It's official, UN declares drone strikes as violation of Pakistan's sovereignty,

[MadHound]

Thus a violation of international law.
"The head of a U.N. team investigating casualties from U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan declared after a secret research trip to the country that the attacks violate Pakistan's sovereignty.

Ben Emmerson, the U.N. special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, said the Pakistani government made clear to him that it does not consent to the strikes — a position that has been disputed by U.S. officials.

President Barack Obama has stepped up covert CIA drone strikes targeting al-Qaida and Taliban militants in Pakistan's tribal region along the Afghan border since he took office in 2009."
http://news.yahoo.com/un-says-us-drones-violate-pakistans-sovereignty-083418602.html

Hundreds of innocents dead, violating international law, increasing the probability of 911 style blowback, it is time to end this ILLEGAL, immoral drone policy.

[snappyturtle]

1. Good for the U.N. but I suppose its' declaration will be toothless. nt

[MadHound]

6. Perhaps,

Or it could lead to war crimes trials in the international court. We'll see.

[snappyturtle]

7. As much as I would fear for the U.S. if such trials came to be, something needs

to be done about the indiscriminate slaughter of people by the cowardly drones.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

11. I sincerely wonder, will drone operators be able to say "I was just following orders"?

[Coyotl]

2. D'oh. That make the U.S. a war criminal. Who knew?

Is Obama too big to prosecute? Is the USA too powerful to obey international law?

[tritsofme]

3. Made "official" by a powerless commission I suppose.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

4. Drones killing innocent Pakistanis, U.N. official says

Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson just returned from the region, where he listened to residents talk about terrifying encounters with one of America's weapons in the war on terror.

"Adult males carrying out ordinary daily tasks were frequently the victims of such strikes," the statement from the U.N. office for human rights said.

Some Pashtun men dress the same as Taliban members from the same region, hence the drone operators mistake them for terror targets, the statement said. It is also customary for Pashtun men to carry a weapon, making them virtually indistinguishable from militants to an outsider.

The United States has 8,000 drones, unmanned planes and helicopters flown by a remote control. They are outfitted with a video camera to help the operator spot targets and often armed with weapons used to neutralize them.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/world/asia/u-n-drone-objections/index.html

[malaise]

5. Duh?

Imagine Pakistan or Iran raining drones on US soil. They would be nuked and bombed to oblivion.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

12. Drone manufacturers are now selling drones to foreign powers.

[ProSense]

8. "For many years, Pakistan allowed U.S. drones to take off from bases within the country."

For many years, Pakistan allowed U.S. drones to take off from bases within the country. Documents released by WikiLeaks in 2010 showed that senior Pakistani officials consented to the strikes in private to U.S. diplomats, while at the same time condemning them in public.

Cooperation has certainly waned since then as the relationship between Pakistan and the U.S. has deteriorated. In 2011, Pakistan kicked the U.S. out of an air base used by American drones in the country's southwest, in retaliation for U.S. airstrikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

But U.S. officials insist privately that cooperation has not ended altogether, and key Pakistani military officers and civilian politicians continue to consent to the strikes.

However, Emmerson, the U.N. investigator, came away with a black and white view after his meetings with Pakistani officials.

"The position of the government of Pakistan is quite clear," said Emmerson. "It does not consent to the use of drones by the United States on its territory and it considers this to be a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

Complicity has always been an issue, and now that's likely changing. It's going to take official action in the U.S. to change this policy.

[MadHound]

10. Seems like the message is loud and clear now, and has been for at least a year,

No drones in Pakistan. As soon as that message is given, the US should have stopped. It hasn't. If we continue with these strikes, we will become more and more of a pariah state, and could very well be hauled in front of the international court on war crimes charges. That official action needs to be taken today, not next week, next month or next year. Same with our drone operations in Somalia, Sudan and elsewhere.

[Volaris]

16. Complicit..yes probably.

but now that they have changed their minds, (Publicly) it REQUIRES a response form the U S Government.

Ball's in our court. Lets not fuck this one up.

[srican69]

9. Fuck Pakistani sovereignty. They gave Osama Bin Laden a place to hide... They should be glad

that we aren't bombing them back to stone age

[MadHound]

13. LOL!

So are you willing to take that same attitude when some other country, say Pakistan, launches a retaliatory drone strike on the US?

[randome]

15. That has always been a ludicrous talking point.

You really think Pakistan will send drones across the ocean to attack us? Ridiculous.

Your subject line is misleading, also. There has been no 'official' finding. A U.N. official -the man in charge of the investigation- says this is a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty. That's not quite the same as an 'official' U.N. finding.

