UN: Obama’s Drone Program Violates International Law

[ScienceRocks]

He lives to kill.

If you guys don't understand this yet well let someone help you and it won't be Jehovah.

Obama is the king of nuking families signing off on so called terrorists.

He loves it. Libs love it. Just kill families on drone strikes. You fucking liberals just love it eh?

Some how I think there are those who believe if we become like the terrorists then we win.

We're taking out leadership in the same way we would with piloted airplanes.

Nothing has charged. George Bush was the most bloody president since Nixon.

 

[Freewill]

I support the use of drones by Bush and Obama's admins.

Then you also supported the Iraq war?

I support the use of drones but not unfettered as is being done today.

 

[Freewill]

The thread title says:

UN: Obama’s Drone Program Violates International Law

but the content of the 'supporting' article says:



"A United Nations investigation has so far identified 33 drone strikes around the world that have resulted in civilian casualties and may have violated international humanitarian law....

and

“While the fact that civilians have been killed or injured does not necessarily point to a violation of international humanitarian law, it undoubtedly raises issues of accountability and transparency,” the study notes."

Why is it so hard for posters to be honest on this forum?

Sorry, "The Guardian" is not a definitive source for such a matter.

Yes, the OP used the source - it does not mean that the source is correct.

Incidentally, I can say that another country "violated" international law, but what kind of admonishment is that? Who makes that particular call?

Here from the UN news service:

United Nations News Centre - International community must heed Pakistan's concerns over drones, says UN expert

15 March 2013 – The United States' ongoing drone campaign in Pakistan is a violation of the South Asian nation's sovereignty, as it is being conducted without the consent of its elected representatives or that of the legitimate Government, a United Nations independent expert has warned.

In a statement issued yesterday at the end of a three-day visit to Pakistan, where he inspected the impact of drone warfare on the local civilian population, the Special Rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, Ben Emmerson, reiterated Islamabad's condemnation of the use of drones over its territory and urged an end to what he described as "forcible military interference."

"The position of the Government of Pakistan is quite clear. It does not consent to the use of drones by the United States on its territory and it considers this to be a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity," Mr. Emmerson stated.

 

[ScienceRocks]

So we should stop taking out terrorist leaders? Watch the republicans flip and go after how soft Obama is on al Qaeda.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Fuck international law. Drop drones on all those terrorists. It's one of the rare programs that Obama has pursued that I agree with.

OK, I can go with that, only who gets to pick whom gets killed? Do you really trust the CIA that much?

I realize I am on the very unpopular side of this issue. But it just seems to me that there is just too much of this type of killing being done in the world today. Before WW2 the targeting of civilians was NEVER even considered in "modern" warfare. Now civilians are treated the collateral damage. I think we have come down as a society.

??? We used to bomb entire cities carpet bomb style. Don't know why you think civilians are worse off now.

As to the trust issue I would rather trust them than wait for the enemy to show up on our soil as they are starting to do now.

So a few dozen supposed civilians get caught in the crossfire. Better than a few hundred or thousand Americans in a US city.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So we should stop taking out terrorist leaders? Watch the republicans flip and go after how soft Obama is on al Qaeda.

You should just STFU. Except for a VERY SMALL few in Congress the GOP has no problems with sending a drone up the ass of a terrorist.

 

[Freewill]

Leg hump alert^^ but back to the original topic - drones only create more terrorists a great deal of the time.

Case in point, do you think that the killing of the 16 year old innocent America stopped the recruiting of terrorists or helped? How they use drones is actually quite troubling in my opinion. In some cases they blow up the suspected terrorists car then wait until help arrives and blow them up also. We also pay informants to plant GPS devices on suspected terrorist's cars. Do you think that those planting the GPS device are too picky?

 

[Freewill]

Fuck international law. Drop drones on all those terrorists. It's one of the rare programs that Obama has pursued that I agree with.

OK, I can go with that, only who gets to pick whom gets killed? Do you really trust the CIA that much?

I realize I am on the very unpopular side of this issue. But it just seems to me that there is just too much of this type of killing being done in the world today. Before WW2 the targeting of civilians was NEVER even considered in "modern" warfare. Now civilians are treated the collateral damage. I think we have come down as a society.

??? We used to bomb entire cities carpet bomb style. Don't know why you think civilians are worse off now.

