Officials: US missile barrage kills 17 in Pakistan

[StarfarerBill]

Source: Associated Press

MIR ALI, Pakistan (AP) -- Two U.S. missile strikes pummeled targets inside the main sanctuary used by al-Qaida and the Taliban along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, killing 17 people Thursday, local intelligence officials said.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_PAKISTAN?SITE=MITRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[dave29]

1. another thread with rumors of a coup in Pakistan

... whats up?

[StarfarerBill]

2. I haven't seen that; do you have an address?

[bananas]

4. coup rumours on cnn

link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7257261&mesg_id=7257261

[StarfarerBill]

6. Thanks.

Yet another twist in the ongoing disaster in that region.

[Goldstein1984]

3. Technologically impressive, but

does anybody in DU have a handle on the legality of using drones to basically assassinate alleged (i.e. un-convicted) insurgents/rebels/terrorists?

I still view terrorism as a crime, at least when carried out by non-states. If we're talking crime, then targeted killings seem to me like they would be illegal. I've never read anything that convinces me that the "War on Terror" is really a war. If it is, and if assassinations are allowed in the War on Terror, then sliding on down the slippery slope I would expect to find that targeted killings of drug dealers was an acceptable part of the War on Drugs.

I'm not commenting, I'm asking.

[StarfarerBill]

5. I'm not a scholar of international law, but...

...I do believe that cross-border killings are illegal; at least if the perpetrating nation isn't in an officially-declared state of war with the nation being infiltrated. If so, I doubt that changes even if the latter is harboring enemies of the former.

But this is only what I think to be the case.

[Goldstein1984]

7. That's what my gut tells me, too.

This seems to be a continuation of the Doctrine of American Exceptionalism--the rules don't apply to us, we're an empire.

I need to do some research on this.

[StarfarerBill]

8. I agree; we make the rules, not abide by them.

Let us know what you find out, please.

[Goldstein1984]

9. If I can make any sense of it, I will do that

A project.

[hack89]

18. Considering that some of the drones are based in Pakistan

and have been for several years, it is hard to believe that the attacks are not being carried out with Pakistan tacit if not explicit permission. Is it illegal if the Pakistani government says it's Ok?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4616490/US-drones-based-in-Pakistan-Senator-Dianne-Feinstein-reveals-in-apparent-gaffe.html


http://sudhan.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/u-s-military-pakistan-carrying-out-predator-drone-missions-together/

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

25. Deleted - Dupe

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

26. Exactly. That's the real question here.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

24. But they're not "cross border". The drone program is based in Pakistan

and has the behind-the-scenes support of the Pakistani government.

[The Stranger]

10. Massively illegal. If you're not within the privilege provided by the law of war, you are

commiting murder.

[Goldstein1984]

12. Yes, that's my sense of it too. I just can't make the argument

Certainly no way to win hearts and minds.

We are going to be there until someone wise enough to call it quits comes along.

[StarfarerBill]

13. Pro-war advocates cite the Congressional authorization of use-of-force in Afghanistan...

...to justify our continued military presence and escalation there; not technically a state of war, but could that be further used to rationalize these assassinations where international law is concerned?

I just don't know the relevant international statutes, if any; it just seems like it should be utterly illegal. Do you know these specifics?

[The Stranger]

19. I'm not an expert on the laws of war.

But my understanding is that it is governed by a body of common law and then backed up by the Geneva Conventions.

It goes something like this. If you are engaged in war, and there is a critera for that, then you enjoy a privilege from criminal prosecution. This is because the actions you are taking would otherwise be proscribed. For example, you are shooting or stabbing people, which would constitute assault and battery, and killing people, which would constitute murder.

If captured, the laws of war offer certain protections from criminal prosecution. The Geneva conventions also require that certain protocols be followed with prisoners of war. But if you are not engaged in war, then you fall by default within the realm of criminal law.

What the neo-nazi-cons did is try to fabricate a third possibility, one that never existed anywhere in jurisprudence. They called it an "unlawful combatant." This would not enjoy a privilege from the laws of war, yet not be prosecuted under criminal law.

And the reason for this is that someone prosecuted by the United States under criminal law must be prosecuted in accordance with Due Process of law under the 5th, 6th and other Amendments to the Constitution.

