US guilty self-prescribed "International Terrorism" - Secret 'Drone War' kill 3,000 Pakistanis

"International Law: The First Casualty of the Drone War"

Based upon these uncontroversial and universal standards of law it appears beyond any reasonable legal objection that the United States in its nearly four year policy of bombing Pakistan with unmanned aerial vehicles is guilty of a very large amount of war crimes, including failure to take proper precautions in the interest of protecting civilian life, failing to discriminate between military and civilian objects, disproportionate attacks, extrajudicial executions, committing acts of hostility and violence against places of worship, direct attacks on the civilian population and individual civilians, willful attacks on civilians seeking to provide assistance to the wounded, and making civilian objects the object of attack and reprisal.

Furthermore, using the official legal standards of the United States government as articulated in the U.S. code—legislation which has passed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate—it appears that the drone strikes would be technically classified as “international terrorism” which refers to “activities [transcending national boundaries] that— involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State…or that appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction [or] assassination….”

Recalling the judgment of the International Criminal Court which ruled that indiscriminate attacks qualify as direct attacks against civilians and recognizing the nature of the strikes... the actions of the U.S. government in respect to its bombing campaign in Pakistan appear to have been often intended to intimidate or coerce civilian populations and to influence the conduct of the Pakistani government through violence. It is also certain that indiscriminate attacks, direct attacks on civilians, and extrajudicial assassinations would be clear violations of the criminal laws of the United States or of any other State.

In other words, USA leads the world in the war on terror but is guilty of an ongoing "International Terrorism" campaign past present and future.

the United Nations and other International orgs have warned USA since 2010 regarding its illegal use of drones



how does USA get away with this? supposedly the "CIA" orders the drone attacks, and the CIA is not bound by laws of war or the Geneva Convention thus cannot be brought to account for its actions. the problem is, who is America fooling? the CIA does not have an army nor warcraft. so the CIA is pulling a fast one on Americans, Pakistanis, Yemenis, and who knows who next, by masquerading as the untouchable independent police state now thru its drones which are really US unmanned military and thus nevertheless, illegal once you remove the immune international terrorist CIA cells, doing business as 'al Qaeda' as well as US military personnel DU bombardments, & their unmanned drones.

US has since moved onto drone attacks also in other countries, including Libya and Yemen... where next?

last week the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit with federal court demanding to force the Obama administration release intelligence and other records pertaining to the drone attack in Yemen, in which three US citizens died last year:

"The government's self-serving attitude toward transparency and disclosure is unacceptable," the ACLU said in a statement.

Source: rt.com...

meanwhile, the US Drone strikes expand onto Yemen - make that onto Yemeni CHILDREN :



who are the terrorists - that is, who are behind al Qaeda, really?



news flash drones - 30,000 of them - already also being used domestically in USA including to "help arrest US citizens"

Obamas "peace prize" needs to be taken back.
2nd line.