US want to kill more Pakistan people

[KS]

surprise surprise the captured smugglers were found out to be BLA operatives

Didn't those three Bugtis go missing in January, kidnapped from their university in Quetta and their names included in the list of missing persons submitted to the Supreme Court ?

Let's not pretend that taking people and slapping fake cases against them is unheard off in South Asia. Another point to note is , IIRC, 550 rounds of ammunition and 9 rockets were reclaimed from them. That quantity of ammunition is like 5 minute work for the Lyari gangsters. It is laughable that to deliver that ammunition they came all the way from Balochistan.

 

[lem34]

.-- Senior U.S. officials have expressed concern that drone strikes in Pakistan are counterproductive: they cost the U.S. more in terms of Pakistani ill-will towards the United States and by destabilizing the Pakistani government than the benefit to the U.S. of killing low-level militants.


]

Oh they now want to protect their bribed puppets against the wrath of the People if Pakistan, They have not realised that this not the way to win hearts and minds yet??

 

[KS]

Pakistan has not done so out of a desire by the leadership to not escalate the confrontation with the US, the same reason Pakistan has chosen to not shoot down US drones, and instead diplomatically engage with the US to find a mutually acceptable solution to the disagreements between them .

Or Pakistan knows the ghairat sounds it makes to its public [who so eagerly lap it up] is untenable when done in a relevant fora.

....... the whole Muslim world, especcially Pakistan, must suffer from the dire consequences......

If you think Pakistan is only suffering because of the WTC attacks and the WoT you are terribly mistaken. The mistakes [of Pakistan] go longer than that.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Or Pakistan knows the ghairat sounds it makes to its public [who so eagerly lap it up] is untenable when done in a relevant fora.

As pointed out repeatedly, the US position on drone strikes has no legitimacy under international law/UN - if you have any facts to argue in favor of the US positions that have been refuted/debunked already, or against the Pakistani position, please provide them, instead of making snide comments about 'ghairat' and what not.

 

[VCheng]

As pointed out repeatedly, the US position on drone strikes has no legitimacy under international law/UN -...............

Wouldn't it be fair to add - "in my opinion" to the above statement?

USA contends they are legal; Pakistan says they are not. The final determination is yet to be made.

In my opinion only of course, the US contention is likely to be held true once all is said and done.

 

[KS]

As pointed out repeatedly, the US position on drone strikes has no legitimacy under international law/UN - if you have any facts to argue in favor of the US positions that have been refuted/debunked already, or against the Pakistani position, please provide them, instead of making snide comments about 'ghairat' and what not.

Look we people are nobody to decide on legality or illegality of complex international issues without knowing the full details, just based on pdf documents or literal interpretation of the same. Legality or illegality more often than not derives from context which, I know for sure, you are not fully aware of.

So I will restrain myself from commenting on the legality of illegality of drone strikes and would advise you to do the same.

Anyway my point was not that - rather why Pakistan has not taken this "alleged" violation to any international fora. It is not because it wants to limit the confrontation with the US or continue with diplomatic engagement - as things like the continuous feeding of anti-Americanism in media or the posture taken by the Pak politicians to the domestic constituency is in direct contravention to the supposed desire to limit the confrontation or work out mutually possible solutions.

It is because it knows that when it approaches any higher international institution then there are many skeletons in its own cupboard that would come tumbling down and would ultimately end up embarrassing itself than the US. So while taking a honor brigade stance to the Pak public, who dont have access to the full details and just lap up what appeals to their sense of patriotism and honor, the tacit approval to the drones from Pak is always there.

Bottom line - unless and otherwise Pak approaches any international institution will all relevant evidences, materials [gathering which should be very easy considering that you yourself have "proved" that they are illegal] which show that the drone strikes are illegal and are in contravention to international norms, the line that the drone strikes are illegal - is just the Pakistani narrative and there are not much, if not any, takers in the international arena for what Pakistan has to say.

 

[VCheng]

.............. - is just the Pakistani narrative and there are not much, if not any, takers in the international arena for what Pakistan has to say.

Pakistan's increasing isolation and lack of perceived credibility is assuming worrying proportions, not just on drone attacks, but many other important issues, and will only cause more headaches unless halted by effective changes in policies.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Wouldn't it be fair to add - "in my opinion" to the above statement?

No, because, as pointed out repeatedly, the facts and language of international law do not have any provision for unilateral military action on Pakistani territory by the U, under the pretexts provided by the US.

It would be an 'opinion' only if the US justification for its illegal military strikes was not so obviously in violation of the UN Charter.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Look we people are nobody to decide on legality or illegality of complex international issues without knowing the full details, just based on pdf documents or literal interpretation of the same. Legality or illegality more often than not derives from context which, I know for sure, you are not fully aware of.

Without 'context' and with the language of the UN Charter/international law clearly debunking the US excuses arguing in favor of legality, the US position is in fact clearly illegal. There is nothing stopping the US from making a comprehensive legal argument in favor of its position and taking it to the UN and asking the UNSC to pass a resolution legitmizing its actions (as called for under Article 51 of the UN Charter), but outside of occasional vague statements, the US is not going to do so because it knows that its legal position is weak and flawed.

So I will restrain myself from commenting on the legality of illegality of drone strikes and would advise you to do the same.

You can do what you wish, and since you have no argument to support the US position or take on the refutation of the US position provided by myself and other commentators, it suits you to try and dissuade people from discussing an issue on which your (US) position is weak and flawed.

