For those of you claiming that the administration would never do anything illegal

[cali]

Last edited Wed Jun 12, 2013, 10:03 PM - Edit history (1)

what about the drone strikes? Pakistan has explicitly denied permission for the U.S. to conduct these strikes within their borders and the U.S. continues to do it.

How is that legal?

Not to mention that such strikes create the very terrorists that purportedly require our massive surveillance state.


Edited for disingenuous claims that it's legal because Pervez Musharaf consented years and years ago:

Thursday's landmark decision by the Pakistani high court in Peshawar is a remarkable document: Chief Justice Dost Muhammad Khan examines the US use of drones against Pakistan's tribal areas and reaches several conclusions that, while obvious to most sensible observers, seem to have eluded American authorities for several years.

The case was filed last year by Shahzad Akbar, of the Foundation for Fundamental Rights (FFR), a legal charity based in Islamabad. The case was brought by families of victims killed in a US drone strike on 17 March 2011. The strike – one of more than 300 Obama has launched at Pakistan – is infamous: more than 50 people were killed, including many community elders who had gathered to settle a local dispute over a chromite mine. For the locals it was the equivalent of a strike on the high court itself.

The chief justice's first finding is perhaps the most obvious: "[Drone strikes] are absolutely illegal and a blatant violation of sovereignty of the state of Pakistan." The strikes are, he says, international war crimes, given that there is no state of war between the US and its nominal ally, Pakistan.

It does not matter whether General Pervez Musharraf gave the CIA a wink and a nod when he was the country's dictator. "[T]here is nothing in writing to the effect," writes the chief justice. In any event, no government can legitimately authorise the murder of its own citizens – certainly not without a public announcement through the democratic process. Indeed, Musharraf is currently facing the music for a number of illegal acts he allegedly took while in office.

The American use of drones is, in the chief justice's legal opinion, wholly disproportionate under international law. He notes that 9/11 still provides the US administration's pretext for a "global war on terror", yet there has been "not a single … terror incident … anywhere in the USA" emanating from Pakistan in more than a decade since. How, then, can it be proportionate to kill more than 3,000 Pakistanis,

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/international/13-May-2013/will-pakistan-finally-stand-up-against-illegal-us-drone-attacks

[ProSense]

1. So you're trying to prove that the administration is doing something illegal? n/t

[Whisp]

3. I think it's an egg removal system. n/t

[cali]

7. not for me. I've said that the issue is the story, not the personalities

and I've long posted about the drone strikes- for years. but some of you are so mired in personality rather than issues that you can't even comprehend anything else.

[Marr]

25. They can't grasp that.

I don't think issues actually register with personality-driven sorts. It's all just "my hero" vs. "your villain".

[Summer Hathaway]

22. So, guess who owes who a new keyboard?

That was a BRILLIANT reply - I only wish I had read it before I took a swig of iced tea!

[cali]

9. I don't need to try and prove it. It is illegal. Do you actually believe that we

have the right to bomb a country we are not at war with against its express opposition?

[ProSense]

15. UN Lawyer Leading Drone Inquiry Calls Obama Speech 'Significant' and 'Historic'

UN Lawyer Leading Drone Inquiry Calls Obama Speech 'Significant' and 'Historic'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022895080

Full statement

UN expert in human rights and counter-terrorism welcomes US President’s speech

GENEVA (24 May 2013) – United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, Ben Emmerson, today welcomed US President Barack Obama’s speech, and the publication of policy principles governing counter-terrorism operations, including targeted killings.

“This extremely important speech breaks new ground in a number of key respects. It affirms for the first time this Administration's commitment to seek an end to its armed conflict with Al Qaida as soon as possible; it reminds the world that not every terrorist threat or terrorist attack can be equated with a situation of continuing armed conflict; it sets out more clearly and more authoritatively than ever before the Administration's legal justifications for targeted killing, and the constraints that it operates under; it clarifies, and proposes improvements to, the procedures for independent oversight; and it sets out the steps the President is now resolved to take in order to close Guantanamo Bay.

“The publication of the procedural guidelines for the use of force in counter-terrorism operations is a significant step towards increased transparency and accountability. It also disposes of a number of myths, including the suggestion that the US is entitled to regard all military-aged males as combatants, and therefore as legitimate targets.

“I will be engaging with senior Administration officials in Washington over the coming days and weeks in an effort to put some flesh on the bones of the announcements made today.

“The President’s historic statement today is to be welcomed as a highly significant step towards greater transparency and accountability; and as a declaration that the US war with Al Qaida and its associated forces is coming to an end. The President's principled commitment to ensuring the closure of Guantanamo is an utterly essential step.

