US want to kill more Pakistan people

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It seems I may have erred when I said the U.S. wasn't reporting on drone activities to the U.N. I found that there is a U.N. body set up specifically to monitor compliance with UNSCR 1373 and related matters, the Counter-Terrorism Committee: link However, after 2006 country reports about compliance with 1373 have been classified!

Member reports regarding follow-on Resolution 1624 (domestic compliance)are available, including from Pakistan. link

In resolutions 1373 (2001) and 1624 (2005), the Security Council requests that States report to the CTC on the steps that they have taken to implement these resolutions. On this basis, the Committee has established a dialogue with each UN Member State to help them raise their national counter-terrorism capacities and to foster international cooperation between the UN system, States and other intergovernmental bodies.

And where exactly is the authorization for one State to unconditionally take military action in another State without the second State's assent?

Your argument in defence of the legality of drone strikes remains invalid:

1. The US is not in compliance with Article 51 of the UN Charter: "Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

2. UNSCR 1373 does not in any way authorize unilateral military action by one State against another

 

[Solomon2]

And where exactly is the authorization for one State to unconditionally take military action in another State without the second State's assent?...UNSCR 1373 does not in any way authorize unilateral military action by one State against another

Non sequitur. UNSCR 1373 nulled Pakistan's sovereignty with regards to attacks against terrorists.

Your argument in defence of the legality of drone strikes remains invalid: 1. The US is not in compliance with Article 51 of the UN Charter: "Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Did you examine the minutes of the SC to check? Furthermore, we don't know from the U.N. about compliance with 1373 because the SC has classified such matters since 2006. I don't like it, but that's how it is.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Non sequitur. UNSCR 1373 nulled Pakistan's sovereignty with regards to attacks against terrorists.

Where exactly has UNSCR 1373 nulled Pakistan's sovereignty with regards to attacks against terrorists' by another nation? Where is the authorization for such military attacks on Pakistani soil by another nation?

Did you examine the minutes of the SC to check? Furthermore, we don't know from the U.N. about compliance with 1373 because the SC has classified such matters since 2006. I don't like it, but that's how it is.

Article 51 is not dependent on 1373, and it is the prerogative of the US and its apologists to show that the US is in fact following international law and the UN Charter when conducting unilateral military operations in another nation under the guise of 'self defence' so please, provide the relevant 'minutes of the SC'.

 

[Solomon2]

Where exactly has UNSCR 1373 nulled Pakistan's sovereignty with regards to attacks against terrorists'?

Where it listed, under Chapter VII, the sovereign obligations of members - obligations that Pakistan demonstrably doesn't fulfill:

...Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

2. Decides also that all States shall:

...(c) Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist
acts, or provide safe havens;

(d) Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from
using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their
citizens;

Certainly Pakistan violated this when it both enabled 26/11 and sheltered its perpetrators afterward. Doubtless there's more. The exact level of Pakistani (non)compliance is classified by the SC but this is sufficient justification for it. A state that fails to comply with a Chapter VII Resolution has no recognized sovereignty with regards to it - which is why Pakistani complaints aren't even acknowledged by other states.

Article 51 is not dependent on 1373 -

Prove it.

it is the prerogative of the US and its apologists to show that the US is in fact following international law -

The permanent SC states don't hold to the principle you espouse, which is that U.S. must always be guilty as charged until it proves itself innocent. Do your own homework to back up your charges, AM.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Where it listed, under Chapter VII, the sovereign obligations of members - obligations that Pakistan demonstrably doesn't fulfill:

...Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

2. Decides also that all States shall:

...(c) Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist
acts, or provide safe havens;

(d) Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from
using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their
citizens;

Certainly Pakistan violated this when it both enabled 26/11 and sheltered its perpetrators afterward. Doubtless there's more. The exact level of Pakistani (non)compliance is classified by the SC but this is sufficient justification for it. A state that fails to comply with a Chapter VII Resolution has no recognized sovereignty with regards to it - which is why Pakistani complaints aren't even acknowledged by other states.

Whether Pakistan 'demonstrably fulfills its obligations' is for the UNSC, or a body/panel tasked by the UNSC with such responsibility, to determine. When was a determination WRT Pakistan fulfilling its obligations, or not, made and when and where is the subsequent authorization for the unilateral use of military force by other nations, specifically the US, against alleged entities on Pakistani territory?

Prove it.

I already have, but I'll entertain your disingenuous and biased ranting a little more and provide it again:

1. Article 51 is a an article of the UN Charter and therefore by definition any UN Resolutions are governed by the charter, and not vice versa.

2. Article 51 has clear language calling for, "Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Iraq I and II, Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia ... all these instances provide a clear precedence of the UNSC overtly and openly debating, and, if necessary, authorizing the use of force (though that was not the case in Iraq II). So without establishing any US 'declaration of the need to resort to military strikes on Pakistani soil for self defence', US claims are nothing by hogwash and US actions are demonstrably a violation of international law and the UN Charter.

