PDA

View Full Version : Pakistan's Abbotabad Report



Pages : [1] 2

Agnostic Muslim
08 Jul 13,, 22:38
Here is a link to the leaked Pakistani Abbottabad Commission Report:

Aljazeera Bin Laden Dossier (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/724833-aljazeera-bin-laden-dossier.html#document/p1)

Some analysis from the Guardian that I largely agree with:


Pakistan's Abbottabad report is serious, savage self-analysis

Jason Burke
The Guardian, Monday 8 July 2013 14.30 EDT

There are five major elements that western intelligence analysts will immediately notice as they work their way through the 300-plus pages of the Abbottabad report – and several still-unanswered questions.

The first comprises some new details about the early days of Osama bin Laden's life as a fugitive following the December 2001 fall of the Taliban regime that had sheltered him in Afghanistan since 1996. The al-Qaida leader is reported to have entered Pakistan in mid-2002, spending time, possibly, in the frontier city of Peshawar and in the restive tribal agencies on the border. Then he moved deeper into Pakistan, to the Swat Valley. He moved a month later to the town of Haripur, and finally in 2005, with wives, children and grandchildren in tow, to Abbottabad.

But did any Pakistani officials – military or civilian – know he was there? This is the second crucial element, and one of the key questions the report's authors, led by a retired supreme court judge, sought to answer. Their conclusion is that complacency, inefficiency and negligence at all levels allowed Bin Laden's presence to pass undetected. This is predictable, critics will say, from a commission appointed by the Pakistani government. But it is very close to the consensus of western intelligence officials since the raid.

The report's authors – and western spooks – do not rule out some kind of plausibly deniable assistance from rogue elements. This theory – cockup, not conspiracy – is a marginally more heartening conclusion than the idea that the Pakistani military or someone else consciously harboured the al-Qaida leader.

However, element three will cause alarm. Officials in London, Washington and elsewhere will be concerned to read the views of Shuja Pasha, the head of Pakistan's main military spy agency, the ISI, until last year, that the police and civilian intelligence services are neither trustworthy nor competent partners in fighting terrorism.

There is further discouragement in Pasha's admission that the ISI is aware of the location of "foreign miscreants" in major cities but that the targets are safe in what have become no-go areas for law enforcement authorities. This makes the sheer weakness of much of the government machinery in Pakistan very evident.

Then there are Pakistan's relations with the CIA and the west – element four. There are few surprises here, except perhaps the depth of Pakistani animosity. "American arrogance knows no limit," Pasha told the authors. Their own views appear much the same, if expressed in marginally more measured tones. Overall the report gives every indication that, when it comes to the "rollercoaster of US-Pakistan relations", the current heart-stopping descent will not bottom out for some time.

Finally, element five, there is the existence of the report at all. It appears, against most expectations, to be a serious, sober piece of work. It is no whitewash but a savage piece of self-analysis. Even the ISI is explicitly criticised for overstepping its remit, for its mindset and for failing to properly monitor four phone numbers of suspected militants when given numbers by the CIA in 2010. These, it turned out, belonged to the crucial courier who later led the CIA to Bin Laden.

No Pakistani government agency or institution comes out unscathed. The civilian and military leadership showed "breathtaking incompetence and irresponsibility", the report says. In one section, repeated military interventions are criticised for creating a vicious circle that undermines the capacity of civilian institutions.

Given the sensitivity of the issue and the political pressures on the authors, this is remarkable. It suggests that those optimists who, in the aftermath of a successful election and transition of power, believe that in some areas at least there is progress in Pakistan might just be right.

Pakistan's Abbottabad report is serious, savage self-analysis | World news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/08/pakistan-abbottabad-report-savage-self-analysis)

HKDan
09 Jul 13,, 03:04
I cherry picked this off NYTimes,
“Connivance, collaboration and cooperation at some levels cannot be entirely discounted,” From my perspective, that the authors of this report left this open as a possibility, while drawing the conclusions that it was primarily incompetence and negligence that allowed Bin Laden to hide in Pakistan as long as he did make this seem like a serious document. I am looking forward to reading it in its entirety.

S2
09 Jul 13,, 03:12
Zain,

Thank you. Both the commission report and analysis are valuable. I'm sure there'll be more analysis to follow. I look forward to reading both it and the comments here.

zraver
09 Jul 13,, 03:55
Reading between the lines.... It is pretty clear he was a guest. Maybe not of the government, but of those who actually have power.

1. This failure included negligence and incompetence and at some undetermined level a grave complicity may or may not have involved,

2. How the entire neighborhood, local officials, police and security and intelligence officials all missed the size, the strange shape, the barbed wire, the lack of cars and visitors etc over a period of nearly six years beggars belief,

3. That Pakistan had stopped looking for bin Laden by 2005.... He [Bin Laden] moved in August 2005 to Abbottabad,

4. He shopped in local markets and even got pulled over for speeding.

Minskaya
09 Jul 13,, 05:06
The pdf document can also be accessed here (http://webapps.aljazeera.net/aje/custom/binladenfiles/Pakistan-Bin-Laden-Dossier.pdf)

Very interesting ISI admission on page 174[398] regarding the American fear of Pakistani intelligence leakage:

"This might be the case if it concerned FATA, but this explanation could not apply to Abbottabad."

In a back-handed manner, the statement above seems to corroborate the US complaint that the ISI leaked information about impending actions (drone strikes) in the border areas.

Officer of Engineers
09 Jul 13,, 05:11
The pdf document can also be accessed here (http://webapps.aljazeera.net/aje/custom/binladenfiles/Pakistan-Bin-Laden-Dossier.pdf)

Very interesting ISI admission on page 174[398] regarding the American fear of Pakistani intelligence leakage:

"This might be the case if it concerned FATA, but this explanation could not apply to Abbottabad."

In a back-handed manner, the statement above seems to corroborate the US complaint that the ISI leaked information about impending actions (drone strikes) in the border areas.You can't be trusted with the Taliban but you can be trusted with OBL. Where do these guys take courses in logic.

Tronic
09 Jul 13,, 06:27
It's a very interesting read. The account of the raid from the perspective of the wives of the slain men. After reading 'No Easy Day', these accounts of the raid are all consistent and seem to corroborate one another.

Another interesting angle here is the Iranian one. The Iranians seemed to be very well aware of the movements of the Laden family; closely tracking their movements within Iran, arresting and then releasing them back into Pakistan (while denying their request to continue on to Syria). If even the border guards in Iran were aware of the movements of the Laden family, why weren't the Pakistanis? At the end of the day, I think the ones calling the shots in Pakistan may not have actively sheltered Laden, but it's obvious they did not care enough to bother looking for him.

gf0012-aust
09 Jul 13,, 07:48
I'm not overly convinced that he's managed to suspend his own beliefs in the delivery of this analysis

there is an absolute that has to be subscribed to when you do analysis - ie don't inject personal perception into the report

in this case he talks about american arrogance which demonstrates an inability to analyse in isolation

ie, the behaviour of other countries has no bearing on the behaviour of your own people in the event and what they should/could/would have done if they were on the ball - ie you analyse on the behaviour and performance of your own people - attributing traits to the other side is one of the things that you don't do as your own side should be worded up and factoring those elements anyway.

suspending your own prejudice is critical to any proper analysis and he's not done himself any favours by injecting his beliefs into this.

TopHatter
09 Jul 13,, 13:05
I cherry picked this off NYTimes, From my perspective, that the authors of this report left this open as a possibility, while drawing the conclusions that it was primarily incompetence and negligence that allowed Bin Laden to hide in Pakistan as long as he did make this seem like a serious document. I am looking forward to reading it in its entirety.

I am always desirous of applying Hanlon's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor) to these types of situations.

However, the NYTimes makes a very good point: “Connivance, collaboration and cooperation at some levels cannot be entirely discounted,”

It reminds me of the end of the movie Conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(2001_film)).

While the Holocaust is being planned inside a large mansion, a group of bored SS drivers are engaging in an impromptu snowball fight outside.
Adolf Eichmann suddenly walks outside and angrily screams for the men to stop, singling out the closest man and demanding to know what he is doing, especially as the man is in uniform.
The hapless man stammers an excuse that "it just happened". Eichmann viciously slaps the man and declares "Not in uniform! Nothing ever 'just happens'!"

Agnostic Muslim
09 Jul 13,, 13:38
The pdf document can also be accessed here (http://webapps.aljazeera.net/aje/custom/binladenfiles/Pakistan-Bin-Laden-Dossier.pdf)

Very interesting ISI admission on page 174[398] regarding the American fear of Pakistani intelligence leakage:

"This might be the case if it concerned FATA, but this explanation could not apply to Abbottabad."

In a back-handed manner, the statement above seems to corroborate the US complaint that the ISI leaked information about impending actions (drone strikes) in the border areas.


You can't be trusted with the Taliban but you can be trusted with OBL. Where do these guys take courses in logic.

The actual quote from the report (which in my opinion impacts the context) differs from Minskaya's quote and is as follows:

"The team was asked about the US explanation that one reason for not sharing information about the presence of OBL or about the special operation was because of its fear that his information could be leaked. That was why the operation was conducted unilaterally. The ISI denied this by saying this might have been said with respect to FATA. But this explanation could not apply to Abbottabad. It had no justification. In fact the record showed that whenever any information was made available regarding the possible location of OBL a dedicated attempt was made to capture him. But each time the information communicated by the CIA did not turn out to be authentic. The ISI told the Commission that after the Tora Bora operation, the CIA had closed its special unit which was set up to hunt OBL. Moreover, the ISI said, OBL had not been active since 2005. All operational activities of Al Qaeda were controlled by Aiman-al-Zawahiri. Accordingly, the ISI team told the Commission, "everyone, including the US" thought OBL was no longer alive."

Operations in FATA have involved Tribal paramilitary forces, and there have been a handful of incidents in which attacks on ISAF soldiers by members of the Tribal paramilitary forces have occurred. As such US concerns about 'information leakage', at the lower levels in FATA, might be justified, but, as ISI argues, such issues have not arisen outside of FATA with respect to neutralizing AQ members (typically in operations involving the ISI and Pakistani special forces).

Nothing to do with 'taking courses in logic' OoE, just requires reading the content a little more carefully, without resorting to sarcastic asides.

Agnostic Muslim
09 Jul 13,, 13:56
I'm not overly convinced that he's managed to suspend his own beliefs in the delivery of this analysis

there is an absolute that has to be subscribed to when you do analysis - ie don't inject personal perception into the report

in this case he talks about american arrogance which demonstrates an inability to analyse in isolation

ie, the behaviour of other countries has no bearing on the behaviour of your own people in the event and what they should/could/would have done if they were on the ball - ie you analyse on the behaviour and performance of your own people - attributing traits to the other side is one of the things that you don't do as your own side should be worded up and factoring those elements anyway.

suspending your own prejudice is critical to any proper analysis and he's not done himself any favours by injecting his beliefs into this.
The references to 'American arrogance' are made in terms of describing US policies/demands/actions, and are not used to 'justify the behavior of your own people in the event and what they should/could/would have done ..'.