The neo-nazi-cons want to try to fabricate a new exception for bedrock jurisprudence, and do it for only one small group of ethnic people, based on their racist views of Arabs and South Asian Muslims.

[StarfarerBill]

20. From your understanding then, is this a legal war?

If so, are the US military's incursions into, and assassinations in, Pakistan legal?

I don't ask this looking for a justification for our presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan; I'd oppose it even if international law found it so. I'm simply wondering if the pro-war side can use it as a justification.

And by the way: thanks for your input.

[The Stranger]

22. First, there has been no declaration of war.

The Constitution only allows the nation to be taken to war by the Congress. The Congress is the only branch allowed to declare war. That is why FDR, after Pearh Harbor, in what is now his very famous speech, had to go to the Congress and ask them to declare war against the Axis powers. He could not take the nation to war by himself.

The Founders were very well aware of the history in Europe of executives taking their nations to war to hold on to power. The pattern would be that the emperor (Napoleon) or King would go to war, declare any dissent to be treason, restrict the people's liberties, and bankrupt the nation financing foreign campaigns. That is why the President of the United States cannot declare war under the Constitution. By the way, the above historical pattern was also put in place and executed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and now Barack Obama is left with trying to clean it up.

In order to allow the nation's military to operate "police" actions around the world, the Congress and the President entered into something of a compromise. The Congress didn't want to let the President act without its authority, and the President didn't want to admit that he knew he was without the authority, without the "war powers." So they entered into a compromise known as the War Powers Act. Under the War Powers Act, the Congress provides a limited declaration of war, and requires that the President update them according to various time lines. Honestly, when the Nazi Chimp came to power and September 11th hit, I don't know what they did with it. There may be a throwaway provision in some of the budgetary awards Congress issues to support the various wars.

But all of this is to say that, no, without a declaration of war, I don't think targetted assassinations of individuals is legal.

[StarfarerBill]

23. I thought as much myself, but I'm glad to have it spelled out more knowledgeably.

The pro-war bunch will continue to ride the Congressional authorization and our de facto presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan to another mass slaughter and ignominious defeat. All we can do is continue to let them know that not all citizens are blind to their surrender to the Pentagon and the MIC.

You know, for those here in DU who are pro-war and -escalation, your observations here would make a good separate post; to point out to them that our wars in Central Asia are not only wrong, but illegal. That might actually make an impression on a few of them.

Thanks again.

[hack89]

29. One complicating issue is that US drones are based in Pakistan

and have the Pakistani governments permission. That in and of itself would make the attacks legal.

As to the Geneva conventions they are explicitly not extended to those who engage in acts outside the generally accepted rules of war. I am not certain that the Geneva conventions apply to the Taliban or Al Qaeda because they certainly do not adhere to the Geneva conventions themselves.

In an case, it is clear to me that the Geneva conventions were written in an era that did not foresee global extra-state terrorism and that there are some gray areas.

[Downwinder]

15. No better than the 9/11 hijackers. n/t

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

27. Really?

Drone attacks, which are selective and intended to have a minimal number of civilian casualties, are "no better than" attacks where people turn passenger planes full of civilians into missiles, sending them into buildings full of other civilians in an effort to create a maximum civilian kill count? Are you sure about that?

[hack89]

28. I don't think the Geneva conventions of war extend

to those who engage in acts outside the generally accepted rules of war. It hard to argue that the Taliban or Al Qaeda embrace and obey the Geneva conventions.

I suspect that this is a topic that will employ a generation of lawyers.

[FarLeftFist]

11. Are they sure it wasn't 30 dead?

[StarfarerBill]

14. I thought about that myself as I was posting this.

I imagine this was only an initial report.

[FiveGoodMen]

16. I wonder how many Number 2's they killed this time...

[benld74]

17. THOSE MISSLES cost BOOCOO bucks more than a DRONE, but the drone can be hacked!

[hack89]

31. Missile cost $68K, Predator cost $10 Million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-9_Reaper

They can't be hacked when the signal is encrypted.

[Mari333]

21. god, we are evil bastards.

[madmx19790]

30. how long will this go on?