The permanent SC states don't hold to the principle you espouse, which is that U.S. must always be guilty as charged until it proves itself innocent. Do your own homework to back up your charges, AM.

Wrong - in this case the US is arguing that Pakistan is 'guilty as charged' and subsequently, unilaterally, conducting military strikes on Pakistani territory. The burden of proof therefore falls on the US, to independently establish, in accordance with the UN Charter and international law, that Pakistan has offered no alternatives to the US carrying out unilateral military operations on Pakistani soil.

I have done my homework you are the one grasping for straws in the absence of any language in international law, the UN charter or UN resolutions supporting illegal unilateral US military operations on Pakistani soil.

None of the alternatives proposed are workable. Just because alternatives are proposed does not necessarily make them implementable, even though you might think they are.

The alternatives are completely workable - any rogue Nation can claim that the options it was given were not 'workable' as a pretext to initiate war against another nation, which is precisely what the US has done.

I did say that it is advantageous to negotiate from a position of strength, did I not? Pakistan needs to develop its negotiating position to a level of robustness before it can get a compromise out of the US. That is how negotiations work.

Which is an absolutist position i.e. 'might is right' - the strongest party should be able to impose its position on the weaker party or parties.

When Pakistan presents a workable alternative, then a compromise will be forthcoming too.

1. Pakistan has offered several workable alternatives on unilateral US drone strikes, as already pointed out, and you have been unable to offer any rational reason to reject those alternatives.

2. The demand for an apology from the US for the massacre of two dozen Pakistani soldiers, an incident for which the US is clearly at fault according to even her own investigation into the incident, cannot have any more of a 'workable alternative'.

 

[lem34]

Agno you can play the sweetest music to a deaf person, or do the best dance possible in front of a blind person neither will appreciate what you say or do

 

[Solomon2]

Whether Pakistan 'demonstrably fulfills its obligations' is for the UNSC, or a body/panel tasked by the UNSC with such responsibility, to determine. When was a determination WRT Pakistan fulfilling its obligations, or not, made -

The CTC does that and they've classified such reports: link. I wondered why so many people who know better were keeping silent but I didn't discover this "gag rule" until yesterday.

and when and where is the subsequent authorization for the unilateral use of military force by other nations, specifically the US, against alleged entities on Pakistani territory?

You're going backward, AM. There is no such need under the Charter for "subsequent authorization" as you profess.

2. Article 51 has clear language calling for, "Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Carefully read, please. UNSCR 1373 reports are classified and Article 51 explicitly does NOT over-ride UNSC Chapter VII resolutions.

Iraq I and II, Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia ... all these instances provide a clear precedence -

UNSCR 1373 didn't exist then and no, these precedents, unlike UNSCR 1373, aren't binding.

...without establishing any US 'declaration of the need to resort to military strikes on Pakistani soil for self defence', US claims are nothing by hogwash -

If the U.S. was targeting the Pakistani state, perhaps. But the U.S. is targeting terrorists on Pakistani territory that Pakistan has withheld its hand from pursuing, contravening a binding UNSC Resolution.

Wrong - in this case the US is arguing that Pakistan is 'guilty as charged' and subsequently -

You're quite aware of several of the proofs and records that exist, even if they aren't all officially acknowledged: OBL, 26/11, more. All point to complicity or incompetence rather than compliance. Pakistan just doesn't have the credibility to deny such things any more.

...The burden of proof therefore falls on the US, to independently establish, in accordance with the UN Charter and international law -

Rewinding back to the beginning damages your credibility, too, AM.

I have done my homework you are the one grasping for straws in the absence of any language in international law, the UN charter or UN resolutions supporting illegal US military actions against another sovereign State.

Ask yourself this: if, after 9/11, the UNSC wanted to authorize international military operations against terrorists no matter what state they harbored in how much plainer could they be than the language of UNSCR 1373?

 

[lem34]

You're quite aware of several of the proofs and records that exist, even if they aren't all officially acknowledged: OBL, 26/11, more. All point to complicity or incompetence rather than compliance. Pakistan just doesn't have the credibility to deny such things any more.

As far as OBL goes your govt is on record stating not only that Pakistan institutions were not complicit but that Pakistan provided the information for America to discover his whereabouts. Please see:

Pakistan info helped US with bin Laden hideout: official - Yahoo! News

As far as being incompetent the CIA is often accused of far bigger and more failures an agency that has significantly more funding than ISI. why do you hold our ISI to a higher standard than your CIA


The Ten Biggest American Intelligence Failures - By Uri Friedman | Foreign Policy



As far as being complicit in the attacks on Bombay there is no evidence whatsoever that Pakistan or any of its agencies are involved.