As to the trust issue I would rather trust them than wait for the enemy to show up on our soil as they are starting to do now.

So a few dozen supposed civilians get caught in the crossfire. Better than a few hundred or thousand Americans in a US city.

You are repeating what I said, we started war on civilians during WW2. Prior to that wars were conducted mostly in fields away from civilians and civilians certainly were not targeted with carpet bombing. As we were bombing civilian populations there were protests of war crimes. Not sure during actual war that is the right thing to do but this drone program is different.

I would agree with you if I really believed by acting like them we are not just recruiting more of them and giving them reason to join.

 

[Freewill]

So what's the Punishment if the USA does NOT abide? We no longer have the right to police the rest of the world?

Awesomesauce!

(does happy dance)

POLICE the world, I am all for it. Use the rule of law to POLICE the world, go for it. But to allow the CIA and one man, whether Bush or Obama, to be judge jury and executioner just doesn't seem to ring true to a free country ruled by law. What difference is there to the drone program and Gitmo? Or the British in 1772 forcibly taking away colonialists without due process?

Sounds a lot like government interference AND big spending, to me.

Well I just hope if the police ever drag one of us away for drug possession they just don't throw us in jail and save money by not having a trial.

 

[Freewill]

What if Mexico used a drone and blew up a car of who they thought was full of suspected terrorists in Downtown Dallas. In so doing they killed 10 civilians, what would our reaction be?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Freewill has the same obsessive/compulsive disorder that healthmyths has.

Enough already.

We are in a declared war with with Al Qaeda. Unless international law prohibits a country from going to war in self defense against an enemy agressor,

then of course we're not in violation of international law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The thread title says:

UN: Obama’s Drone Program Violates International Law

but the content of the 'supporting' article says:



"A United Nations investigation has so far identified 33 drone strikes around the world that have resulted in civilian casualties and may have violated international humanitarian law....

and

“While the fact that civilians have been killed or injured does not necessarily point to a violation of international humanitarian law, it undoubtedly raises issues of accountability and transparency,” the study notes."

Why is it so hard for posters to be honest on this forum?

Most internet site that have blogs require the article title to be posted as it appears on the linked site. I agree that the title is hyperbole but that does not change the questions as to the legality. As for international law, what was the Nuremburg trials all about?

As for your last question I have ferreted out your mis-statements, to be kind, on several occasions. You know as well as I if I had changed the title you would have seen that and still made the claim of a lie. I didn't make up the title of the article but you made up the lie that by posting the true title I lied making you once again not telling the truth or just not very perceptive.

Maybe, if you had a legitimate argument, you wouldn't have to resort to posting articles that themselves are lies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I support the use of drones by Bush and Obama's admins.

Then you also supported the Iraq war?

I support the use of drones but not unfettered as is being done today.

Nope, never supported the Iraqi Invasion. But I supported our troops so they could come home safely from that abomination, and thus I supported the use of drones.

You?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Freewill, stop the false equivalencies and come up with something worthwhile, please.

 

[Freewill]

Freewill has the same obsessive/compulsive disorder that healthmyths has.

Enough already.

We are in a declared war with with Al Qaeda. Unless international law prohibits a country from going to war in self defense against an enemy agressor,

then of course we're not in violation of international law.

That's pretty funny considering you used the article to point out that the title was actually hyperbole which all news agencies do. No the article was not dishonest, you are. As I also posted, both the ACLU and a UN official said that what we are doing was a violation of international law. So again no lie, except from you. Try again.

 

[blackhawk]

I have no problem with the drone strikes against suspected terrorist I will go after Obama on things I feel he has messed up on but I will give him credit on things I feel he has gotten right and the drone program is one of those.

 

[Freewill]

Freewill has the same obsessive/compulsive disorder that healthmyths has.

Enough already.

We are in a declared war with with Al Qaeda. Unless international law prohibits a country from going to war in self defense against an enemy agressor,

then of course we're not in violation of international law.

If truly enough already then go prowl some other thread. But you can't cause you know that Obama is wrong and you must defend him. Bombing a sovereign country who is an ally without their consent is against international law. Please don't tell me now that the liberals no longer recognize the same international law that they wanted Bush tried. Hypocrites and I am proving it with this thread.

How about this boy that we the US killed without due process or doesn't that matter to the liberal Obama defending left?

