4 ms·

The various international laws and treaties covering the Law of Armed Conflict actually allow for a neutral country to permit military action against unlawful c

by mpyne 13y ago

The various international laws and treaties covering the Law of Armed Conflict actually allow for a neutral country to permit military action against unlawful combatants that have taken refuge in their territory. There is no need for them to be camping out in a 'war zone' with a 'Please Bomb Me' sign hooked up to their building. Otherwise, what legal basis would nations have for taking military action against pirates on the high seas (the other famous example of non-state actors at war with nations)?

_delirium 13y ago
Pakistan claims they don't permit the strikes, fwiw, although they seem to de facto go along with them, and may secretly consent. Not that that necessarily makes a difference either way.
- anaptdemise 13y ago
  There is the Abbottabad Commission Report the Pakistanis did on the Bin Laden raid that goes into depth of the politics involved[1]. There is a history of political infighting over US relations between the civilian government, military and intelligence community of Pakistan. This report was compiled by the Pakistani government. It is shortsighted to think they are any more transparent than the US. There are other reports, one by the UN, that estimate wildly the numbers[2]. The actual article[3] with the document looks like a photo caption in the Salon article. Totally glanced over it the first time. It is hard to have a discussion when the truth is obscured by time and distance, the government claims state secrets, and the only people raising concerns use terms like "indiscriminate civilian killings." We aren't fire bombing cities here. There is an immediate need for transparency and greater oversight and discretion with the drone program. I fear a future where warfare is cheap and with out risk. [1]http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2013/07/20137813412615531.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2013/07/20137813412615531... [2]http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/world/asia/u-n-drone-objections http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/world/asia/u-n-drone-objection... [3]http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/07/22/get-the-data-the-pakistan-governments-secret-document/ http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/07/22/get-the-data... EDIT: There is also a more detailed article on the "leaked" report on the originating news site. It is a more thorough discussion than the salon article. http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/07/22/exclusive-leaked-pakistani-report-confirms-high-civilian-death-toll-in-cia-drone-strikes/ http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/07/22/exclusive-le... Errr: I think I missed half the article...

by mpyne 13y ago

_delirium 13y ago

Pakistan claims they don't permit the strikes, fwiw, although they seem to de facto go along with them, and may secretly consent. Not that that necessarily makes a difference either way.

anaptdemise 13y ago
There is the Abbottabad Commission Report the Pakistanis did on the Bin Laden raid that goes into depth of the politics involved[1]. There is a history of political infighting over US relations between the civilian government, military and intelligence community of Pakistan. This report was compiled by the Pakistani government. It is shortsighted to think they are any more transparent than the US. There are other reports, one by the UN, that estimate wildly the numbers[2]. The actual article[3] with the document looks like a photo caption in the Salon article. Totally glanced over it the first time. It is hard to have a discussion when the truth is obscured by time and distance, the government claims state secrets, and the only people raising concerns use terms like "indiscriminate civilian killings." We aren't fire bombing cities here. There is an immediate need for transparency and greater oversight and discretion with the drone program. I fear a future where warfare is cheap and with out risk. [1]http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2013/07/20137813412615531.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2013/07/20137813412615531... [2]http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/world/asia/u-n-drone-objections http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/world/asia/u-n-drone-objection... [3]http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/07/22/get-the-data-the-pakistan-governments-secret-document/ http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/07/22/get-the-data... EDIT: There is also a more detailed article on the "leaked" report on the originating news site. It is a more thorough discussion than the salon article. http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/07/22/exclusive-leaked-pakistani-report-confirms-high-civilian-death-toll-in-cia-drone-strikes/ http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/07/22/exclusive-le... Errr: I think I missed half the article...