Legality/legitimacy of drones

[ComradePashtun]

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]

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]

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]

That doesn't answer the question(s) I am raising Faye, with all due respect.

[ComradePashtun]

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]

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]

it is illegal, but Pakistan allows it

[ComradePashtun]

it is illegal, but Pakistan allows it

Case closed, ghundak khan ghundala.

[emkhan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?