Anyway my point was not that - rather why Pakistan has not taken this "alleged" violation to any international fora. It is not because it wants to limit the confrontation with the US or continue with diplomatic engagement - as things like the continuous feeding of anti-Americanism in media or the posture taken by the Pak politicians to the domestic constituency is in direct contravention to the supposed desire to limit the confrontation or work out mutually possible solutions.

The explanation for not taking it to international for/shooting down drones, remains the same - a lack of desire to escalate the situation. Your analogies (feeding anti-Americanism etc.) don't fit, given that the neither the GoP nor the Military institutions have done any such thing officially, and claims to this effect are mere speculation. In any case, the anti-Americanism' in the Pakistani media is no different that the 'Anti-Pakistan propaganda' in the US media, supplied by the US 'Deep State'.

A decision to take the drones strikes to the UN/ICJ or to shoot the drones down, however, will be the result of an official and explicit GoP policy decision, and hence the escalation in relations with the US will be significant compared to the speculative scenarios you painted.

It is because it knows that when it approaches any higher international institution then there are many skeletons in its own cupboard that would come tumbling down and would ultimately end up embarrassing itself than the US. So while taking a honor brigade stance to the Pak public, who dont have access to the full details and just lap up what appeals to their sense of patriotism and honor, the tacit approval to the drones from Pak is always there.

There is not skeleton that will come out of Pakistan's closet that has not already been discussed in the media and that the US has not already tried to manipulate and arm-twist Pakistan with. If there were any such skeletons, why has the US not already trotted them out, given that it is at the supposed 'end game in Afghanistan' where it needs Pakistan to 'tow its line' as much as possible? As with the rest of your post, this is just more speculative balderdash. Pakistan's legal position based on the UN Charter is very strong, for reasons already explained several times.

Bottom line - unless and otherwise Pak approaches any international institution will all relevant evidences, materials [gathering which should be very easy considering that you yourself have "proved" that they are illegal] which show that the drone strikes are illegal and are in contravention to international norms, the line that the drone strikes are illegal - is just the Pakistani narrative and there are not much, if not any, takers in the international arena for what Pakistan has to say.

Pakistan does not have to gather any 'evidence', Pakistan has to merely point out that

1. There is no UNSC Resolution authorizing unilateral military action by the US inside Pakistani territory
2. Articl 51 of the UN Charter clearly places limits and conditions on military actions taken under the guise of 'self defence' by one State against another State
3. Pakistan has proposed multiple feasible alternatives to make the drone strikes or any other military operation on Pakistani soil a cooperative measure, which debunks the US Self Defence argument.

 

[KS]

[.........]There is nothing stopping the US from from making a comprehensive legal argument...[.....]

The US doesn't need to do anything. It is already flying the drones in line with its tactical objectives. It is actually Pakistan that needs to make a comprehensive legal argument in a relevant international fora to point out the alleged illegality of the drone strikes rather than just give sound bites to the already hysterical media about "condemning the latest drone strike in the strongest possible terms"

You can do what you wish, and since you have no argument to support the US position or take on the refutation of the US position provided by myself and other commentators, it suits you to try and dissuade people from discussing an issue on which your (US) position is weak and flawed.

Again an internet fora of chairborne rangers - who dont have access to the ABCs of events the diplomats have access to - is hardly the place to decide on the supposed legality or illegality of such things like drone strikes.So neither have I failed to prove anything nor have you established anything. Lets be clear on that.

The explanation for not taking it to international for/shooting down drones, remains the same .

Your explanation base on how you interpret the events. I don't think it is because of that. What more can the US do for Pakistan to escalate the issue ? The frickin' violated your country's sovereignty and flew some 300 km into the heart of the country, took out the most hated man according to them and then some time later 'accidentally' killed 26 of your soldiers. And where was this "desire not to escalate" gone when the supply routes were closed in a fit of anger for 6 months ?

No it is not because of that. It is because Pakistan knows it is in a very shaky ground internationally with its credibility,image down the drain with hardly anyone lending a year to its pleas due to its actions over the years. You may dispute that, but then you are supposed to do that. No one else does.

..... If there were any such skeletons, why has the US not already trotted them out, given that it is at the supposed 'end game in Afghanistan' where it needs Pakistan to 'tow its line' as much as possible? ....

You terribly underestimate the American game. Unlike Pakistan they don't reveal all their cards at the same time or they might have revealed that at a high level that are you are not privy to. C'mon not everything that goes between GoP and US is revealed to you or to the media. But if you cant sense the picture that is being painted with one stroke at a time, slowly but steadily, God help you.

Why do you think the NATO routes opened ? Because Pakistan thought it had obtained a victory ? Because the Americans gave an unconditional apology ? No the card used was "better_open_up_or_no_invite_to_chicago" and see how wonderfully it worked. Pakistan, my friend, has caught the tail of the tiger.

Pakistan does not have to gather any 'evidence', Pakistan has to merely point out that ......

Tell me when it does that.

 

[Solomon2]

- but the point being established here is that US military operations in Pakistan are illegal under international law/UN Charter -

First, the Caroline rule does not fall under the U.N. Charter but outside of it, as international law that pre-dates the U.N. Charter without being superseded by it. Second, I read a clever argument against the legality of drone attacks in the absence of Pakistani sovereignty, but I don't agree with Husain's conclusion, that drone attacks are illegal because the attacks violate Caroline. Husain fails to marshal the necessary evidence and arguments to back up his claim: he has to explain what, exactly, a necessary and proportional response would be. Furthermore, it isn't clear that Caroline limitations apply to areas where national sovereignty doesn't apply.

However, this sounds like a good basis to argue in international court. I doubt Pakistan would 100% "win" its case but I suspect important new legal precedents would be established in international law.