“His acknowledgement that the time has come to tackle not only the manifestations of terrorism but also its social, economic and political causes around the world - to seek long term solutions - signals a shift in rhetoric and a move in policy emphasis towards promoting a strategy of sustainable and ethical counter-terrorism, consistent with Pillar I of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy*.”

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13355&LangID=E

Still, why not advocate his impeachment if you think his actions are illegal?

[idwiyo]

21. Does it say anywhere in that statement that drone strikes are legal? Can you point where please,

I can't find it.

Also, what does it have to do with impeachment again?

[cali]

29. Because I don't want to see him impeached. And btw, since the new PM has been elected

there's been a drone strike.

[reusrename]

42. Funny that you would quote the special rapporteur to make your point.

You do know that he became the special rapporteur in order to investigating war crimes, right? He is investigating war crimes committed during the Obama administration, war crimes that can probably be traced back to CIA Director Patreaus.

>>>

The lawyer, Ben Emmerson, special investigator for the United Nations Human Rights Council, said at a news conference that the nine-month study would look at “drone strikes and other forms of remotely targeted killing,” including a wide array of so-called standoff weapons used in modern warfare, like ground-launched missiles and similar weapons fired from manned aircraft.

The immediate focus, Mr. Emmerson said in an interview, would be on 25 selected drone strikes that had been conducted in recent years in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and the Palestinian territories. That put the panel’s spotlight on the United States, Britain and Israel, the nations that have conducted drone attacks in those areas, but Mr. Emmerson said the inquiry would not be singling out the United States or any other countries.

>>>


The inquiry grew out of a statement condemning the strikes that was issued at the human rights council in Geneva last year by a group of nations that have been severely critical of the American use of drones, led by China, Russia and Pakistan. Subsequently, Mr. Emmerson angered American officials by suggesting that some “double tap” drone attacks, involving a second missile attack on a target, could be described as war crimes because they had been reported in some instances as having killed mourners at funerals for people killed in the initial strike, or tribal elders meeting at the target sites.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/world/europe/un-panel-to-investigate-rise-in-drone-strikes.html?_r=0

[ProSense]

44. The release I posted is nearly four month later than yours. n/t

[reusrename]

48. Okay.

and....

[Bobbie Jo]

20. Throw them a bone or SOMETHING!

The perpetual outrage machine doesn't run by itself ya know.

[ProSense]

30. Oh, but this isn't about Obama and no one is saying he did anything illegal.

Point out that some people are trying to prove that the President committed a crime (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023001564), and the culprits cry straw man.

[PufPuf23]

40. The drone program is illegal, immoral, and counter-productive (creates terrorists)

The NSA meta-data collection is also illegal and spits in the faces of our own allies as well as every citizen of the USA.

However, the "system" has apparent immunity.

What we have is a conspiracy and convergent interests of not-so-dunces that is bi-partisan and pro the agendas of the wealthy globalists that own our political system.

I believe the best hope is to cleanse the Democratic Party of neo-liberals for a 21st century populism. My ideals are losing. Both parties, tho not equivalent, harm a majority of US citizens, the people of the World, and the environment of Planet Earth.

POTUS Obama just like former POTUS Clinton are limited going into office as to their own influence regardless of their innate intelligence and highest motives. They accepted this situation to be elected.

DNI Clapper lies to Congress without any repercussion regards NSA (I tell political fortunes heh).

Propagandists pore the BS deep at DU and in the MSM.

Cali has been making thoughtful and imho correct posts.

[zeemike]

55. And I agree with all of that.

[uppityperson]

2. I do not understand the dichotomous thinking and accusations on DU recently.

Who claims the administration would never do anything illegal? WHY do people continue with All or Nothing thinking and accusations? Seriously. Is it that difficult to understand that MOST of us deal in shades of grey? That a person or administration is rarely ALL good or ALL bad? That because we might say something explaining some action does not mean "never do anything bad" or good?


ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

Like the pirate with the steering wheel sticking out of his pants, DU is driving me nuts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[one_voice]

13. This [phone]

Me too....I'm nuts right along with you.

[uppityperson]

14. Found it. Arrrrrrr, it's driving me nuts

[bunnies]

17. Well said.

[reformist2]

4. Droning people is a lesser outrage when 'responsible' leaders are doing it. /sarcasm

[morningfog]

5. Thinking that any administration is incapable

of violating the law is incredibly naive. And yes, just ask the UN human rights inveatigators about the drone wars and the targeting of rescue workers.

