View Full Version : Legality/legitimacy of drones


ComradePashtun
04-23-2011, 08:58 PM
Why is Pakistan not officially raising the issue of drones as violating it sovereignty from a legal perspective?


So according to internationally accepted law and norm, is the U.S. really violating Pakistani sovereigty when the drones are being carried out on non-state actors within Pakistan that it is either not-willing or unable to control which is crossing over to Afghanistan who carry out terrorim and violates that state's sovereignty?

U.S. under U.N. mandate, are protecting the borders of Afghanistan are either using drones as measure "defending" Afghanistan's security and sovereignty or are carrying the bombing to pre-empt potential threat.



So accordingly does Pakistan have locus-standi to raise the issue within the international law and norms that is concern to state sovereignty?


I am aware of the civilian deaths too, which is not acceptable but I jsut want us to discuss the legality or legitimacy of the issue from United Nation recognised criterai of state sovereignty, which people can go and check in U.N. documents.


Why has Pakistan consented to usage of drones in Pakistan in the first place? Read Obama's War, where Zardari says that what ever is reaction in Pakistan is just politics which will be handled and the U.S. should not worry about it. Zardari, I mean the [legally represented] president of Pakistan.

Any thought comrades?...

faye
04-23-2011, 09:04 PM
i hardly think america asks for permission, probably just blackmail of the government but officially there should be a concensus by the members of congress or whatever it is called in pakistan.

ghundal
04-23-2011, 09:07 PM
The UN is protecting Afghanistan's sovereignty? Is this what you believe? please define terrorism. Also, which non-state actors are you talking about? Pakistan gave the green light a long time ago for the drone attacks.

Keep in mind: US=UN=nato

ComradePashtun
04-23-2011, 09:08 PM
That doesn't answer the question(s) I am raising Faye, with all due respect.

ComradePashtun
04-23-2011, 09:14 PM
The UN is protecting Afghanistan's sovereignty? Is this what you believe? please define terrorism. Pakistan gave the green light a long time ago for the drone attacks.

Keep in mind: US=UN=nato

Ok, so why is Kiyani asking the U.S. to stop them. I am just asking you to discuss it from the perspective of international norm and law where a state is either unable or un-willing to prevent non-state actors within its border that violate it's neighbour's sovereignty? So Pakistan cannot raise the issue of state soverignty when it doesn't or cannot protect it itself and the authorities from Afghanistan are obliged to protect its soverignty and take action that is defensive or pre-emptive.

So why does Pakistan allow terrorist and non-state outfits violate Afghanistan's sovereignty?

Like it or hate it, the U.S. presence has the U.N. stamp.

BLS_1919v2.0
04-23-2011, 09:14 PM
Why is Pakistan not officially raising the issue of drones as violating it sovereignty from a legal perspective?



So according to internationally accepted law and norm, is the U.S. really violating Pakistani sovereigty when the drones are being carried out on non-state actors within Pakistan that it is either not-willing or unable to control which is crossing over to Afghanistan who carry out terrorim and violates that state's sovereignty?

U.S. under U.N. mandate, are protecting the borders of Afghanistan are either using drones are "defending" Afghanistan's security and sovereignty or are carrying the bombing to pre-empt potential threat.



So accordingly does Pakistan have locus-standi to raise the issue within the international law and norms that is concern to state sovereignty?


I am aware of the civilian deaths too, which is not acceptable but I jsut want us to discuss the legality or legitimacy of the issue from United Nation recognised criterai of state sovereignty, which people can go and check in U.S. documents.


Why has Pakistan consented to usage of drones in Pakistan in the first place? Read Obama's War, where Zardari says that what ever is reaction in Pakistan is just politics which will be handled and the U.S. should not worry about it. Zardari, I mean the [legally represented] president of Pakistan.

Any thought comrades?...