The perceptions about the US should in fact be a welcome addition in the report, for American analysts at least, because they might identify aspects of US policy that have limited cooperation with Pakistan and damaged the relationship, if of course the long term goal of the US government is to increase cooperation with Pakistan and improve the relationship.

Agnostic Muslim
09 Jul 13,, 14:09
Excerpts from an Al Jazeera interview with Richard Armitage after the Abbottabad Report was leaked:

Q&A: US-Pakistan relations
Al Jazeera speaks with Richard Armitage, former US deputy secretary of state.
Asad Hashim Last Modified: 08 Jul 2013 16:18

The Abbottabad Commission's report declares that in unilaterally launching a raid in Pakistani territory without informing Pakistani authorities at any stage, "the United States acted like a criminal thug" and perpetrated "an act of war". While most of the report's criticism is directed at the Pakistani government and military, it also argues that no legal justification existed for the US action - indeed, it spends eight pages outlining various legal arguments from Pakistanis and international legal experts.

The Commission states that the relationship between the two countries "has been based largely on US economic and military assistance to Pakistan on the one hand, and the contingent utility of Pakistan for the US on the other […] at its best, it has been a mutually beneficial relationship. More often, it has pretended to be a strategic relationship without being one, except for brief durations of overlapping interests in dealing with common challenges".

It recommends a review of the relationship by the Pakistani government, based on a review of its strategic objectives and the ability to make the relationship "transparent and honest".

Al Jazeera spoke to Richard Armitage, US deputy secretary of state from 2001 to 2005, under President George W Bush, about the Pakistan-US relationship.

Al Jazeera: The report describes Pakistan as an 'unenthusiastic ally' of the US-led War on Terror back in 2001. What was your impression?

Richard Armitage: I thought that Pakistan had a mixed view about participation in 2001 with the United States. [Then Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf was enthusiastic, I think, primarily because he saw a way to get his country out of pariah status and the 10-year divorce it had with the United States. There were others, particularly the ISI [Inter-Service Intelligence], which for 10 years had fostered a different policy and had close associations with the Taliban, particularly after 1996, and they were much more reluctant.

I would class, generally, Pakistanis as suspicious of co-operation with the United States.

AJ: Did the US believe that Pakistan would help take down Osama bin Laden or bring him in?

RA: We certainly thought in the time that I was acting - 2001 to 2005 - that if Pakistan knew where Bin Laden was, they would assist us… And we put a great deal of credibility on President Musharraf and indeed had a very good relationship with him. I looked, however, carefully, from 2001 to 2005, at intelligence regarding the tribal areas and Afghanistan and Pakistan, and I could find no real assistance [for] the Taliban. I found some liaison, which one would understand - these were people with whom ISI had worked for 10 years or more. But I couldn't find actual assistance. It was only in the middle part of 2005 that things really dramatically changed, for a lot of reasons, I think.

...

AJ: The report states that by 2005 all co-operation between the CIA and the ISI on finding OBL had ceased. Why?

RA: I left in February 2005, and I’m not sure, however, if that statement is completely true. I noted that ISI directors came here every year at least once and visited with their CIA counterpart, etcetera, so it would seem to me that at least something still existed.

AJ: This is from a copy of the report: 'The Commission was told that after 2005 all co-operation between the CIA and ISI regarding OBL ceased. The US did not respond to questions by the Commission on the subject. However, since, the US leaders publically communicated their concerns over the suspected presence of OBL in Pakistan'. Are you saying that there was still back-channel communication?

RA: No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that publically, the ISI director was still travelling here to the United States at least once a year. And he would meet with his counterpart, who is the director of the CIA. He also met on occasion with the Secretary of Defence etc. So to make a blanket statement that all co-operation on Osama bin Laden ceased after 2005 seems to me a statement without foundation. But I was not involved.

AJ: Do you think the Commission might be saying this because they view the incident as a failure of national security?

RA: I have no idea why the commission says what they say or who they interviewed. I do know that the nation [of Pakistan] was quite embarrassed, on several fronts. One, that the United States could do this on their own and they wouldn’t know it, and two, that after successive leaders of Pakistan have told us they didn’t know where Osama bin Laden was, there had to be a certain embarrassment - and I think that was embarrassment that the public generally felt that, no matter the poor state of a lot of the institutions of Pakistan, the army was the only national institution which enjoyed trust. And here the army was floundering around during the time of our raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound. So there are many reasons for embarrassment…

The only national [Pakistani] institution which held [national] respect was the army, and this [raid] really chipped away at the legitimacy and the professionalism of the army. So I think there is every reason to feel embarrassed.

Having said that, as an American, I find that the raid was a success, and a message was sent to terrorists - that we will reach out and touch you.

AJ: The US obviously sees the raid as a huge success – they took out Osama bin Laden. The Pakistani government sees it as a “national tragedy”, “a night of shame”, took it from a completely different perspective - a total breakdown in their national security. Are those feelings accurate? Should they feel this way?

RA: I last was in Pakistan in 2009, and I met with the president, met with [Chief of Army Staff] General Ashfaq Kayani, met with everyone you’d expect I’d meet with. I’ve got to tell you that the feelings regarding the United States relationship have always been mixed, for good reason.

I think [Pakistan] will get what they can out of the US relationship while they can, because history, since 1947, has shown that - in their eyes - we are not reliable.

From a Pakistani point of view, the United States and Pakistan didn’t just have one divorce for 10 years over the nuclear issue. Five separate times we have ceased providing equipment to Pakistan. So from their point of view, I think they’ll get what they can out of the US relationship while they can, because history, since 1947, has shown that - in their eyes - we are not reliable.

From our point of view, we expected that Pakistan would see things from the same pair of glasses we see things.

So, to some extent, both of us had unreasonable and unrealizable expectations.

AJ: The report talks of 'a shortage of mutual appreciation, regard and trust in this contingent, transactional and often resentful relationship' between the US and Pakistan. What's your reaction to that?

RA: I think I would have written that at any time, not just as a result of the Commission after the Bin Laden raid. But it gets back from their point of view to the unreliability of the US as a partner. I keep stressing "from their point of view". From our point of view, we've got our own interests and our own reasons.

AJ: In the report, the ISI chief says Pakistan had become too weak and dependent to defend itself against US policies. What's your take on that?

RA: I don't think that they had become weak. They did have few friends in the international community for 10 years, although we still had diplomatic relations with Pakistan, we had no assistance programmes. They had a good and competent air force, a good and competent navy, they've got a very strong land force [which] is fairly well equipped.

They are not in the business of confronting the United States. Their enemies were much more traditional ones. So I find the statement rather funny.

AJ: Had the Pakistani government had any information regarding the existence of an alleged support network for Osama bin Laden, the report indicates that Pakistan would have taken immediate action. Do you think that's the case?

RA: They always told us that they did take action, but I've been out of it since 2005. And I think there has been… a question about the more recent ISI activities, and whether that would be the case. But I felt, during our time, that President Musharraf would have done something - had he known. And I think that General Ehsan ul-Haq, the ISI director during my time, would have done it as well.

AJ: After your time, do you think that Pakistan would have lived up to that statement?

RA: Well, after my time, there are several other things that happened. I personally believe that around mid-2005, both the Taliban and ISI had a change of view. The Taliban was coming to the conclusion that they weren't as frightened of the United States… At the same time, [the] ISI was wondering: "Well, maybe we ought to go back to a more traditional policy of supporting some of the Taliban, because they may prevail." So that's the background.

AJ: There seemed to have been co-operation - there were some HVTs who were taken down in operations. Do you think the allegations or the concerns that Pakistan was leaking information to jihadi organisations - do you think that it was a legitimate concern that the US had, about Pakistan leaking information prior to raids?

RA: I think it is [a legitimate concern] in every country, in every situation or in every raid or drone strike. Is it the case? I can't rule out that some people who might have been informed, did inform. Whether it a blanket policy? I have no idea.

AJ: Do you have any direct knowledge that they were?

RA: No.

AJ: The report indicates that the reason the US did not inform Pakistan about the raid prior, was that it was a power play - that the US administration did not want anyone to steal its thunder. Do you think there's any truth to that?

RA: I think the United States went unilaterally as they did because they wanted to be sure that they could get the target they came after. I think that's the only reason.

it was after Tora Bora that we found out how close we had been. How damnably close...

AJ: When you were in office, do you feel that you were ever very close to getting Osama bin Laden?

RA: After Tora Bora, no. And Tora Bora - it was after Tora Bora that we found out how close we had been. How damnably close. But after that, no, we were not.

AJ: The report clearly indicates that the raid to kill Bin Laden was 'an act of war' by the United States.

RA: I don't care what the report indicates. I didn't write it. It's not a US report. They are welcome to write anything that they say. It's not an act of war. We went out and took out a terrorist. If they want to call it an act of war, that's fine.

AJ: Talk to me about the political impact that drone strikes have had on the Pakistan-US relationship?

...

Follow Asad Hashim on Twitter: @AsadHashim

Q&A: US-Pakistan relations - Features - Al Jazeera English (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/07/20137815011322360.html)

1980s
09 Jul 13,, 14:59
]AJ: The report clearly indicates that the raid to kill Bin Laden was 'an act of war' by the United States.

RA: I don't care what the report indicates. I didn't write it. It's not a US report. They are welcome to write anything that they say. It's not an act of war. We went out and took out a terrorist. If they want to call it an act of war, that's fine.

Q&A: US-Pakistan relations - Features - Al Jazeera English (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/07/20137815011322360.html)

Yep, pretty much. Its just one report, a Pakistani one, undoubtedly useful, but far from a closed case on this:


However, the NYTimes makes a very good point: “Connivance, collaboration and cooperation at some levels cannot be entirely discounted,”

And this issue should not be discounted. The tone of self-criticism aside, the overall conclusion of the report doesnt offer much new from the Pakistani excuse of the past 2 years about the incompetence of its institutions etc The report reads more like they're continuing to let those within their security establishment who collude with terrorists and shelter them off the hook with just a slap on the wrist.

So Bin Laden lives in Pakistan for 10 years, several in an unusually large compound near a military academy and nobody in the Pakistani security establisment knew in all that time? BS. And i suppose former ISI head Mahmud Ahmed had nothing to do with the wiring of 100,000 US$ to 9/11 highjacker Mohammad Atta either, it wasnt connivance but just his incompetence? :rolleyes:

Guess the Kunduz airlift wasnt connivance either, that too, was incompetence and the Pakistanis had no idea that ISI personnel along with AQ and Taliban leaders / operatives were being evacuated out of Afghanistan to Pakistan?

These people are remarkable for their inability to aknowledge plain facts even after they have been caught and called out on them.

Incompetent? That they surely, truly are, but pull the other one when it comes to Bin Laden and the Taliban.

Agnostic Muslim
09 Jul 13,, 17:20
The report reads more like they're continuing to let those within their security establishment who collude with terrorists and shelter them off the hook with just a slap on the wrist.

