US Drone Strikes May Break International Law: UN

US Drone Strikes May Break International Law: UN

rawstory.com...

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.

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..."

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on (10/28/09) by AllSeeingI]

I never really thought about the Predator Drones being in Violation of international Humanitarian law.... UNTIL NOW.

When you stand back and look at the operation, someone in a room is pushing a button on a guy. A suspect.

Someone who is SUSPECTED of a crime... should be brought to trial.

In this so-called "war on terror" we cannot simply use it as a guise to push the button on anyone we want!

If we do, WHERE does it end?

If the war on terrorism comes to the USA, and such drones are used. IS IT OK THEN? Local police forces are already starting to employ these drones as surveillance tools. Who is to stop them from pushing the button on someone they want taken out?
Where is the LEGAL oversight?

If it is not OK HERE, why is it OK THERE?

[edit on (10/28/09) by AllSeeingI]

Does this mean that Obama may be a war criminal?

You raise a lot of interesting questions.

Who enforces international law? Who determines what violations of international laws are?

I seem to hear about international law being broken all the time, but most of these claims come and go with the wind.

Thought provoking thread you have.

What is the difference between firing missiles and firing artillery into certain areas? Both seem to be shooting at a suspected target.

Flagged

reply to post by AllSeeingI


"WAR" is not a "crime," per se...

And.... if you want to go down that road:

It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform and fighting in that uniform, is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages.

en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 28-10-2009 by RoofMonkey]

reply to post by RoofMonkey


True.
War is NOT a crime.
But have we declared war?

A war on terror is a never ending and BORDER-LESS state of war against anyone which can be attached to terror or anti-government sentiment.

As for wearing uniforms. They dont have uniforms. Usually these strikes take place on a building, camp, vehicle, or structure of somekind. I bet most of the time the images sent back from the attacking drone do not visually include a guy holding a bomb with intent to commit terror.

Holding an AK, in a country like Afghanistan, is no more a threat than a hunter with his 30-06 in a field in the USA. It is normal.

Originally posted by jam321
Does this mean that Obama may be a war criminal?

I doubt it.

The ones guilty of war crimes would be the CIA managers and high level military officials who sign-off and authorize individual strikes based on poor and incomplete information.

I am not trying to advocate a position that ALL drone strikes are illegal.

But I sure as hell think some of them are.

One illegal strike is ONE too many.

It turns the USA into the BAD GUY. The real terrorist.

We cant just go around popping anyone we suspect of being a terrorist without just cause and due LEGAL process.

[edit on (10/28/09) by AllSeeingI]

You have a good point. I recall reading about numerous Afghani villages that were targetted by US drones. In many of these villages there were no militia men to be found, the dead were civilians, sometimes whole families. These people were trying to live their lives in their broken country, until unmanned drones indiscriminately slaughtered them. Obama seems to favor this 'strategy' and even approved drone strikes hours after entering office. It is a callous application of firepower, morally repugnant and indefensible, yet it continues. Are civilian lives not worth the extra cost of sending in troops?

Originally posted by YourForever
Are civilian lives not worth the extra cost of sending in troops?

A moral, ethical, humanist would say that LIFE is the ultimate cost and PRICELESS when it comes to actual monetary value.

This is how I feel. We cannot stoop to the Terrorist's level. We MUST not.

We try to ease the our own human cost of war by implementing technology to separate us from the frontlines. But this desensitizes us to war and makes it EASIER for us to war. It makes killing easier.

War should not be easy. Killing should not be easy.

Justice is hard. Morality is hard.

What is hard is good. What is easy, well you get the idea.

Then ponder this for comparison...

Dresden

Originally posted by RoofMonkey
Then ponder this for comparison...

Dresden

Are you trying to justify killing by citing more killing?!

I think both situations are an abomination to humankind.

I certainly wouldn't doubt it...the only problem is that international law has always been pretty darn toothless except when the violating part loses a war.

reply to post by honkusbobo


Very true. I think what I found most thought-provoking about this is how we are in a transition from human warfare to techno-warfare.