Khaana the issue of FATA is a grey area due to its historical treaties with the British. Anyways that is beside the point. Pakistan has tacit agreements with US and are paid a hefty sum. However they have to set up their ghairat brigade within Pakistan. They can't openly tell their people that they aren't part and parcel of the deal...so they have to build this hype up. It is just one of those typical episodes of "ghairat brigade" barking similar to the Afia case, or Raymond davis.

ghundal
04-23-2011, 09:15 PM
it is illegal, but Pakistan allows it

ComradePashtun
04-23-2011, 09:18 PM
it is illegal, but Pakistan allows it

Case closed, ghundak khan ghundala.:lal8:

emkhan
04-23-2011, 09:20 PM
Actually Pakistani ISI and army is supporting it.
When they don't support something then they don't wait for parliament approval or any other authority. It is just like throwing dust in our eyes.

ComradePashtun
04-23-2011, 09:20 PM
Khaana the issue of FATA is a grey area due to its historical treaties with the British. Anyways that is beside the point. Pakistan has tacit agreements with US and are paid a hefty sum. However they have to set up their ghairat brigade within Pakistan. They can't openly tell their people that they aren't part and parcel of the deal...so they have to build this hype up. It is just one of those typical episodes of "ghairat brigade" barking similar to the Afia case, or Raymond davis.

Aptly put bro, from another angle though. So it is just the disgraceful Paki politics... sad, only our people are the ones who pay the price.

ghundal
04-23-2011, 09:21 PM
Ok, so why is Kiyani asking the U.S. to stop them. I am just asking you to discuss it from the perspective of international norm and law where a state is either unable or un-willing non-state actors that violate it's neighbour's sovereignty? So Pakistan cannot raise the issue of state soverignty when it doesn't or cannot protect it itself and the authorities from Afghanistan are obliged to protect its soverignty and take action that is defence or pre-emptive.

So why does Pakistan allow terrorist and non-state outfits violate Afghanistan's sovereignty?

Like it or hate it, the U.S. presence has the U.N. stamp.


Un lost its significance as everyone realized it is a mouthpiece for the US. Kiyani is saying that due to the Pakistani publics opposition to it. Basically, Pakistan will now do US job of drone attacks. And the Pakistani public will be ok with it because Pakistan will say they are killing extremists. As you know, Pashtuns on both sides do not recognize the durrand line, and so crossing it whether it be for a brief run in the park, or to help their brothers in any way is a non-issue for them.

Since the US is mostly at war with the Pashtuns of Afghanistan, these Pashtuns will continue to cross over. Its simple, and not complex at all. Why is US violating Afghan sovereignty?

Now, the US putting blame on only this area as the reason they are being defeated is ridiculous. What about the strong resistance they are facing in areas within Afghanistan?

The war is against Pashtuns on both sides.

ghundal
04-23-2011, 09:26 PM
please define terrorist.

The Afghans crossing over are fighting against US terrorism against their people, then there are the people in Waziristan who are fighting against Pakistan at the same time.

The only terrorists activities within the region are the airstrikes against Afghans, night raids, and drone attacks.

ComradePashtun
04-23-2011, 09:38 PM
Un lost its significance as everyone realized it is a mouthpiece for the US. Kiyani is saying that due to the Pakistani publics opposition to it. Basically, Pakistan will now do US job of drone attacks. And the Pakistani public will be ok with it because Pakistan will say they are killing extremists. As you know, Pashtuns on both sides do not recognize the durrand line, and so crossing it whether it be for a brief run in the park, or to help their brothers in any way is a non-issue for them.

Since the US is mostly at war with the Pashtuns of Afghanistan, these Pashtuns will continue to cross over. Its simple, and not complex at all. Why is US violating Afghan sovereignty?

Now, the US putting blame on only this area as the reason they are being defeated is ridiculous. What about the strong resistance they are facing in areas within Afghanistan?

The war is against Pashtuns on both sides.

Flase arguement, ghundak khan. I disagree.

The border between the countries are delintated and demarcated. The rest is Pakistan's job. You as Pakistani ghundak khan know this.

The U.S. because of Al-Qaida attacked Afghanistan and is now under the U.N. santion and partnership and with the consent of Afghans stabilising Afghanistan. That you should leave to Afghans as a matter of concern.