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to who 'within the security establishment colluded with terrorists and sheltered OBL' since you some others wail about this particular allegation non-stop, despite the Pakistani commission and the US government's own investigation into the materials obtained from the OBL compound and related intelligence finding absolutely no evidence supporting the allegation that there were 'individuals within the Pakistani security establishment who colluded with terrorists and sheltered OBL'.

zraver
09 Jul 13,, 20:06
In fact the record showed that whenever any information was made available regarding the possible location of OBL a dedicated attempt was made to capture him. But each time the information communicated by the CIA did not turn out to be authentic.

Was the information not authentic, or did someone warn him to get gone fast? What we do know- attempts to use Pakistani forces to capture Bin Laden on multiple attempts= 0 success rate. Nor is there any reason to believe that the information provided wasn't good- not given the important in finding him and the resources dedicated to it. It is highly suspicious that all joint ops fail and the single solo attempt by the US succeeds. Further suspicion is aroused when that American team felt they needed air cover and protection from the Pakistani military their supposed allies and co-belligerents.

If you boil it all down and sift through all the misdirection- the authors were unable to clear Pakistan's name of being a state sponsor of terrorism- period full stop.

Agnostic Muslim
09 Jul 13,, 20:31
Was the information not authentic, or did someone warn him to get gone fast? What we do know- attempts to use Pakistani forces to capture Bin Laden on multiple attempts= 0 success rate.
Verifying whether the information provided by the US was 'authentic' or not should not be too hard since the times and locations of prior raids can be cross-referenced against the details about OBL's hideouts provided by OBL's family.

It is highly suspicious that all joint ops fail and the single solo attempt by the US succeeds.
The US also failed in Tora Bora, so hardly the 'single solo attempt' - other than that your argument is speculative at best.

Further suspicion is aroused when that American team felt they needed air cover and protection from the Pakistani military their supposed allies and co-belligerents.
The US was conducting an illegal and unauthorized military strike inside Pakistani territory - it would be completely reasonable to expect the Pakistani military to respond with force had it detected the intrusion. I see no point in your argument here.

If you boil it all down and sift through all the misdirection- the authors were unable to clear Pakistan's name of being a state sponsor of terrorism- period full stop.
Boil it, sift it, add in a generous dose of speculation, anti-Pakistan bias and paranoia and yes, you could arrive at the conclusions you have.

Minskaya
09 Jul 13,, 20:44
The actual quote from the report (which in my opinion impacts the context) differs from Minskaya's quote and is as follows:
The quote infers what is known in the dichotomy of logic as a bipartition. The implication remains the same however. The ISI was less than forthright with the US in the FATA. Thus was planted the seeds of doubt. Empirical experience tells us that in a bipartition, what happens most of the time is not a guarantor of what will happen this time. Thus, Obama's decision to exclude Pakistan from Neptune's Spear.

1980s
09 Jul 13,, 20:51
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to who 'within the security establishment colluded with terrorists and sheltered OBL' since you some others wail about this particular allegation non-stop

I dont need to because the Abbotobad report does not (and cannot) refute those allegations. It glosses them over, yet still concedes to the allegation that “Connivance, collaboration and cooperation at some levels cannot be entirely discounted,”. The people who wrote the report chose to play down those allegations and put the whole thing down to 10 years of 'incompetence', tho it looks like few people out there buy that excuse.

For an army that was so extensively engaged in Afghanistan during the 1980s and especially during the 1990s which included aiding, advising and even fighting alongside the Taliban, the old Pakistani excuses of 'rogue elements' and now 'institutional incompetence' ring pretty hollow.

Here is a summary of former ISI director Mahmood Ahmed's dealings with Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda operatives and affiliates as late as October 2001, the same month he was removed by Musharraf (due only to American pressure): Complete 911 Timeline: ISI Director Mahmood Ahmed (http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?the_isi:_a_more_detailed_look=mahmood Ahmed&timeline=complete_911_timeline) and of Pakistan's airlift of some 5000 Taliban, Pakistani army personal, and foreign terrorists at Kunduz in November, 2001: Context of 'November 14-25, 2001: US Secretly Authorizes Airlift of Pakistani and Taliban Fighters' (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1101airlift#a1101airlift).

The only incompetence here was of the Bush admin to trust the Pakistanis would ultimately be on their side.

Tronic
09 Jul 13,, 21:54
So Bin Laden lives in Pakistan for 10 years, several in an unusually large compound near a military academy and nobody in the Pakistani security establisment knew in all that time?

A certain shady figure, Major Aziz, testifies to the commission on page 76:


Major Aziz also said, somewhat contradictorily, that "Abbottabad was an ideal place for OBL" as everything was available there. It was according to him a peaceful place and families of many terrorists lived there which according to Major Aziz ensured it against suicidal attacks since terrorists would not like to harm their own families. Moreover, the bodies of martyred militants, according to Major Aziz "were buried with great honour in Abbottabad".

It sort of puts credence to the report carried out in the Globe and Mail that the Bin Laden compound was locally suspected to be a Hizbul Mujahideen (anti-Indian militants) safehouse:


As suspicions grow about how Osama bin Laden spent years living next door to Pakistan's military, there are indications emerging that the terrorist mastermind was sheltered by one of the militant groups that has enjoyed tolerance, if not support, from Pakistani security services.

A police officer familiar with Mr. bin Laden's compound in the scenic town of Abbottabad said the location was used by Hizbul Mujahedeen, one of the biggest militant outfits in the disputed territory of Kashmir. Like other groups fighting Indian troops in the borderlands, HM's radical membership has never been rounded up by Pakistani forces and some analysts say Islamabad covertly supports the group.
Bin Laden given haven by militants linked to Pakistani security forces - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/bin-laden-given-haven-by-militants-linked-to-pakistani-security-forces/article2009083/)


The Pakistanis likely did not bother looking there as the "shady people" in town were their esteemed Mujahid guests. They probably didn't expect Osama to be paying a visit.

gf0012-aust
09 Jul 13,, 22:58
The references to 'American arrogance' are made in terms of describing US policies/demands/actions, and are not used to 'justify the behavior of your own people in the event and what they should/could/would have done ..'.

it is used in his report as dialogue to support the intent and justification of pakistan being a victim. it has no relevance to analysing the peformance of the agencies and shops involved and identified as participants for the Pakistani Govt.
Analysts politely refer to such commentary as "fluff"





The perceptions about the US should in fact be a welcome addition in the report, for American analysts at least, because they might identify aspects of US policy that have limited cooperation with Pakistan and damaged the relationship, if of course the long term goal of the US government is to increase cooperation with Pakistan and improve the relationship.

I've made no claim as to whether the US (at a proper analysts level as opposed to a well read journalist or political commentator etc....) sees it as a welcome addition.
If you think that a throw away "hurt statement" from someone who has been unable to suspend their own defensive reaction and bias into what is supposed to be clinical navel gazing is needed for the US to have a deeper understanding of what ails the relationship, then you're injecting your own assumptions into this as well.

The fact that the US even needed to isolate people on the PGov side shows how much they believe the PG is compromised from within. Thats basic tactical analysis and has zero do to with who might have hurt feelings, or what country to country attitudes are. The overall thrust of the report reinforces why the USG closely held the mechanics of this opn to their chest. All the self generated grief on the other side does not alter the fact that they couldn't control their own agencies, and that their agencies were incompetent (and I have significant difficulty accepting this as the Pakistanis are a good outfit with respect to their 2 shops - and having worked with PakMil in prev lives)

ISI aren't amateurs - and if other agencies were operating in absentia of relevant material to do their own jobs, then thats a reinforcement (again) of what we know are vehicles of "shop" tribalism. "Tribes" in govt language refers to role based agencies or shops - not on cultural-heritage links

Double Edge
09 Jul 13,, 23:01
If you boil it all down and sift through all the misdirection- the authors were unable to clear Pakistan's name of being a state sponsor of terrorism- period full stop.
I don't think that was the intent. The conclusion goes on about intelligence failures etc. And does not mention anybody stating that its obvious who 'anybody' is.

The real point is nothing is going to happen to Pakistan as a result of this isn't it. Nobody is going to do anything. The report offers recommendations, there is nobody obligated to enforce anything the report recommends.

Taliban got toppled and invaded because they would not hand him over. Admission & refusal to cooperate. What did the Paks do ? Deny he existed or said they did not know.

When you found out he was alive & kicking in Pakistan. What did you do ? went in and got him yourself.

The Paks are off the hook, whether we like it or not. You got the guy in the end so you've got something to show for the effort.

zraver
10 Jul 13,, 03:20
Verifying whether the information provided by the US was 'authentic' or not should not be too hard since the times and locations of prior raids can be cross-referenced against the details about OBL's hideouts provided by OBL's family.

I agree


The US also failed in Tora Bora, so hardly the 'single solo attempt' - other than that your argument is speculative at best.

Not solo, relied on Afghans and more importantly Pakistanis to close the backdoor... Pakistan was suspiciously just a bit too slow on the closing...


The US was conducting an illegal and unauthorized military strike inside Pakistani territory - it would be completely reasonable to expect the Pakistani military to respond with force had it detected the intrusion. I see no point in your argument here.

Not illegal, not under customary international law or the laws of armed conflict. We are officially allies and co-belligerents, that gives us rights to conduct legitimate war aims where ever the war if officially being fought. For example were allied attacks on Holland and France in WWII illegal? You wont find a single international law regarding belligerents that says an ally can't conduct otherwise legitimate military operations on another allies territory.

In addition, had the US previously stated that we would go after OBL where ever we found him without needing anyone's permission. Had Pakistan previously pledged and made public statements she was willing to do what ever it took to catch OBL? Obviously the answers are yes to both. It almost sounds like you're more upset that OBL got caught than in celebrating the fact he was caught.


Boil it, sift it, add in a generous dose of speculation, anti-Pakistan bias and paranoia and yes, you could arrive at the conclusions you have.

Lots and lots of evidence of Pakistan supporting terror and double dealing.

notorious_eagle
10 Jul 13,, 03:44
Lots and lots of evidence of Pakistan supporting terror and double dealing.

The question is, what does Pakistan gain from supporting terror and double dealing? Pointing a finger at someone far more easier than acknowledging one's own mistakes. I have a hard time believing Pakistan was sheltering OBL considering the fact that AQ is directly responsible for the death of thousands of innocent Pakistanis.

Officer of Engineers
10 Jul 13,, 03:54
This is not a case of wink-wink turning a blind eye to terror safe havens. This is a deliberate case of turning of a full blind eye to terror safe havens, trusting the terrorists not to do anything against Pakistani interests. Guess what? You got burned. This report says it all. Pakistan trusted terrorists enough to give them safe havens and were surprised that those terrorists in turn gave safe haven to Al Qaeda and OBL - in Pakistan. Hell, in their shoes, I would too. OBL, desperate on the run, and I got a safe house in Pakistan, and he's offering millions? Guess what?

In the final straw, Pakistan is responsible for OBL. There is no way around it. Yeah, those safe havens were not meant for AQ nor OBL but guess what? You trusted and gave aide to AQ and OBL allies and you were surprised that AQ and OBL took advantage of that?