Why do you lie so blatantly Somon is this from your Israeli Zionist side or American side? Do you not realise that this behaviour is not likely to win you any friends to either your Israel or America. I mention Israel cos its obvious you do not care the cost to America of the AIPAC and its sponsored regime actions and statements.

But then I should listen to my own advise to Agno in post 96 rather than try discussing with you

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The CTC does that and they've classified such reports: link. I wondered why so many people who know better were keeping silent but I didn't discover this "gag rule" until yesterday.

Just because such reports might be 'classified' does not mean they even exist - so essentially you just admitted that the US position on unilateral military strikes in Pakistan has no legal basis.

You're going backward, AM. There is no such need under the Charter for "subsequent authorization" as you profess.

I am not going 'backwards' you are concocting 'authority to attack a Sovereign State' out of nowhere. Article 51 clearly requires a State arguing Self Defence to immediately report any actions taken under the guise of self defence to the UNSC - UNSCR 1373 does nothing to negate Article 51 and does not, anywhere, authorize the US or any other State to target Pakistani territory under the excuses provided so far.

Carefully read, please. UNSCR 1373 reports are classified and Article 51 explicitly does NOT over-ride UNSC Chapter VII resolutions.

Classified does not mean they exist, it merely means a convenient excuse for you to avoid presenting any evidence that could substantiate US compliance with the UN Charter and international law while conducting military operations in Pakistan. In the absence of any such evidence, US military operations in Pakistan are clearly illegal and in violation of the UN Charter and international law.

UNSCR 1373 didn't exist then and no, these precedents, unlike UNSCR 1373, aren't binding.

Again, where does UNSCR 1373 provide any authorization for the US/NATO to carry out military operations inside Pakistan without further approval from the UNSC? Your dishonesty is obvious as you run around in circles inventing meaning out of UNSC 1373 where none exists.

If the U.S. was targeting the Pakistani state, perhaps. But the U.S. is targeting terrorists on Pakistani territory that Pakistan has withheld its hand from pursuing, contravening a binding UNSC Resolution.

UNSCR 1373 does not, anywhere, authorize the US/NATO to carry out military operations in Pakistan, nor is there any evidence that the UNSC has found Pakistan to in violation of UNSCR 1373.

You're quite aware of several of the proofs and records that exist, even if they aren't all officially acknowledged: OBL, 26/11, more. All point to complicity or incompetence rather than compliance. Pakistan just doesn't have the credibility to deny such things any more.

IF your outlandish allegations were correct, then the US should argue its case in front of the UNSC to get authorisation for military operations against alleged terrorists in FATA - without that, your allegations are simply the unsubstantiated rubbish and propaganda at the behest of the US Establishment/Deep State that have come to characterize the US's foreign policy.

Rewinding back to the beginning damages your credibility, too, AM.

Again:

"... in this case the US is arguing that Pakistan is 'guilty as charged' and subsequently, unilaterally, conducting military strikes on Pakistani territory. The burden of proof therefore falls on the US, to independently establish, in accordance with the UN Charter and international law, that Pakistan has offered no alternatives to the US carrying out unilateral military operations on Pakistani soil."

Ask yourself this: if, after 9/11, the UNSC wanted to authorize international military operations against terrorists no matter what state they harbored in how much plainer could they be than the language of UNSCR 1373?

If the language is so plain, please stop running around in circles and post the specific language authorizing the US/NATO to conduct military operations inside Pakistan without any further sanction from the UNSC. You know there isn't any, which is why you continue to grasp at straws and concoct these 'UNSCR 1373 implies this ' arguments out of nothing.

Why do you lie so blatantly Somon is this from your Israeli Zionist side or American side?

I don't know what 'side' this dishonest behavior arises from, but at the root is a deep, irrational and pathological hatred of Pakistan, akin to the racist, prejudiced garbage spewed by Indians on fora like BR. Hence the inability to accept the lack of any justification for the positions taken by their nations on various issues, and the need to invent arguments and justification out of thin air.

 

[Juice]

1000 good people die for every bad person the US kills..

This is called deterence, and what we pay the military and government for.We pay them to look after American lives, not be fair. You make the price of killing one of our citizens prohibitively high...

(wrong quote, I meant to quote the one that says 1000 for every 1 American)

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This is called deterence, and what we pay the military and government for.We pay them to look after American lives, not be fair. You make the price of killing one of our citizens prohibitively high...

(wrong quote, I meant to quote the one that says 1000 for every 1 American)

Your justification is not really much different from that of Hitler and the Nazi regime - the Nazis were 'paid by the German nation to protect and grow German national interests' - so what if the US/Nazis massacred hundreds of thousands/millions of innocents in that quest...