[WillyT]

6. Bombing Brown People Has Always Been Legal

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Step 1: Refer to them as terrorists Step 2: Apologize or "investigate" resulting civilian deaths

[idwiyo]

8. Never mind, Cali. I am sure someone will tell you how its totally legal because Patriot Act or

some other piece of legislation said so. International law be damned. Morality doesn't matter. Murder of innocent civilians aka 'Collateral damage' is perfectly OK. Anything is justified as long as its done either by 'our' team or 'in the name of security'.

[bvar22]

24. Like Bush, Obama got a note from his lawyer,

so everything is just PEACHY!!!

[Earth_First]

10. Thing is...what the administration is doing, or authorizes the NSA to do...

is perfectly legal.

That is the rub with me.

At this point, Snowden is essentially irrelevant.

Time to fix what's broken.

[newmember]

12. Fast and Furious was illegal

[George Gently]

16. This place sounds more like freerepublic, by the day.

"Pervez Musharraf admits permitting 'a few' US drone strikes in Pakistan

Pakistan's former president Pervez Musharraf has admitted giving permission for the CIA to launch drone attacks inside his country, directly contradicting repeated claims by the Pakistani government that it has never authorised drone strikes.

His comments in a CNN interview screened on Thursday night follow US media claims this week that Pakistani officials were for years intimately involved in the US drone campaign in the country. . .

Pakistani denials of involvement have been questionable since the WikiLeaks disclosure of a 2008 diplomatic cable in which the US ambassador Anne Patterson mentioned a discussion about drone strikes during a meeting with the then interior minister, Rehman Malik, and the then prime minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani. . ."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/12/musharraf-admits-permitting-drone-strikes

In true freeper fashion, I expect to be told that the conclusion still stands even though it's based on a lie.

[bunnies]

19. wow.

Thanks for sharing that. Its extremely informative.

[cali]

27. no it's not. reread the op or my response to that bullshit.

[cali]

23. That was then. Mushareff is NOT in power. Has not been for years- since 2008

He's a criminal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musharraf

for fuck's sake, don't post things that are easily debunked, hon.

Will Pakistan finally stand up against illegal US drone attacks?

Thursday's landmark decision by the Pakistani high court in Peshawar is a remarkable document: Chief Justice Dost Muhammad Khan examines the US use of drones against Pakistan's tribal areas and reaches several conclusions that, while obvious to most sensible observers, seem to have eluded American authorities for several years.

The case was filed last year by Shahzad Akbar, of the Foundation for Fundamental Rights (FFR), a legal charity based in Islamabad. The case was brought by families of victims killed in a US drone strike on 17 March 2011. The strike – one of more than 300 Obama has launched at Pakistan – is infamous: more than 50 people were killed, including many community elders who had gathered to settle a local dispute over a chromite mine. For the locals it was the equivalent of a strike on the high court itself

The chief justice's first finding is perhaps the most obvious: "[Drone strikes] are absolutely illegal and a blatant violation of sovereignty of the state of Pakistan." The strikes are, he says, international war crimes, given that there is no state of war between the US and its nominal ally, Pakistan.

It does not matter whether General Pervez Musharraf gave the CIA a wink and a nod when he was the country's dictator. "[T]here is nothing in writing to the effect," writes the chief justice. In any event, no government can legitimately authorise the murder of its own citizens – certainly not without a public announcement through the democratic process. Indeed, Musharraf is currently facing the music for a number of illegal acts he allegedly took while in office.


<snip>

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/international/13-May-2013/will-pakistan-finally-stand-up-against-illegal-us-drone-attacks

[George Gently]

28. Keep flinging the poo, sweetie, but you're in the wrong forum to do it.

"According to McClatchy: "That partnership was so extensive during the Bush administration that the Pakistani intelligence agency selected its own targets for drone strikes. Until mid-2008 the CIA had to obtain advance approval before each attack, and under both administrations the Pakistanis received briefings and videos of the strikes."

The collaboration was continuing as late as 2010, documents reportedly show, although an ISI veto on targets had by then been removed. The McClatchy claims followed a report in the New York Times last week based on a dozen interviews with US and Pakistani officials, offering a detailed depiction of the beginning of secret co-operation between the ISI and CIA over the Pakistani drone campaign.

THE CLAIMS APPEAR TO HAVE MADE PAKISTAN'S POLICY OF DENIAL UNSUSTAINABLE. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/12/musharraf-admits-permitting-drone-strikes

[cali]

31. those are facts, little pumpkin pie. Not that you can tell the difference between shit and facts

Pakistan does not consent to drone strikes, babykins. The Supreme Court of that country considers it a war crime as does the new P.M, dumpling. And no matter how much you reference years old stories, that ain't gonna change.

