13 ms·

The problem is that the US is using drones to kill people inside countries with whom they are not at war. If you declare war on a country, that does give you ce

The problem is that the US is using drones to kill people inside countries with whom they are not at war. If you declare war on a country, that does give you certain rights under the laws of war. But if there is no declaration of war, you can't go around abducting or killing people in foreign countries just because they are deemed suspicious. And declaring war "on terror" won't cut it either; that's basically equivalent to saying, "we are potentially at war with any country any time, when it suits us." Nor will saying "they're the bad guys and we are good," which is kindergarten-level argumentation. Or "we know they're terrorists but we can't share the evidence, just trust us." The media discusses the details of drone operations all the times, but omits to have this much more fundamental discussion about violating the borders of sovereign countries.

simonh 11y ago
> ...you can't go around abducting or killing people in foreign countries... Actually, yes you can. Suppose that country, Pakistan, is complicit in those drone strikes, allowed drones to operate from it's territory for a time and provides intelligence to facilitate them? The (former) Yemeni government also explicitly permitted drone strikes to be carried out on it's territory. Governments have always had the right to carry out attacks in order to prevent imminent threats to their country, and terrorists planning attacks does count. There is a clear legal framework. You can reasonably argue that this is wrong and that it doesn't matter how imminent the threat is or what those people are doing, they cannot be attacked even if the government of the territory they're in says that you can. That's an argument you could make, I suppose. But as it stands, as a statement of fact that's not what international law says. http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/targeted-killings/p9627 http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/targeted-killings/p9627
- atlantic 11y ago
  Actually, the article you quoted does not seem to support your claims. There is a legal framework for targeted killings, but that framework belongs to American and not international law. Quoting from your article: >Philip Alston, the former UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, condemns the U.S. claims of self-defense as overly expansive, stating that "if other states were to claim the broad-based authority that the United States does, to kill people anywhere, anytime, the result would be chaos."

simonh 11y ago

> ...you can't go around abducting or killing people in foreign countries... Actually, yes you can. Suppose that country, Pakistan, is complicit in those drone strikes, allowed drones to operate from it's territory for a time and provides intelligence to facilitate them? The (former) Yemeni government also explicitly permitted drone strikes to be carried out on it's territory. Governments have always had the right to carry out attacks in order to prevent imminent threats to their country, and terrorists planning attacks does count. There is a clear legal framework. You can reasonably argue that this is wrong and that it doesn't matter how imminent the threat is or what those people are doing, they cannot be attacked even if the government of the territory they're in says that you can. That's an argument you could make, I suppose. But as it stands, as a statement of fact that's not what international law says. http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/targeted-killings/p9627 http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/targeted-killings/p9627

atlantic 11y ago
Actually, the article you quoted does not seem to support your claims. There is a legal framework for targeted killings, but that framework belongs to American and not international law. Quoting from your article: >Philip Alston, the former UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, condemns the U.S. claims of self-defense as overly expansive, stating that "if other states were to claim the broad-based authority that the United States does, to kill people anywhere, anytime, the result would be chaos."