And we should trust you with our military secrets.

zraver
10 Jul 13,, 04:55
The question is, what does Pakistan gain from supporting terror and double dealing? Pointing a finger at someone far more easier than acknowledging one's own mistakes.

Continued military dominance of the civil society and the funding and perks that come with it.


I have a hard time believing Pakistan was sheltering OBL considering the fact that AQ is directly responsible for the death of thousands of innocent Pakistanis.

Doesn't really matter what you believe, its what the rest of the world believes. The evidence of Pakistani complicity in multiple terror attacks across the globe is what matters. Even the Chinese have gotten on to Pakistan for its support of terror.

gf0012-aust
10 Jul 13,, 05:45
The question is, what does Pakistan gain from supporting terror and double dealing? Pointing a finger at someone far more easier than acknowledging one's own mistakes. I have a hard time believing Pakistan was sheltering OBL considering the fact that AQ is directly responsible for the death of thousands of innocent Pakistanis.

The issue you allude to is not about branding "all" pakistanis with sheltering OBL. Its about elements within Pakistani agencies who were either complicit by omission, or complicit by commission in not alerting other Pakistani agencies or the executive of the Pakistani govt as to what they knew of where OBL was.

Or lets use a different example

Lets assume that Gen Schwarzkopff at the height of his public awareness was living in the middle of Aberdeen or Richmond for 5+ years and nobody claimed to see him living in a facility that was blatantly different from the usual housing arrangements and where it was apparent that the local security were not from the neighbourhood.

Incredulity would be high....

Minskaya
10 Jul 13,, 08:05
The Pakistani public demanded to know what had happened in Abbottabad and a commission was duly appointed to investigate.

The Abbottabad Commission report was delivered to the GOP in January, but publicly suppressed upon receipt. Why?

Why did it require a foreign media (Al Jazeera) to publish what should have been publicly available to everyone six months ago?

To be quite frank, this episode in itself is yet another glaring example of why the Pakistani government is so distrusted.

lemontree
10 Jul 13,, 10:11
These people are remarkable for their inability to aknowledge plain facts even after they have been caught and called out on them.


Lol....you hit the nail on the head :biggrin:
This report is another BS yarn they are trying to spin to tell the world "we are innocent because we dont know our jobs"....

Double Edge
10 Jul 13,, 10:49
Not illegal, not under customary international law or the laws of armed conflict. We are officially allies and co-belligerents, that gives us rights to conduct legitimate war aims where ever the war if officially being fought. For example were allied attacks on Holland and France in WWII illegal? You wont find a single international law regarding belligerents that says an ally can't conduct otherwise legitimate military operations on another allies territory.

In addition, had the US previously stated that we would go after OBL where ever we found him without needing anyone's permission. Had Pakistan previously pledged and made public statements she was willing to do what ever it took to catch OBL? Obviously the answers are yes to both. It almost sounds like you're more upset that OBL got caught than in celebrating the fact he was caught.
This does away with the 'act of war' argument quite nicely.

zraver
10 Jul 13,, 13:51
This does away with the 'act of war' argument quite nicely.

Wars have battlefields, not always on the other guys soil. It is completely bogus and unsupportable.

Agnostic Muslim
10 Jul 13,, 14:05
Not illegal, not under customary international law or the laws of armed conflict. We are officially allies and co-belligerents, that gives us rights to conduct legitimate war aims where ever the war if officially being fought.


This does away with the 'act of war' argument quite nicely.

It doesn't actually, because the UNSC authorization for ISAF to conduct military operations in Afghanistan does not extend to Pakistan. Any unauthorized (by Pakistan) drone strikes and the Abbottabad raid are/were illegal and illegitimate, and therefore a Pakistani military response to an unidentified, unauthorized military strike of unknown intent would be completely justified, regardless of any claims of 'being allies'.

notorious_eagle
10 Jul 13,, 14:09
Continued military dominance of the civil society and the funding and perks that come with it.

Sir

The only reason why the military continues to enjoy influence in the civil society is because of the utter incompetence of the political/civilian institutions and the genuine support PA has among the masses. The last 5 years are perfect example of this, the popularly elected Civilian Government failed to deliver basic governance to the people and broke all records of corruption and nepotism. If the Civilian Institutions in Pakistan can even accomplish 50% of the efficiency that PA delivers with its budget, Pakistan will be an economic powerhouse.


Doesn't really matter what you believe, its what the rest of the world believes.

It matters more what i believe because i am the one living in the battlefield, not the rest of the world.


The evidence of Pakistani complicity in multiple terror attacks across the globe is what matters. Even the Chinese have gotten on to Pakistan for its support of terror.

What about the multiple terror attacks that Pakistan has helped stop? Pakistan has arrested numerous AQ leaders and handed them over to NATO. And if you believe that Pakistan is double dealing and is responsible for all the terror attacks in the world, by all means cut off all relations with Pakistan and turn it into a pariah like Iran :)

Agnostic Muslim
10 Jul 13,, 14:10
I dont need to because the Abbotobad report does not (and cannot) refute those allegations. It glosses them over, yet still concedes to the allegation that “Connivance, collaboration and cooperation at some levels cannot be entirely discounted,”. The people who wrote the report chose to play down those allegations and put the whole thing down to 10 years of 'incompetence', tho it looks like few people out there buy that excuse.

For an army that was so extensively engaged in Afghanistan during the 1980s and especially during the 1990s which included aiding, advising and even fighting alongside the Taliban, the old Pakistani excuses of 'rogue elements' and now 'institutional incompetence' ring pretty hollow.
Pay attention to your own comments here, "engaged in Afghanistan during the 1980's and aiding and advising the Taliban', not Al Qaeda and not OBL. And yes, you do need to enlighten us as to 'who within the security establishment colluded with terrorists and sheltered OBL' because the US and Pakistani investigations have found absolutely no evidence of Pakistani institutional complicity in sheltering OBL. At this point your insistence on repeating the 'collusion' claim, despite a complete lack of any evidence supporting your claims, makes you sound a lot like the 9/11 truther conspiracy nuts.


Here is a summary of former ISI director Mahmood Ahmed's dealings with Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda operatives and affiliates as late as October 2001, the same month he was removed by Musharraf (due only to American pressure): Complete 911 Timeline: ISI Director Mahmood Ahmed (http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?the_isi:_a_more_detailed_look=mahmood Ahmed&timeline=complete_911_timeline) and of Pakistan's airlift of some 5000 Taliban, Pakistani army personal, and foreign terrorists at Kunduz in November, 2001: Context of 'November 14-25, 2001: US Secretly Authorizes Airlift of Pakistani and Taliban Fighters' (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1101airlift#a1101airlift).

Please note that the US was aware of and approved that particular 'airlift', so accusing Pakistan after the fact is disingenuous to say the least.

notorious_eagle
10 Jul 13,, 14:13
The issue you allude to is not about branding "all" pakistanis with sheltering OBL. Its about elements within Pakistani agencies who were either complicit by omission, or complicit by commission in not alerting other Pakistani agencies or the executive of the Pakistani govt as to what they knew of where OBL was.

Or lets use a different example

Lets assume that Gen Schwarzkopff at the height of his public awareness was living in the middle of Aberdeen or Richmond for 5+ years and nobody claimed to see him living in a facility that was blatantly different from the usual housing arrangements and where it was apparent that the local security were not from the neighbourhood.

Incredulity would be high....

That is something that cannot be discounted, off course there is a possibility that sympathy for OBL existed within certain elements of intelligence agencies. Overall, it was a massive clusterf*** and a collective failure for Pakistan. I certainly hope that heads are rolled and an example is set for future.

Agnostic Muslim
10 Jul 13,, 14:15
The quote infers what is known in the dichotomy of logic as a bipartition. The implication remains the same however. The ISI was less than forthright with the US in the FATA. Thus was planted the seeds of doubt. Empirical experience tells us that in a bipartition, what happens most of the time is not a guarantor of what will happen this time. Thus, Obama's decision to exclude Pakistan from Neptune's Spear.
The 'implication' you are inferring from the quote is not as clear as you would like to make it out to be - the quote does not imply that 'the ISI was less that forthright with the US in FATA', it merely implies that there might be reason for the US to have concerns over information leakage in FATA, and that leakage could be due to various dynamics unique to the military operations in FATA, some of which I elaborated upon in my previous post on this issue.

Agnostic Muslim
10 Jul 13,, 14:28
it is used in his report as dialogue to support the intent and justification of pakistan being a victim. it has no relevance to analysing the peformance of the agencies and shops involved and identified as participants for the Pakistani Govt.
Analysts politely refer to such commentary as "fluff"
I believe the 'arrogant American' comments were made by Pasha during his testimony to the Commission, and the context was a discussion about whether and how potential law enforcement, military and intelligence assets were compromised into collaborating with the US. That testimony also included comments by Pasha about Pakistan being a 'failing State', and how the US likely found it easy to 'buy' local collaboration, which in turn led into Pasha narrating a comment by a US intelligence official bragging about how they could buy anyone in Pakistan etc. etc. and hence the 'arrogant American attitude'.

In terms of explaining the Pakistani understanding of unilateral and counterproductive US policies towards Pakistan (Raymond Davis fiasco, repeated attacks killing Pakistani soldiers and paramilitary troops etc.) the comments are completely relevant. Your disagreement with the comments does not automatically make them 'fluff'. Many of the more polarizing actions taken by the US (that strengthened Pakistani perceptions of 'US arrogance') occurred in the months leading up to the Abbottabad raid, poisoning the relationship, reducing cooperation and increasing distrust on both sides.

I've made no claim as to whether the US (at a proper analysts level as opposed to a well read journalist or political commentator etc....) sees it as a welcome addition.
I never said you did - I was merely making the point that understanding how US policies are perceived in the countries they impact (if the goal is to have improved relations and cooperation with those countries) would be useful for US analysts.


If you think that a throw away "hurt statement" from someone who has been unable to suspend their own defensive reaction and bias into what is supposed to be clinical navel gazing is needed for the US to have a deeper understanding of what ails the relationship, then you're injecting your own assumptions into this as well.The comment by Pasha is hardly a 'defensive reaction' - Pakistani perceptions of US policies as being driven by hubris and a complete disregard of the impact of those policies (on Pakistan) is a view that has existed for many years now.


The fact that the US even needed to isolate people on the PGov side shows how much they believe the PG is compromised from within.
It shows how much US policy is driven by paranoia and hubris IMO - the majority of the high level AQ leadership (including the man who provided the intelligence that led to OBL) were arrested in Pakistan with Pakistani cooperation. I have yet to see a credible argument that illustrates why the US had a 'change of heart' when it came to the OBL operation.


ISI aren't amateurs - and if other agencies were operating in absentia of relevant material to do their own jobs, then thats a reinforcement (again) of what we know are vehicles of "shop" tribalism. "Tribes" in govt language refers to role based agencies or shops - not on cultural-heritage links
I don't quite understand your point here - would you mind elaborating ...

Agnostic Muslim
10 Jul 13,, 14:43
The evidence of Pakistani complicity in multiple terror attacks across the globe is what matters. Even the Chinese have gotten on to Pakistan for its support of terror.
Are you referring to Pakistani complicity or Pakistani State/institutional complicity?