The U.S. is not in war with Pashtuns and I completely disagree with the notion. On the other hand Pakistan has literally destroyed large portion of Pashtunkhwa by supporting all sorts of monsters and terrorists for its strategic depth in Afghanistan. Seems Pakistan cares about Afghanistan more than ghundak khan ghundal. lol Swat, Wazisitan etc. Pakistan has done more disservice to Pashtuns than U.S. But you're ghundak khan.. so you wouldn't know.

Admin Khan
04-23-2011, 09:39 PM
Why should they? They are raking in the $, and the military technology which will assist them in flexing their muscles once the USA/Nato departs from the region. In reality, all they are losing is some spera Pukhtuns for a ridiculous sum of money. Sounds fine to them, wait till they lose a loved one.

ComradePashtun
04-23-2011, 09:41 PM
please define terrorist.

The Afghans crossing over are fighting against US terrorism against their people, then there are the people in Waziristan who are fighting against Pakistan at the same time.

The only terrorists activities within the region are the airstrikes against Afghans, night raids, and drone attacks.

Please remain consistent with the topic at hand. No derailing. That can be discussed in a another thread.

Why is Pakistan allowing non-state Afghan actors to use its soil for launching attacks on Afghanistan?

ghundal
04-23-2011, 09:47 PM
Flase arguement, ghundak khan. I disagree.

The border between the countries are delintated and demarcated. The rest is Pakistan's job. You as Pakistani ghundak khan know this.

The U.S. because of Al-Qaida's attacked Afghanistan and is now under the U.N. santion and partnership and with the consent of Afghans stabilising Afghanistan. That you should leave to Afghans as a matter of concern.

The U.S. is not in war with Pashtuns and I completely disagree with the notion. On the other hand Pakistan has literally destroyed large portion of Pashtunkhwa by supporting all sorts of monsters and terrorists so for its strategic depth in Afghanistan. Swat, Wazisitan etc. Pakistan has done more disservice to Pashtuns that U.S. But you're ghundak khan.. so you wouldn't know.

this is a fools talk. The US is at war with Pashtuns, but fortunately are losing :)

They are attacking Pashtuns in mostly the rural areas of Afghanistan where the resistance is strong. Then they are conducting drone attacks against Pashtuns in the tribal areas.

Are you actually attributing a nation wide resistance to a few people in Waziristan? Are you saying that Afghans are pro-invader?

Are you meaning to say that a Kandahari boy whose family is killed will not pick up arms and fight?

Lastly, have any of your relatives been killed by US forces in Kabul?

ghundal
04-23-2011, 09:50 PM
Please remain consistent with the topic at hand. No derailing. That can be discussed in a another thread.

Why is Pakistan allowing non-state Afghan actors to use its soil for launching attacks on Afghanistan?

No, this is related to the topic. Have any of your relatives been killed by US forces in Kabul? I hope you answer this question. Thanks

Pakistan has nothing to do with the nationwide resistance. I am sure the resistance organization in Afghanistan have logistical support from several regional countries whose interest are against the US, and most importantly, they have the support of the Afghan people (check the polls-not the fake ones)

Why is US and ANA fighting against the Afghan civilians? Why do they have bases in Afghanistan?

BLS_1919v2.0
04-23-2011, 09:51 PM
Aptly put bro, from another angle though. So it is just the disgraceful Paki politics... sad, only our people are the ones who pay the price.

Unfortunately we have been paying for this for a very long time. I think the drones and the whole FATA issue has to be resolved, but not by initially eliminating drones. It is a smokescreen. The first issue is resolving Afghanistan's issue of governance and that can only be done by stability and promoting reconciliation. Second the FCR has to be revoked, and it should be granted a special status within Pashtunkhwa (ideally the two Pashtun belts unified and given more measures of autonomy). If these are not resolved then our areas are stuck between their typical ddaz ddoz ghairath brigade, and NATO's own interest (lets add the regional powers in as well).