[George Gently]

33. You don't even have the sense to know when you ought to be embarrassed, dearie.

The smart move would be to delete the stupid thread.

[idwiyo]

34. It's 2013 now. Not 2008 or 2010.

From the same article:

Last year Pakistan's parliament declared all drone strikes illegal, which activists argue overrides any secret arrangements that might still exist with the US.

[cali]

35. pathetic. I'm posting FACTS from May 2013 and you're posting shit from 2008 that references

further back than that and YOU have the fucking gall to call me out.

Contemptible, disingenuous, prevaricating and shameful.

Shame, shame, shame, new DUer.

[idwiyo]

26. It's 2013 now. Not 2008. Musharraf is not a president anymore.

From the same article:

Musharraf said Pakistan gave permission "only on a few occasions, when a target was absolutely isolated and [there was] no chance of collateral damage".

He said the strikes were discussed "at the military [and] intelligence level" and cleared only if "there was no time for our own [special operations task force] and military to act. That was … maybe two or three times only".

Last year Pakistan's parliament declared all drone strikes illegal, which activists argue overrides any secret arrangements that might still exist with the US.

[cali]

32. disgusting contemptible and dishonest comes to mind, doesn't it.

thanks for posting that.

[idwiyo]

36. I guess they hope no one would read the article so they can engage in selective quoting to prove

their point.

[Mojorabbit]

38. I could have sworn I read that their new president does not support and yet we continue. nt

[rhett o rick]

18. Seems that there are two schools of thought here. Those that support the Constitution over all,

and those that support the President over all. The second group agree with the right when they say that we need a strong authoritarian leader. The only difference between the right and the so-called centrist Democrats is the letter behind the name.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

41. +1 /nt

[Union Scribe]

52. Absolutely correct. nt

[RC]

53. +10

How can any Democrat defend the drone strikes in any nation we are not at war with? Can't those nations do their own dirty work?

[tblue]

57. I see this and SMH:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110210602

I have a couple relatives in that camp. They desperately Obama to be unconditionally beloved. They can't tolerate anything short of that. I can't imagine unconditionally loving anyone I don't even know. Especially a politician. Any politician.

[marshall]

37. It depends on how you define the word "illegal"

As Nixon famously said, and to paraphrase, if the President, or his Administration, do something, it can't be illegal.

Somebody has to define what's legal and what is illegal. It might as be us!

[cali]

39. I think Pakistan's high Court has defined it quite clearly

[reusrename]

47. At least two of the strikes during Petreaus' tenure were "double tap" drone strikes.

These would be a war crime under US law. The US law about war crime is very short. Any grave breach of Geneva is a war crime under US and international law.

The "double tap" strikes violate Geneva because it targets civilian emergency responders, the "Red Cross" workers, when they come to the aid of survivors after the first bomb explodes.

This is actually why a special investigation was started by the UN. War Crimes. This is also, IMHO, why Petraeus was asked to resign.

[dflprincess]

43. Cali, you're forgetting:

"When the president does it, it is not illegal."

[George Gently]

49. Anybody who thinks this was illegal and is not calling for impeachment and prosecution

is a hypocrite of the highest order.

I'm nicknaming this one -- the freerepublic thread.

[cali]

51. nickname it whatever you wish, honeypie.

it doesn't change the facts.

Facts that you deny and post dog shit to counter. disgusting, contemptible, bizarre.

SHAME
SHAME
SHAME

[Snake Plissken]

45. Just because I think what they are doing sucks doesn't make it illegal

I think the 1%ers getting away with paying their far share of taxes sucks too, but that's not illegal either.

[cali]

46. Of course it's illegal. Pakistan has told the U.S. not to do it. It's blatantly illegal

[H2O Man]

50. "In other words,

you hate the troops, sneeze on the flag, and wish Saddam Insane was still in power in Iraq!"

Okay, okay .... I'm sorry, Friend Cali -- I couldn't help but channel one of our friends from yesterday.

[jeff47]

56. What makes the drone strikes illegal under US law?

I'm sure Pakistani law would ban it. Just like Afghani and Iraqi laws made our invasions illegal.

But war means you don't have to follow your enemy's laws. If you don't like it, then it's time to work to rescind the AUMF.

[cali]

59. uh, we're not at war with Pakistan.

They're supposedly allies.

And under Nazi law.....

Stupid argument. It's illegal under international law and Pakistani law.

[tavalon]

58. That horse is out of the gate

and the gate is swinging wide open.