If the latter, then your statement is largely incorrect and misleading - there is no 'evidence of Pakistani State/institutional complicity in multiple terror attacks across the globe', nor have the Chinese 'gotten on to Pakistan for any State/institutional support of terror'.

Agnostic Muslim
10 Jul 13,, 14:48
How Pakistan prevails over Egypt in democracy

While Egypt's military ousts an elected leader, Pakistan's stronger democracy holds its military to account for not searching, let alone finding, Osama bin Laden.

Both Egypt and Pakistan, two of the largest Muslim countries, have struggled to show that Islam and democracy can be compatible. In recent days, however, each has gone down a very different path toward that worthy goal.

In Egypt, millions of protesters took to the streets last week to demand the ouster of an elected Islamist president. On July 3, the military complied. That was hardly the best way for a young democracy to self-correct.

In contrast, Pakistan not only saw its first peaceful handover of n elected civilian government last month, but on Monday, an official report was leaked that strongly criticizes all levels of government – especially the military – for failing to search for Osama bin Laden, even though the Al Qaeda leader had been living in Pakistan for nearly a decade ...

How Pakistan prevails over Egypt in democracy - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2013/0709/How-Pakistan-prevails-over-Egypt-in-democracy)

zraver
10 Jul 13,, 15:19
It doesn't actually, because the UNSC authorization for ISAF to conduct military operations in Afghanistan does not extend to Pakistan. Any unauthorized (by Pakistan) drone strikes and the Abbottabad raid are/were illegal and illegitimate, and therefore a Pakistani military response to an unidentified, unauthorized military strike of unknown intent would be completely justified, regardless of any claims of 'being allies'.


BS, AM, the UN does not need to authorize defensive actions in a jus ad bellum. The controlling authority (and i can cite precedent and case) is customary international law (CIL) and the laws of armed conflict (LOAC). The UN is not a high contracting party to these because it is not a state. You will find nothing in the UN charter or any UN case law that says an ally needs permission to prosecute an otherwise legal war to achieve legitimate war aims following CIL/LOAC. Look, I beg you too... You know me AM, you've watched me twist people in knots over this subject. When I use this logic with regards to Israel-Palestine you support it. When I used it to condemn US Apache pilots killing Iraqi farmers and Rueter's video crews you supported it. You cant with clear conscience now retract that support because your friends the talibunnies and their Pakistani handlers are the subject of the exact same direct un-nuanced reading of CIL/LOAC.

BTW, here is the UN resolution you referenced in question.



The full text of Security Council resolution 1368 (2001) reads as follows:

“The Security Council,

“Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations,

Ie laws fought in accordance with the CIL/LOAC


“Determined to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,

ALL MEANS, not all means except commando raids and drone strikes on allied territory....


“Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the Charter,

Individual OR collective


“1. Unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks which took place on 11 September 2001 in New York, Washington (D.C.) and Pennsylvania and regards such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a threat to international peace and security;

A specific finding by the UN that CIL/LOAC had been broken with an act of aggression.


“2. Expresses its deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families and to the People and Government of the United States of America;

Specific finding that the US had been the victim of aggression (and was thus entitled to jus ad bellum)


“3. Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;

There is that pesky ALL word again, it calls on ALL states, not every state but Pakistan, and not ALL states except when its inconvenient.


“4. Calls also on the international community to redouble their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts including by increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 1269 of 19 October 1999;

Activation of defensive alliances


(page 1b follows)

“5. Expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations;

There is that ALL word again- ALL includes drone strikes and commando raids on allied territory.


“6. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”

Claim of UN authority to monitory the war to see it is being fought in accordance with the CIL/LOAC

Now lets move on to the UN Charter


CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

UN Charter time


Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Having done and having been empowered to limit the scope and range of the US response the UNSC instead used the word ALL


Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Back to that pesky word ALL


Article 43

All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Pakistan pledged full not conditional support on



.
Article 48

The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.


There is that ALL word again, in this case based on previous precedent from WWI, II, Korea and ODS, this includes the GoP permitting the legitimate prosecution of the war on its territories without any need for specific foreknowledge of each and every military action.
Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.
Article 49


The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

A specific call to duty.



Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. 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.

Nothing is plain language.... Even more important is the word UNTIL. What exactly had the UN done to take measures necessary to maintain international peace and security? Back to the UN resolution and the word ALL.

ZR- Check and mate.

zraver
10 Jul 13,, 15:25
Sir

The only reason why the military continues to enjoy influence in the civil society is because of the utter incompetence of the political/civilian institutions and the genuine support PA has among the masses.

Hard ot build up civil institutions when the miltiary keeps launching coups...



What about the multiple terror attacks that Pakistan has helped stop? Pakistan has arrested numerous AQ leaders and handed them over to NATO. And if you believe that Pakistan is double dealing and is responsible for all the terror attacks in the world, by all means cut off all relations with Pakistan and turn it into a pariah like Iran :)

Usually in trade for some sort of reward, not because it was the right thing to do. If Pakistan was a legit partner it would shut down the wahabi madrassas, kick the jihadis out- all of them not just the ones the GoP had a falling put with and then it would turn over the ISI officials responsible for the calculated decades long terror campaign in India ad Afghanistan.

Agnostic Muslim
10 Jul 13,, 16:34
ZR- Check and mate.

Hardly - lets start off with an article I posted in the Drone Strikes thread that dismantles the US arguments in support of unauthorized, unilateral military strikes inside Pakistan:

*NOTE: Given the context of this discussion and the applicability of the arguments to all 'unauthorized and unilateral military strikes by the US inside Pakistan', read 'drones' as 'drones and/or any other US air assets', which would include the US choppers transporting SEAL's into Abbottabad:


...

Yet, despite all the heavy pre-election posturing and rhetoric, the million rupee question remains: is Pakistan legally entitled to shoot down U.S. drones that enter its territory?

The short answer is yes. Unless it has consented to the use of drones in its territory, Pakistan most certainly can shoot them down as a matter of international law.

The United Nations Charter-a treaty which virtually all states in the world have agreed to follow and one that is sometimes touted as the "constitution of the international community"-forbids states from using force in another state unless it is used 1) in self-defense to repel an "armed attack"; 2) with the approval of the U.N. Security Council; or 3) because the state in which force is being used has consented to it.

That is, the U.S. drone war must fall within one of these exceptions to be legal.

We know the U.N. Security Council has never authorized the use of U.S. drones in Pakistan. And neither has Pakistan ever engaged in an "armed attack" against the United States, nor has the United States claimed as much. That leaves consent as the only legal justification for the program.

While, as I have previously written, claims of a denial of consent by the Pakistani government should be viewed with some skepticism-especially in light of former president Pervez Musharraf's admission that he allowed a ‘few' drone strikes to take place-publicly and for all official purposes, the Pakistani government vehemently denies that it has ever consented to U.S. drones being operated in its territory. In fact, in 2011, Pakistan shut down a CIA base which was being used to launch drones.

Further, Ben Emmerson QC, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights, has certainly been persuaded by Pakistan's narrative that there is no "tacit consent by Pakistan to the use of drones on its territory". In a recent news article, he categorically stated that drone strikes were a "violation of Pakistan's sovereignty".

Assuming then that consent has not been given by Pakistan, the use of drones in its territory would prima facie be an illegal use of force against a sovereign nation. Pakistan would thus be well within its rights, under international law, to destroy any drone that crosses into its airspace.

Now, here's where things do get slightly complicated. Sometimes when military force is used abroad in countries which have not really attacked the "defending state," new theories can be innovated to justify such force; and the drone war in Pakistan is no exception.

Some U.S. lawyers, including Eric Holder, John Brennan, and John Bellinger have argued that drone strikes in Pakistan are a legal form of "self-defense" because Pakistan is "unwilling or unable" to prevent threats to the United States.

This is also one of the main messages of the Department of Justice memo which essentially argues that the United States has a right, under international law, to kill persons in other countries-via drones or other means-that it determines are "associated" with al-Qaeda and who pose an "imminent threat" to the United States if the country where such individuals are allegedly based is "unwilling or unable" to do so itself. Consent is desirable but not necessary.

As I wrote in a recent journal article, this argument is very controversial and has little legal traction. Pakistan could, if it wanted to, easily challenge this doctrine as being of dubious and weak legal pedigree.

First, international law does not allow a state to unilaterally attack targets within another state to eliminate potential "threats." An armed attack must have occurred or at least be imminent against the self-defending state for an argument of self-defense to have any legal grounding.

Second, while Pakistan is legally obliged to use "best efforts" to prevent individuals on its territory from launching armed attacks against other states, unless it can be proven that Pakistan has in fact supported these individuals by, for example, supplying them with weapons or other forms of assistance, Pakistani territory cannot be attacked simply because Pakistan is allegedly "unwilling or unable" to suppress such individuals.

To be sure, Pakistan may still be liable for reparations or other measures for failing to prevent an attack against another state, but this failure does not translate into a right for another state to conduct lethal drone attacks in its territory as a unilateral "self-help" measure.

Third, prominent American legal scholars, including Mary Ellen O'Connell and Eric Posner, have rejected the international legality of the "unwilling or unable" doctrine. In fact, apart from the United States, only three countries-Israel, Russia, and Turkey-have explicitly invoked some variant of this theory in the past fifty years or more. But even these countries, on the rare occasion when they have done so, have never justified their actions as motivated by a legal obligation.

And most importantly, the International Court of Justice-the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and popularly known as the "World Court"-agrees. It has on two recent occasions-one concerning Uganda and the other Israel-passed judgment that weak states cannot be attacked and invaded because they failed to prevent individuals in their territory from launching attacks abroad.

And for good reason too. A theory that permits the use of force in a state such as Pakistan because it is "unwilling or unable" to do something opens up far too many loopholes for aggression and makes the prohibition against the use of force contained in the U.N. Charter somewhat redundant.

To put it succinctly, if the new Pakistani government were to argue that the use of drones within its territory are illegal and were indeed bold enough to take the unprecedented step of shooting one down, it would have a strong case under international law that it was acting in "self-defense," provided it has not consented to drone strikes.

Of course, just because an action is legally sound does not mean that it is politically feasible. The Wall Street Journal previously reported that "Pakistan has considered shooting down a drone to reassert control over the country's airspace but shelved the idea as needlessly provocative." And one can see why.

Unfortunately, that is one limitation that smaller states sometimes face when they try to assert their international legal rights against a far more powerful state.

...