That being said, if there IS an official U.N. finding, then we should withdraw ASAP.

[sangsaran]

18. ...Wow. That's not the point.

The point is affording others the same rights you would claim for yourself.

Do you really not understand this concept?

[randome]

20. I DO understand the concept.

That should be the point, then, not that we are in danger of being attacked by Pakistan.

However, war is never fair. Civilians will always be killed. That's a fact of life.

Debating whether we are in a war or should be in a war is a much better debate, IMO.

[MadHound]

19. Really? 911 was thought of as ludicrous as well, until it happened.

Hell, there was an unknown drone buzzing JFK airport last week that nobody seems to know where it came from. It doesn't have to come all the way across the ocean, it could be bought or built, and launched right here in the US.

Blowback from our drone operations is going to happen if we continue with our drone policy. We continue to piss off more and more people with each and every strike, and sooner or later somebody will take action against us.

You don't think that the head of this official investigation doesn't have the say so in this declaration? Don't think that this is what the group's report will say? It is only a matter of time, time for the bureaucracy to do its thing. We should stop now instead of compounding the problem further.

[randome]

21. I pretty much agree the drone policy isn't doing much good.

And may be doing more harm than the little good it does. But no, we should not react until it's at our discretion or until an official report comes out.

To say "It's official" is misleading, IMO.

And with the vast security apparatus we've built up -for the most part, I think that's unnecessary, too- I truly doubt terrorists will be able to smuggle drones and missiles into this country, then assemble them then find an unused field to launch them.

I just don't see that as a valid possibility.

[MadHound]

22. I think that we're being given a huge warning by the UN,

Thus, I think we should pay attention. If we don't, we could very well wind up with Obama in the dock at the international court. Furthermore, as you say, our drone program is doing more harm than good, so why continue with it.

Given the fact that you can buy drones in this country, along with bombs, missiles and virtually any other armament you want, nothing need be smuggle in. Hell, you don't even need missiles, just a couple of good sized drones that can get sucked into the jet engines of a large plane over a large city, Voila! Instant tragedy.

[randome]

24. "Obama in the dock" is fear-mongering.

The U.S. defies many U.N. findings. For instance, we are ignoring the U.N. imperative that marijuana should not be legal anywhere in the country.

Since the U.S. is, like it or not, the leader of the world, I think our veto will prevent Obama from being hauled away in chains.

And our security apparatus has all it needs to monitor in-country purchases of drone and bomb-making equipment. Flags would be raised.

We are not in danger of Pakistan attacking us. Not after 9/11. And the situation in Pakistan IS as complicated as the article says. The government says one thing publicly and another privately. I recall reading that we warn Pakistan where we intend to strike and they clear the airspace for us.

Complicated. Perhaps it should not be this complicated but it is.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

14. Yeah and we created and funded the Taliban to fight the U.S.S.R.

The people of Pakistan know this. It's a big mess and we're not innocent victims.

[sangsaran]

17. From what I know, it wouldn't be a stretch to say most of the problems in the Middle East are

two-thirds our fault, one-third the USSR's.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

23. The U.S., U.S.S.R., China and Europe.

And you can add Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Central and South America to the list of victims.

What's silly about the American people is that we're pretty much oblivious to what our government has been doing the last 100 years. (And is still doing.) It's a real head scratcher to us when we hear that a lot of people hate us.

[frylock]

26. familiarize yourself with the term "blowback"

see also "reaping the whirlwind."

[woo me with science]

25. K&R

[indepat]

27. Who he hell does the UN think they are, accusing the United States of violating another

sovereign nation's sovereignty when the US is at war with terra and has the god-given right to blow away suspected terraists wherever in the world they may happen to be at the time. Besides, the US endeavors to hold the collateral damage down to an acceptable level and makes sure the families of those accidentally killed/maimed are fairly compensated.

[Luminous Animal]

28. Kick.

[woo me with science]

29. kick

[Sirveri]

30. Wondering if this is a case of Pakistan saying one thing publicly and another privately.

Last I checked Pakistan does have an air force, and could attempt to stop our overflights into Afghanistan. They could also deploy air defense assets to attempt to shoot down our drones, as well as take other REAL diplomatic measures. So they complain loudly in public, which is great PR for keeping popular support, while taking no action to actually stop it.

Therefore they're likely complicit in the actions and at some level approve of the strikes, but can't say so publicly due to the potential for public backlash from their own citizens.

[Alamuti Lotus]

31. And the Obama gov't responds to this claim with... pondering drone attacks in Syria too

The traditional, all-American response to this kind of claim is as usual the proverbial middle-finger (or an actual one, when the cameras aren't rolling).