other.
 
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.

Your tune would changed if it was your family killed and labeled collateral damage.
 
A state of war can exist w/o an offical declaration of war by one side or the other.

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.
 
Your tune would changed if it was your family killed and labeled collateral damage.

What it means is that he has no problem with the terrorist attack in Iraq recently that killed over 130 civilians. The target was the Iraqi government, and well this is war.
 
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 enough as it is.
 
Last edited:
My case is plenty strong anough as it is.

We have to adhere to more international law and treaty without the formal declaration. We have military action now, not official war. Just because people use the word war and functionally it looks a lot like it, bureaucratically and legally it can't be war without the official declaration.
 
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.
 
These people who proclaim that "hey war is hell" are likely the same people who scream for blood when its there fellow countrymen that die in related attacks months or years later.

War is indeed hell, so if you dont really want to avoid it then learn to embrace it it.
 
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.
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.
/sarcasm
 
Back
Top Bottom