Dawood I. Ahmed is a lawyer and a doctoral candidate in international law at the University of Chicago. He is the author of the forthcoming article "Defending Weak States Against the ‘Unwilling or Unable' Doctrine of Self-Defense," which can be found online here
Can Pakistan legally shoot down U.S. drones? - Dawood Ahmed | The AfPak Channel (http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/08/can_pakistan_legally_shoot_down_us_drones)

Agnostic Muslim
10 Jul 13,, 17:15
With respect to the argument that the LOAC applies in Pakistan:


The situation in Afghanistan today conforms to the definition of armed conflict in international law. The International Law Association’s Committee on the Use of Force issued a report in 2008 confirming the basic characteristics of all armed conflict:
1.) the presence of organized armed groups that are 2.) engaged in intense inter-group fighting. The fighting or hostilities of an armed conflict occurs within limited zones, referred to as combat or conflict zones. It is only in such zones that killing enemy combatants or those taking a direct part in hostilities is permissible. Because armed conflict requires a certain intensity of fighting, the isolated terrorist attack, regardless of how serious the consequences, is not an armed conflict. Terrorism is crime. Members of al Qaeda or other terrorist groups are active in Canada, France, Germany, Indonesia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Spain, the United Kingdom, Yemen and elsewhere. Still, these countries do not consider themselves in a war with al Qaeda. In the words of a leading expert on the law of armed conflict, the British Judge on the International Court of Justice, Sir Christopher Greenwood:

In the language of international law there is no basis for speaking of a war on Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group, for such a group cannot be a belligerent, it is merely a band of criminals, and to treat it as anything else risks distorting the law while giving that group a status which to some implies a degree of legitimacy.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2010_hr/042810oconnell.pdf

zraver
10 Jul 13,, 17:35
Hardly - lets start off with an article I posted in the Drone Strikes thread that dismantles the US arguments in support of unauthorized, unilateral military strikes inside Pakistan:

*NOTE: Given the context of this discussion and the applicability of the arguments to all 'unauthorized and unilateral military strikes by the US inside Pakistan', read 'drones' as 'drones and/or any other US air assets', which would include the US choppers transporting SEAL's into Abbottabad:


I'm sorry, the staff keeps getting on to me for being to abrasive but this just goes too fucking far. I'll take the ban. Are you dense, I mean like fucking brain damaged and unable to read? What fucking part of ALL in the UNSC Resolution 1368 did you not understand? Where in 1368 does it limit the US (and allied) operations to only Afghanistan?

From your source you fucking moron

1) in self-defense to repel an "armed attack";- 1368 found the US to a victim and authorized he and her allies to ALL MEANS

2) with the approval of the U.N. Security Council; - 1368 is specific approval

3) because the state in which force is being used has consented to it.- Musharraf pledges support for America - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1341003/Musharraf-pledges-support-for-America.html)

All three conditions explicitly fulfilled. I've defended you in the past as simply being a different voice, but now you've moved me into the camp that think you are either a supporter of the global jihad or the most obtuse person on planet earth. Either way you are a fucking loser.

zraver
10 Jul 13,, 17:41
With respect to the argument that the LOAC applies in Pakistan:


http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2010_hr/042810oconnell.pdf

Stop splitting hairs you jihadi fuckstain.... 1368 settled the issue its a war to be fought under the LOAC and CIL.

Agnostic Muslim
10 Jul 13,, 19:23
I'm sorry, the staff keeps getting on to me for being to abrasive but this just goes too fucking far. I'll take the ban.
There are plenty of others who have engaged in far more 'abrasive' language while debating me and avoided bans, so I don't really see why you would have to worry. :D


Are you dense, I mean like fucking brain damaged and unable to read? What fucking part of ALL in the UNSC Resolution 1368 did you not understand? Where in 1368 does it limit the US (and allied) operations to only Afghanistan?
1) in self-defense to repel an "armed attack";- 1368 found the US to a victim and authorized he and her allies to ALL MEANS
As I pointed out in the first article I posted debunking your/US arguments claiming unauthorized US military operations on Pakistan are legal, don't fixate on the word drone. To clarify even further, replace/read the word 'drone' as 'unauthorized military strikes/operations'. Now that is clear, let me reiterate the arguments debunking US claims of 'self defence' in justification of 'unilateral and unauthorized military strikes' in Pakistan:


"First, international law does not allow a state to unilaterally attack targets within another state to eliminate potential "threats." An armed attack must have occurred or at least be imminent against the self-defending state for an argument of self-defense to have any legal grounding.

Second, while Pakistan is legally obliged to use "best efforts" to prevent individuals on its territory from launching armed attacks against other states, unless it can be proven that Pakistan has in fact supported these individuals by, for example, supplying them with weapons or other forms of assistance, Pakistani territory cannot be attacked simply because Pakistan is allegedly "unwilling or unable" to suppress such individuals.

To be sure, Pakistan may still be liable for reparations or other measures for failing to prevent an attack against another state, but this failure does not translate into a right for another state to conduct lethal drone attacks in its territory as a unilateral "self-help" measure.

Third, prominent American legal scholars, including Mary Ellen O'Connell and Eric Posner, have rejected the international legality of the "unwilling or unable" doctrine. In fact, apart from the United States, only three countries-Israel, Russia, and Turkey-have explicitly invoked some variant of this theory in the past fifty years or more. But even these countries, on the rare occasion when they have done so, have never justified their actions as motivated by a legal obligation.

And most importantly, the International Court of Justice-the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and popularly known as the "World Court"-agrees. It has on two recent occasions-one concerning Uganda and the other Israel-passed judgment that weak states cannot be attacked and invaded because they failed to prevent individuals in their territory from launching attacks abroad.

And for good reason too. A theory that permits the use of force in a state such as Pakistan because it is "unwilling or unable" to do something opens up far too many loopholes for aggression and makes the prohibition against the use of force contained in the U.N. Charter somewhat redundant."

So the above debunks the argument of self-defence. Now lets move on to the alternate justification, of UNSC 1368 somehow extending the 'LOAC' to Pakistan:

2) with the approval of the U.N. Security Council; - 1368 is specific approval
1368 states 'Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations', which you interpreted to imply 'in accordance with the Laws of Armed Conflict'.

With respect to the LOAC, and specifically Jus ad bellum, here is the excerpt from my earlier post again:


The situation in Afghanistan today conforms to the definition of armed conflict in international law. The International Law Association’s Committee on the Use of Force issued a report in 2008 confirming the basic characteristics of all armed conflict:
1.) the presence of organized armed groups that are 2.) engaged in intense inter-group fighting. The fighting or hostilities of an armed conflict occurs within limited zones, referred to as combat or conflict zones. It is only in such zones that killing enemy combatants or those taking a direct part in hostilities is permissible. Because armed conflict requires a certain intensity of fighting, the isolated terrorist attack, regardless of how serious the consequences, is not an armed conflict. Terrorism is crime. Members of al Qaeda or other terrorist groups are active in Canada, France, Germany, Indonesia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Spain, the United Kingdom, Yemen and elsewhere. Still, these countries do not consider themselves in a war with al Qaeda. In the words of a leading expert on the law of armed conflict, the British Judge on the International Court of Justice, Sir Christopher Greenwood:

In the language of international law there is no basis for speaking of a war on Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group, for such a group cannot be a belligerent, it is merely a band of criminals, and to treat it as anything else risks distorting the law while giving that group a status which to some implies a degree of legitimacy.


The LOAC does not extend to Pakistan because Pakistan does not meet the criteria of an 'active conflict zone' as defined in international law.

3) because the state in which force is being used has consented to it.- Musharraf pledges support for America - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1341003/Musharraf-pledges-support-for-America.html)
Musharraf's pledge of support for the US involved logistical and military support for ISAF operations in Afghanistan (as and when agreed to by the government of Pakistan - it was not some open-ended commitment that the US could define unilaterally), as well as support against terrorism by carrying out law enforcement and/or military operations in Pakistan (by Pakistani forces, as and when determined by the government of Pakistan - it was not some open-ended commitment that the US could define unilaterally). There was no blanket commitment made to allow US military operations inside Pakistani territory at any time without authorization from the GoP, and therefore 'the State in which force is being used did not consent to it', and this is borne out by the official position and statements taken by the Government of Pakistan condemning US military operations inside Pakistan as violations of international law and Pakistani sovereignty.


All three conditions explicitly fulfilled. I've defended you in the past as simply being a different voice, but now you've moved me into the camp that think you are either a supporter of the global jihad or the most obtuse person on planet earth. Either way you are a fucking loser.
Why are all three conditions fulfilled? Just because you say so? Flying into a rage over my first set of counter-arguments to your claims that 'all three conditions were fulfilled' doesn't exactly make you come across as a rational individual.

Agnostic Muslim
10 Jul 13,, 19:26
Stop splitting hairs you jihadi fuckstain.... 1368 settled the issue its a war to be fought under the LOAC and CIL.
See post 45, outside of US Establishment apologists there are very, very few takers of the argument that 1368 somehow authorized military strikes inside Pakistan (without the consent of the Pakistani government).

BTW, the entire US position defending unilateral and unauthorized military strikes in Pakistan is an exercise in concocting new interpretations of international law and 'splitting hairs', so your continued pejorative laden rant here is disingenuous and an attempt to avoid actually engaging in a rational debate.

Doktor
10 Jul 13,, 19:30
Z banned the cigs, so is more explosive these days. I believe he is strong enough not to calm down now :)

Doktor
10 Jul 13,, 19:39
While Z is stuck with


5. Expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism, in
accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations;

For me the one bellow is more interesting:

3. Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;

AM, weren't you believer on almighty, rightful, UN? There you have it. Be thankful it's not enforced.

Agnostic Muslim
10 Jul 13,, 19:52
For me the one bellow is more interesting:

3. Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;

AM, weren't you believer on almighty, rightful, UN? There you have it. Be thankful it's not enforced.
Why should I be thankful? There is nothing to enforce. 'Harboring' (which you highlighted) would require establishing that the Pakistani State/institutions deliberately 'harbored or concealed OBL and/or other Al Qaeda members'.

And yes, I still believe that the platform of the UN should be utilized to address inter-State issues. Yes, the platform of the UN is highly flawed in its current state, and it should be reformed, but it is still better than nothing.

Agnostic Muslim
10 Jul 13,, 19:59
While Z is stuck with

The UNSC Resolution that actually authorized ISAF is 1386, and it is very specific in limiting the scope of the ISAF military deployment:


Authorizes, as envisaged in Annex 1 to the Bonn Agreement, the establishment for 6 months of an International Security Assistance Force to assist the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding areas, so that the Afghan Interim Authority as well as the personnel of the United Nations can operate in a secure environment;
ODS HOME PAGE (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/708/55/PDF/N0170855.pdf?OpenElement)

zraver
10 Jul 13,, 20:03
There are plenty of others who have engaged in far more 'abrasive' language while debating me and avoided bans, so I don't really see why you would have to worry. :D

As I pointed out in the first article I posted debunking your/US arguments claiming unauthorized US military operations on Pakistan are legal, don't fixate on the word drone. To clarify even further, replace/read the word 'drone' as 'unauthorized military strikes/operations'. Now that is clear, let me reiterate the arguments debunking US claims of 'self defence' in justification of 'unilateral and unauthorized military strikes' in Pakistan:

[I]
"First, international law does not allow a state to unilaterally attack targets within another state to eliminate potential "threats." An armed attack must have occurred or at least be imminent against the self-defending state for an argument of self-defense to have any legal grounding.

LOAC and CIL do in fact allow unilateral strikes against targets. The controlling factors were in fact met. I've pointed that put again and again. Stop avoiding the word ALL.