As we move more and more into an age of techno warfare... how do we keep the ethical and humanity about us when all it takes is a button push from a computer on the other side of the globe... to smite thine enemy without ever seeing the face or shape of a human or the bloody aftermath.

BLEEP..... mission accomplished.

Reminds me of that NAVY commercial which has been on TV lately. As of yet I have been unable to find a copy of that video on the web. It is the one where they are "WORKING EVERYDAY TO UN-MAN THE FRONT-LINES" and has a bunch of robot type warfare segments...

at the end of the video an explosion and a bleep.

Well that BLEEP is death.

What I think this NAVY recruitment video is trying to convey is: "dont worry about getting hurt or even being uncomfortable. We will sit you at a computer like you are playing a video game and let you bleep our enemies to death."

[edit on (10/28/09) by AllSeeingI]

The other question is how effective they are.

I will have to research for the link and edit it in later, but I have read that they are not as effective a tool as we've been led to believe.

Drone hits in pakistan

Of the 60 cross-border predator strikes carried out by the Afghanistan-based American drones in Pakistan between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, only 10 were able to hit their actual targets, killing 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders, besides perishing 687 innocent Pakistani civilians. The success percentage of the US predator strikes thus comes to not more than six per cent.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by Seiko]

reply to post by AllSeeingI


I think a lot, perhaps even most of warfare will be replaced by remote control systems. However, you can never replace the infantryman. There is a basic need for a pair of boots on the ground and with those boots a "flexible mission platform" (homo sapiens sapiens) that can flexibly adapt to just about any situation.

And, isn't it ironic that the not-always-so-great U.S. of A. is getting humiliated on multiple fronts by those of a much inferior technology level?

Found it!!!

Working Everyday to Un-Man The Front-Lines....
BLEEP = DEATH


Help if anyone can find a better version of this video. Having trouble finding it.

[edit on (10/28/09) by AllSeeingI]

International law? The US doesn't give a rat's ass about international law.

Any country that murders thousands of it's own citizens in false flag terrorist attacks, starts two wars that have killed millions of civilians and tortures "enemy combatants" who for the most part are completely innocent has absolutely no regard for it's own constitution and domestic laws, let alone international law.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Glad to see ya Fleece. I always enjoy your presence in my threads.

I agree with you. The point of this thread I suppose is less in trying to get the US arrested, and more an attempt to spur thought provoking discussion about the ever evolving nature of dehumanizing warfare.

I AM NOT A BLEEP!

Originally posted by AllSeeingI
I never really thought about the Predator Drones being in Violation of international Humanitarian law.... UNTIL NOW.

When you stand back and look at the operation, someone in a room is pushing a button on a guy. A suspect.

Someone who is SUSPECTED of a crime... should be brought to trial.

In this so-called "war on terror" we cannot simply use it as a guise to push the button on anyone we want!

As if the USA would care.

reply to post by AllSeeingI

Hi ASI,

Thanks for the kind words. I've been looking for a video I recently saw on another forum. It was footage of an Apache gunship in Iraq shooting the living $#!& out of everything. Really unbelievable stuff, indiscriminately rocketing and strafing everything it flew over. Reminded me of Vietnam. No f'ing way was it directed solely toward al-CIAduh or "insurgents", who are probably nothing more than Iraqi civilians pissed off because of all the death and destruction they've endured during a seemingly endless "war on terror." Except we're the real terrorists.

If any other occupying army did to America what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'll bet most of us would become "insurgents" too.

The USA (of which I am a loyal citizen) does not care if these strikes are against international law as it feels it is protecting it's citizens. The terrorists you are worrying about obey no laws at all so I do not feel sorry for them when a Predator or a soldier kills one (or several) of them.
We need more Predators patrolling the sky knocking these killers off before they can attack the USA within its borders. I have not problem with that at all. Happy hunting!