What really bothers me is the narrative is being hijacked by this type of disgraceful politics (as you put it). That is an issue. If you looked at the media in Pakistan, they have hijacked the narrative to the extent that the real issues are ignored (in the first paragraph) and the other stuff is being put forward. Look at the PTI rally in Hayatabad. They are at best a tiny party and have almost little relevance in Pashtunkhwa, but this joint rally will be hyped up as a major thing. That is worrisome.

ComradePashtun
04-23-2011, 09:59 PM
ghundak khan Pakistani,

No playing around with sentiments and I am no gulleble. Leave it, seriously.

You need to define what "losing" means for you and the U.S. If you ask me, I would say U.S. has achieved its MAIN strategic objective/goal in Afghanistan and now ending the war, in which obliterating Taliban never was the goal and nor it remains, is a little shilly shally depending what would happen regionally. You wouldn't know, or may be you exactly do..

Yes, there are innocents who are killed which in turn fuels the insurgency, this is a valid point.

Pashtuns, most of them, majority of them are better of now than they were before. I am aware of the dark side of this war, which I was never in favour of, but I am with choice of facing the reality in which the best way of survival and politics is the art of the possible.

U.S. is not in war with Pashtuns, I DISAGREE!

ComradePashtun
04-23-2011, 10:04 PM
Unfortunately we have been paying for this for a very long time. I think the drones and the whole FATA issue has to be resolved, but not by initially eliminating drones. It is a smokescreen. The first issue is resolving Afghanistan's issue of governance and that can only be done by stability and promoting reconciliation. Second the FCR has to be revoked, and it should be granted a special status within Pashtunkhwa (ideally the two Pashtun belts unified and given more measures of autonomy). If these are not resolved then our areas are stuck between their typical ddaz ddoz ghairath brigade, and NATO's own interest (lets add the regional powers in as well).

What really bothers me is the narrative is being hijacked by this type of disgraceful politics (as you put it). That is an issue. If you looked at the media in Pakistan, they have hijacked the narrative to the extent that the real issues are ignored (in the first paragraph) and the other stuff is being put forward. Look at the PTI rally in Hayatabad. They are at best a tiny party and have almost little relevance in Pashtunkhwa, but this joint rally will be hyped up as a major thing. That is worrisome.

You are so damn right bro. Nicely put, thank you.

BLS_1919v2.0
04-23-2011, 10:17 PM
Manana wrora. At the end of the day, time will tell how everything turns out. Although I think Pakistan has shown its cards a little too early and a little too often. I don't see how their policy is beneficial to any of its neighbours, let alone itself. It should re-formulate its policy to the ground realities, not to what it perceives it can get away with.

ComradePashtun
04-23-2011, 10:33 PM
BLS,

Can you put the too "early and often" in to perspective a little.

BLS_1919v2.0
04-23-2011, 10:38 PM
BLS,

Can you put the too "early and often" in to perspective a little.

I can give you two examples. The first is the strategic depth...the policy is one that America knows too well and one they (Pakistan) have used by spreading it (directly or indirectly) east and west of the durand line. Now they started this double-dealing way back in the early 2000s and there was talk of this even then. To me that was too early from Pakistan. Too often is the whole NATO supply issue. It seems on the forefront (I could be wrong) that whenever there is a grievance, you see attacks on the supply line. Not just once but quite a few times throughout this war. To me that is too often. Again if an average joe like me says these things, US and the others are probably well aware and have a different perspective and endgame in mind. I hope that makes sense.

ComradePashtun
04-23-2011, 10:50 PM
BLS,

I think it makes perfect sense and my thinking is along the same line.

I was thinking of a new thread on the subject, but I will ask you to open one on my request if you don't mind.

It would be a breather for the politics section and educating in general and stimulating for those interested. A topic of its worth and must discuss indeed.

BLS_1919v2.0
04-23-2011, 10:51 PM
What do you have in mind? Pm the title and we can start it wrora. I am up for any new topic here.

ComradePashtun
04-23-2011, 11:01 PM
Ok, then! :dead:

I wanted you to do it and take a start anywhere and with any title of relevance.. you know what I am busy with and I could contribute my thining when I would get the chance from what I am doing.