Second, while Pakistan is legally obliged to use "best efforts" to prevent individuals on its territory from launching armed attacks against other states, unless it can be proven that Pakistan has in fact supported these individuals by, for example, supplying them with weapons or other forms of assistance, Pakistani territory cannot be attacked simply because Pakistan is allegedly "unwilling or unable" to suppress such individuals.

We found him on a Pakistani military canton....


To be sure, Pakistan may still be liable for reparations or other measures for failing to prevent an attack against another state, but this failure does not translate into a right for another state to conduct lethal drone attacks in its territory as a unilateral "self-help" measure.

Plai language reading of 1368 says you are wrong.


Third, prominent American legal scholars, including Mary Ellen O'Connell and Eric Posner, have rejected the international legality of the "unwilling or unable" doctrine. In fact, apart from the United States, only three countries-Israel, Russia, and Turkey-have explicitly invoked some variant of this theory in the past fifty years or more. But even these countries, on the rare occasion when they have done so, have never justified their actions as motivated by a legal obligation.

Nice dodge, but a bullshit answer. The US stated publicly in 01 and the UN so empowered the US in 01 to take ALL necessary steps.


And most importantly, the International Court of Justice-the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and popularly known as the "World Court"-agrees. It has on two recent occasions-one concerning Uganda and the other Israel-passed judgment that weak states cannot be attacked and invaded because they failed to prevent individuals in their territory from launching attacks abroad.

Pakistan was a willingly and knowing ally in a just war. That allies may undertake military action on each others territories with or without the informed consent of the other ally is a settled matter- period full stop.




Stop playing with the strawman you jihadi fuckstain.


So the above debunks the argument of self-defence. Now lets move on to the alternate justification, of UNSC 1368 somehow extending the 'LOAC' to Pakistan:

1368 states 'Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations', which you interpreted to imply 'in accordance with the Laws of Armed Conflict'.

With respect to the LOAC, and specifically Jus ad bellum, here is the excerpt from my earlier post again:...

A panel without power convened 7 years after the panel with power decided that a chapter 7 violation had occured. Save the pap you lover of terrorism.



Musharraf's pledge of support for the US involved logistical and military support for ISAF operations in Afghanistan (as and when agreed to by the government of Pakistan - it was not some open-ended commitment that the US could define unilaterally), as well as support against terrorism by carrying out law enforcement and/or military operations in Pakistan (by Pakistani forces, as and when determined by the government of Pakistan - it was not some open-ended commitment that the US could define unilaterally).

Wrong- it was a statement made in accordance with 1368 which empowered the US and its Allies to use ANY and ALL means.


There was no blanket commitment made to allow US military operations inside Pakistani territory at any time without authorization from the GoP, and therefore 'the State in which force is being used did not consent to it', and this is borne out by the official position and statements taken by the Government of Pakistan condemning US military operations inside Pakistan as violations of international law and Pakistani sovereignty.

Please define the word all Mr wannabe jihadi


Why are all three conditions fulfilled? Just because you say so? Flying into a rage over my first set of counter-arguments to your claims that 'all three conditions were fulfilled' doesn't exactly make you come across as a rational individual.

No, the rage is from watching you for literally years skate all close as you can to the line to say as openly as a forums rules will let you to say "Allu akbar, death to the west". You delight in the deaths of innocents- even Pakistani deaths if you expose what you truly believe. Pakistani's like you have played a direct rile in allowing the GoP to support terrorist leading to the deaths of over 200,000 people since 9-11.

You are neither civilized, nor a patriot. You are nothing more than the lowest and least respectable form of jihadi- the secret internet jihadist. Dozens of people have tried to get you to embrace the concepts of justice and equality and you refuse. After all this time, only one conclusion remains and so I state is clearly and without equivocation- you support terrorism.

TopHatter
10 Jul 13,, 20:28
Stop splitting hairs you jihadi fuckstain.... 1368 settled the issue its a war to be fought under the LOAC and CIL.

That is enough with the personal insults. Next time that happens you're looking at a week vacation.

Minskaya
10 Jul 13,, 20:31
I am closing the thread at this time because it has become highly volatile and the antithesis of dispassionate discussion. The staff will decide if this closure is a temporary or a permanent condition.

Minskaya
11 Jul 13,, 20:32
The WAB staff has agreed to reopen this thread after a 24 hour cooling-off period.

I strongly advise everyone to behave and adhere to the rules of this board.

zraver
11 Jul 13,, 23:55
Simple plain language reading of 1368 and its repeated use of the word ALL leaves no doubt that the UNSC found Al Queada and its allies to be a belligerent. A legal or illegal combatant is a separate discussion but they are combatants per the UNSC. It is the UNSC that is empowered by the Un Charter to decide issues affecting international peace and security. Not the ICC, not the ICJ, not the general assembly, not various panels and talking heads.

Further, no geographical or time limits were imposed on UN/and allied action by 1368. Where Al Queda is, a state of war exists. If a neutral wants to avoid raids and air strikes she has specific duties under CIL/LOAC to enforce its nuetrality. But Pakistan as a self declared belligerent, who was engaging in active combat operations falls under separate parts of CIL/LOAC. So long as the military operations meet the requirements of proportionality and distinction and do not otherwise violate the LOAC such operations are legal. If Pakistani special forces tracked a TTP cell to the US, legally they could conduct such a raid as we did on OBL. Though to be honest we all know that armed Pakistani nationals in the US are not hunting terrorist they are terrorist.

In addition statements by the Pakistani government pledging support, statement from Pakistani military leaders linking the TTP and Al Queda and finally CIL/LOAC case precedent make it clear the US raid, and the drone strikes are not illegal. The US has the right to prosecute the war where ever its enemies are inside of those areas known to combat zones or belligerents. Pakistan was (supposedly is) a co-belligerent with the US against Al Queda and the Taliban. Allies have the right to conduct military operations on each others soil if for no other reason than both are belligerents and thus valid areas of military operations. We see this played out over and over again in allied operations on each others soil in WWI, WWII, Korea and Kuwait. Heck, Pakistan uses this right of belligerents when its ISI operates inside of Afghanistan.

The idea that Pakistan is somehow immune from receiving what she gives, or that she is above CIL/LOAC is a rich but sick joke. Pakistan's protestations of the US raid that killed OBL are less about sovereignty, than anger and shame at being caught giving refuge to the worlds most wanted man on a Pakistani military canton.

The full text of Security Council resolution 1368 (2001) reads as follows:

“The Security Council,

“Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations,

“Determined to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,

“Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter,

“1. Unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks which took place on 11 September 2001 in New York, Washington (D.C.) and Pennsylvania and regards such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a threat to international peace and security;

“2. Expresses its deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families and to the People and Government of the United States of America;

“3. Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;

“4. Calls also on the international community to redouble their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts including by increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 1269 of 19 October 1999;

(page 1b follows)

“5. Expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations;

“6. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”

Doktor
12 Jul 13,, 00:19
Z, why US didn't enforce the resolution?

zraver
12 Jul 13,, 00:41
Z, why US didn't enforce the resolution?

enforce what resolution? 1368- The US and it;s allies have enforced it with military operations around the globe to hunt down AQ where ever it or its allies is found to be hiding. List of publicly known countries- Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq (v AQI), Somalia, Lybia, Sudan, Yemen, Philippines.

Doktor
12 Jul 13,, 00:45
From that entire list seems there is not enough will to finish the job in Pakistan. I mean compared to A-stan and Iraq.

Libya? wrt 1368? Really?

zraver
12 Jul 13,, 00:54
From that entire list seems there is not enough will to finish the job in Pakistan. I mean compared to A-stan and Iraq.

Libya? wrt 1368? Really?

Not every place mentioned gets the full B-2 bomber treatment, some are very low key, but yes- US anti-terrorism assets are active in Lybia.

As for finishing the job, I think once the US leaves A-stan, Pakistan will learn about accountability when the US leaves Pakistan to rot, and snuggles up to the worlds biggest democracy.

Firestorm
12 Jul 13,, 06:40
Commando complex (http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-189142-Commando-complex)

The article is about Musharraf, but it has one interesting tidbit about the PA's relations with the Taliban



Brig (r) A R Siddiqi
Thursday, July 11, 2013

...Responding to a question about the army's nexus with the Afghan Taliban, he was overly eloquent about their role as a standby volunteer body for the army when required. "The Taliban are a success story", he said and, "we should soon bring them around to our way of thinking and action when necessary".

The same evening, Musharraf and I happened to be sitting next to each other at small private dinner. His observation about the Taliban fresh in my mind, I asked him, "Do you, Sir, really believe in what you said about the Taliban during your talk?" "Don't you?", he countered.

"Not quite after the damage they did to Afghanistan. Having made a mess of their country, far worse than what it had been under the Soviet invasion and subsequent occupation for nearly a whole decade".

He smiled and with an unmistakable touch of irony said, "Sir the Taliban are my strategic reserve and I can unleash them in tens of thousands against India when I want..."

After such a definitive statement I chose to hold my horses. After all he was the army chief and I just a retired brigadier out of touch and unaware of the army's operational planning...

The writer is a former head of ISPR. (Inter Services Public Relations)

antimony
12 Jul 13,, 07:01
He smiled and with an unmistakable touch of irony said, "Sir the Taliban are my strategic reserve and I can unleash them in tens of thousands against India when I want..."

AKA "moral support" for "Kashmiri freedom fighters"

Double Edge
12 Jul 13,, 08:03
AKA "moral support" for "Kashmiri freedom fighters"
More like in Afghanistan.

lemontree
12 Jul 13,, 09:04
AKA "moral support" for "Kashmiri freedom fighters"
In Kashmir, the Taliban will be easy game. The locals will report them to the security forces, and in the Kashmri valey they may get initial assistance, but will get caught in the COIN grid pretty soon. We may run out of graves for them.

Why else do you think that the insurgency in J&K is a failure in its 24th year and it succeeded in 6-7 years against the Soviets in Afghanistan? The bear trap became a monkey trap in J&K.

farhan_9909
12 Jul 13,, 10:53
@zraver

Ok let suppose pakistan or pakistani military and ISI did created the taliban/terrorists for fight against india or any other purpose or all the stuff you said.
and SWAT and FATA are in mess because we created them and they are now killing us.everything admitted
but
what about USA?didnt they created the terrorists to fight the USSR?didnt they funded the terrorist groups in the past.while now they are fighting the same people now which again are responsible for the suffering of USA(9/11) and thousands of US marine lives

so please make me out the difference between the approach of USA and PAkistan in the past and now?

what is the difference between both the country support for the terrorism in the past,fighting against the same the created for strategic purpose and being kiled by the same.


@Admins

i am new to the forum.
can my post be kindly approved

thanks in advance

S2
12 Jul 13,, 11:11
We ask new members to stop by our member introduction thread and tell us a bit about themselves. The latest post can be found here-

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/wab-information-center/61571-introduction-thread-all-new-members-74.html#post922423

You may reply underneath it and leave a brief introduction.

