4 ms·

They were actively waging war against the US. Anything to back that up? These are extensive extra-judicial killings, outside of 'war' by any meaningful definit

by gmac 13y ago

They were actively waging war against the US. Anything to back that up? These are extensive extra-judicial killings, outside of 'war' by any meaningful definition, which in my book makes them wrong even in the (highly implausible) best case where every victim is a genuine evil-doer. See e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/12/pakistan-us-drone-strikes http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/12/pakista...

rayiner 13y ago
The premise of the article is ridiculous at base. Law is something that binds civilians and their government together. Law does not bind the military apparatus of one country against another. It is meaningless for Pakistanis to decry something as illegal when the actor in question is not bound by Pakistani law. If aliens came and started shooting at the white house, would we run to the courts? The use of force abroad exists purely in the political, diplomatic, and military realms, not the legal realm. If Pakistanis want us to stop drone strikes in Pakistan, they'll have to resort to one of those avenues.
- drewblaisdell 13y ago
  > The use of force abroad exists purely in the political, diplomatic, and military realms, not the legal realm. Again, you are incorrect. International treaties are legally binding. What is the purpose of the Geneva Conventions, for instance, if the U.S. can, according to you, sign them, ignore them, and not have broken international law?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    International treaties are not automatically binding on the US. In US courts, they are binding only to the extent that Congress passes implementing legislation or Congress signals that it is self-implementing. But they have the status of ordinary law, so if the AUMF says the President can do something, as the later enactment it overrides anything in the Geneva Convention. Outside of US courts international law is irrelevant as applied to the US. We're not a party to the ICC and we have veto power over any enforcement decision of the ICJ.
    - drewblaisdell 13y ago
      > We're not a party to the ICC and we have veto power over any enforcement decision of the ICJ. We're getting a bit into the woods here, but veto power over the enforcement of UN rulings _does_ _not_ change international law. You can say that it is irrelevant because it is unenforceable, but _it_ _is_ _not_ legal for the U.S. to violate international treaties which it has signed. This is "legally binding". This is what that means. The U.S. can overrule any enforcement decision, as you said. It cannot determine the ruling in any ICJ case. See: Nicaragua v. United States.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        Its a "what's the sound of one hand clapping" situation. We purposefully have not put ourselves in a place where international law cannot be enforced against us. Without that, its a total fiction to say there is any law. Unenforceable obligations aren't law. They're conventions or guidelines, maybe aspirations.
- mwcampbell 13y ago
  Your argument relies on two distinctions that seem dubious to me: civilian versus military, and domestic versus foreign. Why do these things matter? Aren't all sentient beings equal? Shouldn't we apply the golden rule to all other such beings? The moral concerns around using force, whether at home or abroad, trump any political, diplomatic, military, or legal concerns. I suspect that distinctions such as civilian versus military and domestic versus foreign are just ways to ease our conscience about hurting and killing other people far away, who aren't quite real to most of us anyway.
  - euroclydon 13y ago
    If Al Qaeda believed it were more effective to band with a nation state and form a uniformed army, they would. But the US should not sit on their hands until that day comes. As for the golden rule, how does that apply to people who actively trying to kill your family?

by gmac 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

The premise of the article is ridiculous at base. Law is something that binds civilians and their government together. Law does not bind the military apparatus of one country against another. It is meaningless for Pakistanis to decry something as illegal when the actor in question is not bound by Pakistani law. If aliens came and started shooting at the white house, would we run to the courts? The use of force abroad exists purely in the political, diplomatic, and military realms, not the legal realm. If Pakistanis want us to stop drone strikes in Pakistan, they'll have to resort to one of those avenues.

drewblaisdell 13y ago
> The use of force abroad exists purely in the political, diplomatic, and military realms, not the legal realm. Again, you are incorrect. International treaties are legally binding. What is the purpose of the Geneva Conventions, for instance, if the U.S. can, according to you, sign them, ignore them, and not have broken international law?
- rayiner 13y ago
  International treaties are not automatically binding on the US. In US courts, they are binding only to the extent that Congress passes implementing legislation or Congress signals that it is self-implementing. But they have the status of ordinary law, so if the AUMF says the President can do something, as the later enactment it overrides anything in the Geneva Convention. Outside of US courts international law is irrelevant as applied to the US. We're not a party to the ICC and we have veto power over any enforcement decision of the ICJ.
  - drewblaisdell 13y ago
    > We're not a party to the ICC and we have veto power over any enforcement decision of the ICJ. We're getting a bit into the woods here, but veto power over the enforcement of UN rulings _does_ _not_ change international law. You can say that it is irrelevant because it is unenforceable, but _it_ _is_ _not_ legal for the U.S. to violate international treaties which it has signed. This is "legally binding". This is what that means. The U.S. can overrule any enforcement decision, as you said. It cannot determine the ruling in any ICJ case. See: Nicaragua v. United States.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Its a "what's the sound of one hand clapping" situation. We purposefully have not put ourselves in a place where international law cannot be enforced against us. Without that, its a total fiction to say there is any law. Unenforceable obligations aren't law. They're conventions or guidelines, maybe aspirations.
mwcampbell 13y ago
Your argument relies on two distinctions that seem dubious to me: civilian versus military, and domestic versus foreign. Why do these things matter? Aren't all sentient beings equal? Shouldn't we apply the golden rule to all other such beings? The moral concerns around using force, whether at home or abroad, trump any political, diplomatic, military, or legal concerns. I suspect that distinctions such as civilian versus military and domestic versus foreign are just ways to ease our conscience about hurting and killing other people far away, who aren't quite real to most of us anyway.
- euroclydon 13y ago
  If Al Qaeda believed it were more effective to band with a nation state and form a uniformed army, they would. But the US should not sit on their hands until that day comes. As for the golden rule, how does that apply to people who actively trying to kill your family?