 

[Solomon2]

Why do you hold our ISI to a higher standard than your CIA

That's an odd standard for comparison. In accordance with the principle of checks and balances, the CIA's role is limited by statute, subject to democratic oversight, and has very little influence in domestic affairs. The ISI, by contrast, is everywhere it wants to be.

As far as being complicit in the attacks on Bombay there is no evidence whatsoever that Pakistan or any of its agencies are involved.

It was confirmed almost immediately by the Guardian that Pakistani officials were involved in a cover-up.

Why do you lie so blatantly Somon -

You haven't found me telling lies, you've only accused me of telling them. Such charges against me dissolve the closer one looks at them, yes? If I make a factual error and someone catches it I bring that fact up, right? It's in accordance with the principle that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

 

[Solomon2]

Just because such reports might be 'classified' does not mean they even exist - so essentially you just admitted that the US position on unilateral military strikes in Pakistan has no legal basis.

Can't see how you managed to stretch to reach that conclusion, AM.

I am not going 'backwards' you are concocting 'authority to attack a Sovereign State' out of nowhere. Article 51 clearly requires a State arguing Self Defence to immediately report any actions taken under the guise of self defence to the UNSC - UNSCR 1373 does nothing to negate Article 51 and does not, anywhere, authorize the US or any other State to target Pakistani territory under the excuses provided so far...where does UNSCR 1373 provide any authorization for the US/NATO to carry out military operations inside Pakistan without further approval from the UNSC?

I don't agree with your legal assessment here. I've pointed out the legal reasoning showing that, as the U.S. claims to operate in self-defense, as Pakistani sovereignty doesn't apply to N. Wazirstan with regards to the terrorists operating there, that U.S. military operations against them are legal. You haven't been able to destroy that argument. Your claim about notification is mere guesswork on your part - and if not, would be rectified the instant the Pakistani rep in the Security Council asked for it - though we might not know since the SC doesn't have to publicly disclose such matters.

In the absence of any such evidence, US military operations in Pakistan are clearly illegal and in violation of the UN Charter and international law.

We could only reach that conclusion if several nations on the SC said the U.S. wasn't providing such info.

...nor is there any evidence that the UNSC has found Pakistan to in violation of UNSCR 1373.

Because the UNSC keeps that information locked up. But too much has happened for Pakistan to enjoy the benefit of doubt.

- your allegations are simply the unsubstantiated rubbish and propaganda at the behest of the US Establishment/Deep State -

The U.S. and Pakistan are not mirror images.

If the language is so plain, please stop running around in circles and post the specific language authorizing the US/NATO to conduct military operations inside Pakistan without any further sanction from the UNSC.

And I showed you that's not necessary and you haven't been able to contest that.

- at the root is a deep, irrational and pathological hatred of Pakistan -

While I find our exchanges profitable - I wouldn't have discovered the 1373 gag rule without your prodding, thanks - you're getting very personal and wound up, AM. I suspect that's because these matters hit very close to you and accepting the logic of my writing would mean you'd have to think badly about someone you've looked up to - perhaps an affable uncle, influential neighbor, or some other role model.

Life isn't black and white, AM. Yet it is still up to us to discern, as best as we can, right from wrong, good from evil, and decide which path to pursue.

 

[VCheng]

May I suggest something?

Both of you, Solomon2 and Agnostic Muslim, should either admit that neither is an expert in international law, or present evidence of this qualification, if you have it, before proceeding any further.

Otherwise, just admit to adhering to one side or the other as a personal opinion only: USA claims the drone strikes are legal; Pakistan says they are illegal.

The final determination is yet to be made, and I, for one, am quite content in waiting for it to be revealed as events unfold.

 

[lem34]

That's an odd standard for comparison. In accordance with the principle of checks and balances, the CIA's role is limited by statute, subject to democratic oversight, and has very little influence in domestic affairs. The ISI, by contrast, is everywhere it wants to be.

do not talk rubbish it is well established principle in America even before the recent inroads into civil rights made by Bush and Obama that security trumps judiciary. Go and see the proclamations of the founding fathers of America. I wonder what is happening to your memory I have already explained to you that you wish to hold our security services to a higher level than American agencies.

I wrote on another thread also in response to you:


http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistan-army/166215-isi-has-taken-over-ghq-2.html


I think the core issue is addressed very well by Thomas Jefferson who was not only a founding father of America was a US president and the principal author of the United States Declaration of Independence. He wrote to friend,

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest (emphasis in original). The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country, by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us: thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means. . . "

This sense that secret intelligence activities were governed by a higher law of self-preservation limited Federal judiciary's reluctance to exert limited jurisdiction in such areas.

So come on guys I can understand Indians Americans Zionists and Solo mon asking our beloved ISI to be held to a higher standard than the CIA but why are we even giving this any bandwidth