Here is the excuse Gibbs gave, and remember the US killed his father two weeks earlier:

Robert Gibbs Says Anwar al-Awlaki's Son, Killed By Drone Strike, Needs 'Far More Responsible Father'

Here is Obama's reaction:

Obama 'Surprised,' 'Upset' When Anwar Al-Awlaki's Teenage Son Was Killed By U.S. Drone Strike

To date, there has been no evidence linking Abdulrahman to any terrorist plot. Anonymous officials initially claimed he was with their actual target, Egyptian al Qaeda operative Ibrahim al-Banna. They also mistakenly stated Abdulrahman's age to be 21, leading the al-Awlaki family to release the boy's birth certificate.

"He had been born in Denver, said the certificate from the Colorado health department," The New York Times reported. "In the United States, at the time his government’s missile killed him, the teenager would have just reached driving age."


So Gibbs is mocks the boy and Obama didn't know. They got the information all wrong and killed the young man but apparently no one cares about people in the Middle East.

Drone attacks in Pakistan are counterproductive, says report

Fears that US agents pay informers to attach electronic tags to the homes of suspected militants in Pakistan haunt the tribal districts, according to the study. "[In] Waziristan … residents are gripped by rumours that paid CIA informants have been planting tiny silicon-chip homing devices that draw the drones.

"Many of the Waziris interviewed spoke of a constant fear of being tagged with a chip by a neighbor or someone else who works for either Pakistan or the US, and of the fear of being falsely accused of spying by local Taliban."

Reprieve's director, Clive Stafford Smith, said: "An entire region is being terrorised by the constant threat of death from the skies. Their way of life is collapsing: kids are too terrified to go to school, adults are afraid to attend weddings, funerals, business meetings, or anything that involves gathering in groups.

 

[tinydancer]

Join Al Qaeda or Taliban = become the enemy.

How hard is this to understand?

Do you really believe that these people couldn't be killed by PILOTED airplanes or destroyer missiles.

Matthew please tell me someone on the planet is paying you to be the dumb fuck on the board.

 

[tinydancer]

Ok with all of you who are ok with drone strikes.

Let's look at it from this perspective. Pakistan gets the capability to launch drone strikes against suspected terrorists in America.

You're just having a bbq when Billy Bob your neighbor a suspected terrorist gets nuked beside you taking out you, your trailer and your family.

Surely you wouldn't be a happy camper would you now?

Since when does it become the right thing to do to blow up wedding parties because there might be one suspected terrorist among the guest list?

Oh, when the President is a Democrat.

Pardon me.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Do we really trust a guy that didn't tell us the truth about HIS signature legislation?

Do we really trust an agency that didn't give us ample warning about 9/11 or Benghazi?

When in the hell did the law change that we could kill folks posing no direct threat or maybe no threat at all? We don't know if they were a threat or not because the rule of law was never applied. We have to hear this from foreign news services which should have not axe to grind.


The Guardian reported:

UN: Obama?s Drone Program Violates International Law | The Gateway Pundit

A United Nations investigation has so far identified 33 drone strikes around the world that have resulted in civilian casualties and may have violated international humanitarian law.

The report by the UN’s special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, Ben Emmerson QC, calls on the US to declassify information about operations co-ordinated by the CIA and clarify its positon on the legality of unmanned aerial attacks.

Published ahead of a debate on the use of remotely piloted aircraft, at the UN general assembly in New York next Friday, the 22-page document examines incidents in Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan and Gaza.

It has been published to coincide with a related report released earlier on Thursday by Professor Christof Heyns, the UN’s special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, which warned that the technology was being misused as a form of “global policing”.

Emmerson, who travelled to Islamabad for his investigation, said the Pakistan ministry of foreign affairs has records of as many as 330 drone strikes in the country’s north-western tribal areas since 2004. Up to 2,200 people have been killed – of whom at least 400 were civilians – according to the Pakistan government.

In Yemen, Emmerson’s report says that as many as 58 civilians are thought to have been killed in attacks by UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles). “While the fact that civilians have been killed or injured does not necessarily point to a violation of international humanitarian law, it undoubtedly raises issues of accountability and transparency,” the study notes.

Fuck the UN.

If countries are worried about civilians getting killed, then THEY need to kill the terrorist before we find them.


As long as he doesn't kill any more American citizens w/o trial, even liberals should be ok with this.