No need, I think. Check out the "war against drones" section.
Oh, I'm aware that the argument "drones are illegal by American law" has resurfaced. That's a lie: authorization for military operations in the Afpak theatre was authorized by the post-9/11 resolutions of Congress
Mr. you are not well versed in this issue so don’t argue irrelevantly below are the some US laws and resolution which you were suggesting.
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 64
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 14, 2001
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2)
APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS-
Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Bill Text - 107th Congress (2001-2002) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
Now note
1. This resolution empowers President of USA to use ‘Armed Forces’, in accordance to the
War Power Resolution in section 2B-1
2. In
section 2B-2 It is clearly stated that this resolution
does not supersede War Power resolution
3. This resolution does not authorised CIA to wage a war against a sovereign nation.
Now read The War Powers Act of 1973
SEC. 2. (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Sec. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced-
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
SEC. 5. (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress
(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,
(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or
(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred-
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution;
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/politica...-fall-2002/readings/TheWarPowersActof1973.pdf
Pls answer
1. Has United State declare war against Pakistan...??
2. ‘Now’ Is there is any emergency situation in USA as per sec-2(c) of War Power act ....???
3. Any such action by US armed forces could not extend beyond 150 day in any circumstances as stated in sec 5-(1) & (2), Why the Drone operations is in use from over a decade...??
4. Has US approved any Law/ resolution specifically for the ‘legally authorized use’ of Drones in Pakistan , in accordance with the section 8-(1) of War power act .... ???
Now read
Law of War Power
3.1. Law of War:
That part of international law that regulates the conduct of armed hostilities. It is often called the “law of armed conflict.” The law of war encompasses all international law for the conduct of hostilities binding on the United States or its individual citizens, including treaties and international agreements to which the United States is a party, and applicable customary international law.
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/231101e.pdf
Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)
The Rules of War
LOAC comes from both customary international law and treaties. Customary international law, based on practice that nations have come to accept as legally required, establishes the traditional rules that govern the conduct of military operations in armed conflict.
Article VI of the US Constitution states that treaty obligations of the United States are the “supreme law of the land,” and the US Supreme Court has held that international law, to include custom, are part of US law. This means that treaties and agreements the United States enters into enjoy equal status as laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. Therefore, all persons subject to US law must observe the United States’ LOAC obligations. In particular, military personnel must consider LOAC to plan and execute operations and must obey LOAC in combat.
Those who violate LOAC may be held criminally liable for war crimes and court-martialed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm
American Drone attacks over Pakistan is an act of war, which is the clear violation of above stated US laws and international Laws such as Geneva Convention, Human Rights, UN charter etc in all this USA is party/signatory.
Mr. There is a reason Secretary General of United Nation Mr. Ban Ki-moon in one of his speech in Pakistan dated 13 August 2013 said:
“But armed unmanned aerial vehicles are a different matter,” he continued.
“As I have often and consistently said, the use of armed drones, like any other weapon, should be subject to long-standing rules of international law, including international humanitarian law.
“This is the very clear position of the United Nations. Every effort should be made to avoid mistakes and civilian casualties.”
United Nations News Centre - UN chief hails Pakistan’s leading role in peacekeeping operations
and even if the CIA runs the drones as long as the military is in the room when the decision is made to attack the attack is legal under U.S. law.
I would like to state views of some of the Law Professors of US
Loyola Law School Professor David Glazier, who reminded subcommittee members that the
CIA remotely navigated drone pilots are not legally considered combatants, and thus employing them to carry out armed attacks “fall outside the scope of permissible conduct”. He also warned that “under the legal theories adopted by our government in prosecuting Guantánamo detainees, these CIA officers as well as any higher-level government officials who have authorized or directed their attacks are committing war crimes”.Dr. Glazier’s view was seconded by American University law Professor Kenneth Anderson, who told the panel that
“only uniformed military”, has the legal right to conduct international military operations using lethal force. Other speakers included University of Notre Dame law Professor Mary Ellen O’Connell, who suggested that the use of unmanned drones is in fact unlawful outside combat zones –where most of the CIA’s targeted killings have taken place.
Analysis: Experts question legality of CIA drone strikes | intelNews.org
Melina Sterio (Associate Professor of Law, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law.) in his paper stated
“According to the Bush Administration, as well as the
U.S. Supreme Court case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the United States was at war against al-Qaeda and Taliban forces, a
nd the applicable laws were the laws of war. Thus, military force, including the use of drones, could be used if consistent with the laws of war.”
The use of drones to perform targeted killings in remote locations of Pakistan and Yemen is riddled with difficult legal questions. These questions have been impossible to answer because of the secrecy surrounding the CIA drone program.
If the United States is truly engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces, it can be argued that drone attacks are not per se illegal, and that, if performed under carefully elaborated rules and guidelines, they could satisfy the relevant rules of jus in bello. Issues that remain unanswered are those regarding the nature of the conflict that the United States has been engaged in since 9/11, as well as those regarding the details of CIA-led drone operations, without which rules of jus in bello cannot be analyzed. The Obama Administration, as well as any future administrations, should consider installing military-led drone operations, which would be subject to public scrutiny to ensure that the rule of law remains the guiding principle of U.S. use of force abroad.
http://law.case.edu/journals/JIL/Documents/45CaseWResJIntlL1&2.11.Article.Sterio.pdf
I have already stated that use of Drone over Pakistan under DOD is illegal, for CIA you must be known that it is formed
under section 104 of NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947 (
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/nsaact1947.pdf) which does not permits CIA to conduct any such operation by its own unless specially directed by President, but the president is not above the and constitution or other law of USA which does not allow the president to order or to act any unlawful action. In fact the oath of the president include
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of United State, and will to the best of my ability, preserve and defend the constitution of United State”
Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text
At this stage please read
War power act 1973 again, and
Law of Arm Conflict (LOAC) according to which ‘Those who violate LOAC may be held criminally liable for war crimes and
court-martialed under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice’
Article VI of US constitution give all the international treaties, Law are made under the authority of United State as the supreme Law of the land.
(
Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text)
If there is any order by the President to launch an attack/s over the state of Pakistan is a clear violation of US constitution and International law, further it is a clear case of War Crime.