Doing so makes us VERY happy.:biggrin:

Failing to do so? Not so much.:mad:

Please make us happy.

zraver
12 Jul 13,, 13:52
what is the difference between both the country support for the terrorism in the past,fighting against the same the created for strategic purpose and being kiled by the same.

The US took a Homer Simpson approach to the problem- yelling D'oh! and muddling through it. Pakistan however has refused to admit it screwed the pooch and instead still thinks it can get the pooch back in the dog house until Paksitan wants it to bite someone else in the future.

Doktor
12 Jul 13,, 13:57
We ask new members to stop by our member introduction thread and tell us a bit about themselves. The latest post can be found here-

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/wab-information-center/61571-introduction-thread-all-new-members-74.html#post922423

You may reply underneath it and leave a brief introduction.

Doing so makes us VERY happy.:biggrin:

Failing to do so? Not so much.:mad:

Please make us happy.

I am so copying this for further pasting.

farhan_9909
12 Jul 13,, 16:08
The US took a Homer Simpson approach to the problem- yelling D'oh! and muddling through it. Pakistan however has refused to admit it screwed the pooch and instead still thinks it can get the pooch back in the dog house until Paksitan wants it to bite someone else in the future.

Well no Both country took almost a similar approach.though the difference only is Pakistan is still struck with them because unlike usa we cant just move away from them.USA after the defeat of USSR could turn against the afghan mujahideen/taliban only because they were not to get affected.negligible compared to pakistan.

USA defeated its arch rival with the help of pakistan through these terrorist.

what pakistan got?
Destruction,millions of refugees even being already a very poor country.AK culture was introduced into pak with the refugees of Afghanistan..

i wish would had been alot better if like iran we would have not allowed the refugees or should have ended all kind of diplomatic relation with usa onwards 1980's

Agnostic Muslim
12 Jul 13,, 16:20
The full text of Security Council resolution 1368 (2001) reads as follows:

“The Security Council,

“Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations,
Excellent, reaffirm a commitment to the Charter of the UN.

“Determined to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,
The resolution identifies terrorism as a thread and makes a general commitment to combat that threat, it does not authorize the use of force by one or more States against others, or even the use of non-violent measures define in Article 41 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

“Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter,
This is the only place where 1368 comes even close to authorizing force, and it does so indirectly and in an extremely limited manner by pointing to the articles concerning the right of self defence in the UN Charter. Which in turn brings us back to my previous arguments on how unauthorized US military strikes in Pakistan do not meet the requirements of 'self defence' as defined by the UN and in international law.


“1. Unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks which took place on 11 September 2001 in New York, Washington (D.C.) and Pennsylvania and regards such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a threat to international peace and security;

Excellent, they should be condemned, but condemnation is not an 'authorization for the use of force' by one or more States against others.


“2. Expresses its deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families and to the People and Government of the United States of America;
As it should.


“3. Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;
Calls on States to work together, the US in fact has, and is, violating this particular part of 1368 by conducting unauthorized military strikes inside Pakistan.


“4. Calls also on the international community to redouble their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts including by increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 1269 of 19 October 1999;
Excellent, but again, no authorization for the use of force by one State against another.


“5. Expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations;
And the 'steps' the UNSC took to actually authorize the use of force under Chapter VII (excluding self defence) are in UNSC 1386 (quoted at the end)

Now, here is the text of 1386 that explicitly authorizes force in Afghanistan:


"The Security Council,

"Reaffirming its previous resolutions on Afghanistan, in particular its resolutions 1378 (2001) of 14 November 2001 and 1383 (2001) of 6 December 2001,

"Supporting international efforts to root out terrorism, in keeping with the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming also its resolutions 1368 (2001) of 12 September 2001 and 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001,

"Welcoming developments in Afghanistan that will allow for all Afghans to enjoy inalienable rights and freedom unfettered by oppression and terror,

"Recognizing that the responsibility for providing security and law and order throughout the country resides with the Afghan themselves,

"Reiterating its endorsement of the Agreement on provisional arrangements in Afghanistan pending the re-establishment of permanent government institutions, signed in Bonn on 5 December 2001 (S/2001/1154) (the Bonn Agreement),

"Taking note of the request to the Security Council in Annex 1, paragraph 3, to the Bonn Agreement to consider authorizing the early deployment to Afghanistan of an international security force, as well as the briefing on 14 December 2001 by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on his contacts with the Afghan authorities in which they welcome the deployment to Afghanistan of a United Nations authorized international security force,

"Taking note of the letter dated 19 December 2001 from Dr. Abdullah Abdullah to the President of the Security Council (S/2001/1223),

"Welcoming the letter from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Secretary-General of 19 December 2001 (S/2001/1217), and taking note of the United Kingdom offer contained therein to take the lead in organizing and commanding an International Security Assistance Force,

"Stressing that all Afghan forces must adhere strictly to their obligations under human rights law, including respect for the rights of women, and under international humanitarian law,

"Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Afghanistan,

"Determining that the situation in Afghanistan still constitutes a threat to international peace and security,

"Determined to ensure the full implementation of the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force, in consultation with the Afghan Interim Authority established by the Bonn Agreement,

"Acting for these reasons under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

"1.Authorizes, as envisaged in Annex 1 to the Bonn Agreement, the establishment for 6 months of an International Security Assistance Force to assist the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding areas, so that the Afghan Interim Authority as well as the personnel of the United Nations can operate in a secure environment;

"2.Calls upon Member States to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to the International Security Assistance Force, and invites those Member States to inform the leadership of the Force and the Secretary-General;

"3.Authorizes the Member States participating in the International Security Assistance Force to take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate;

"4.Calls upon the International Security Assistance Force to work in close consultation with the Afghan Interim Authority in the implementation of the force mandate, as well as with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General;

"5.Calls upon all Afghans to cooperate with the International Security Assistance Force and relevant international governmental and non-governmental organizations, and welcomes the commitment of the parties to the Bonn Agreement to do all within their means and influence to ensure security, including to ensure the safety, security and freedom of movement of all United Nations personnel and all other personnel of international governmental and non-governmental organizations deployed in Afghanistan;

"6.Takes note of the pledge made by the Afghan parties to the Bonn Agreement in Annex 1 to that Agreement to withdraw all military units from Kabul, and calls upon them to implement this pledge in cooperation with the International Security Assistance Force;

"7.Encourages neighbouring States and other Member States to provide to the International Security Assistance Force such necessary assistance as may be requested, including the provision of overflight clearances and transit;

"8.Stresses that the expenses of the International Security Assistance Force will be borne by the participating Member States concerned, requests the Secretary-General to establish a trust fund through which contributions could be channelled to the Member States or operations concerned, and encourages Member States to contribute to such a fund;

"9.Requests the leadership of the International Security Assistance Force to provide periodic reports on progress towards the implementation of its mandate through the Secretary-General;

"10.Calls on Member States participating in the International Security Assistance Force to provide assistance to help the Afghan Interim Authority in the establishment and training of new Afghan security and armed forces;

"11.Decides to remain actively seized of the matter."

The authorization for ISAF deployment has been renewed/extended multiple times since, which on its own refutes your argument that 'UNSC 1368 provided some sort of blanket and unlimited authorization for the use of force against terrorism', because had that been the case, there would have been no need for UNSC 1378 and the subsequent extensions in the mandate of ISAF in Afghanistan.

Agnostic Muslim
12 Jul 13,, 16:23
Z, why US didn't enforce the resolution?
There is nothing to enforce in 1368 - it is a resolution that 'condemns, condoles and urges member nations to work together against terrorism' - there is no authorization for violent or non-violent measures as outlined in Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

As I pointed out in my previous post, the only place where UNSC 1368 comes even close to suggesting the use of force is in pointing (without specifically identifying a target) to the 'right of self defence' outlined in the UN Charter.

Doktor
12 Jul 13,, 16:24
Wanna try this at court? ICJ maybe? ;)

Anyway, USA is not attacking state of Pakistan, but terror organizations that are hiding there. At least I see it that way. Unless you can show me occurances where PA assets are being targets (on purpose).

Edit: The message is reply to post #69 (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/international-defense-terrorism-topics/64194-pakistans-abbotabad-report-4.html#post922998), which is pretty lengthy to quote it.

Agnostic Muslim
12 Jul 13,, 16:33
Wanna try this at court? ICJ maybe? ;)

There is plenty of legal analysis debating the language of UNSC Resolutions, what is binding, what isn't, when Chapter VII violent and/or non-violent measures are authorized etc. What we do know is that UNSC 1368 does not explicitly invoke Chapter VII measures - that on its own could be questioned, but the fact that subsequent resolutions (1386) specifically invoked Chapter VII and specifically authorized and outlined the use of force further establishes the argument that 1368 was little more than a document expressing solidarity with the US while 'condemning and condoling'.

Anyway, USA is not attacking state of Pakistan, but terror organizations that are hiding there. At least I see it that way. Unless you can show me occurances where PA assets are being targets (on purpose).
Those military strikes by the US on Pakistani territory, when not authorized by the GoP, are violations of international law, regardless of who is being targeted, unless the US can establish a case for Self-defence which it has not.

Zraver and some others like to suggest that my position opposing unauthorized military strikes by the US on Pakistani territory imply 'support for terrorism' - what they have failed to comprehend is the distinction between opposing ALL military operations against alleged terrorists vs opposing unauthorized military operations by the US on Pakistani territory. I support the latter point, not the former, and it really isn't that hard of a distinction to understand.

farhan_9909
12 Jul 13,, 16:33
Wanna try this at court? ICJ maybe? ;)

Anyway, USA is not attacking state of Pakistan, but terror organizations that are hiding there. At least I see it that way. Unless you can show me occurances where PA assets are being targets (on purpose).

Edit: The message is reply to post #69 (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/international-defense-terrorism-topics/64194-pakistans-abbotabad-report-4.html#post922998), which is pretty lengthy to quote it.

First of all they are not allowed to strike even if the Terrorists gets nukes.they have no rights to enter into each and every country.

but even if they do than it should not kill the innocents around aswell including children

farhan_9909
12 Jul 13,, 16:33
Wanna try this at court? ICJ maybe? ;)

Anyway, USA is not attacking state of Pakistan, but terror organizations that are hiding there. At least I see it that way. Unless you can show me occurances where PA assets are being targets (on purpose).

Edit: The message is reply to post #69 (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/international-defense-terrorism-topics/64194-pakistans-abbotabad-report-4.html#post922998), which is pretty lengthy to quote it.

First of all they are not allowed to strike even if the Terrorists gets nukes.they have no rights to enter into each and every country.

but even if they do than it should not kill the innocents around aswell including children

Agnostic Muslim
12 Jul 13,, 16:42
First of all they are not allowed to strike even if the Terrorists gets nukes.they have no rights to enter into each and every country.

If a an entity obtained nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them, and posed an imminent threat to another nation, then that nation would in fact be 'allowed/justified' in taking any and all measures necessary to protect itself from that threat under the right of self defence as outlined in the UN Charter.

Doktor
12 Jul 13,, 16:47
There is plenty of legal analysis debating the language of UNSC Resolutions, what is binding, what isn't, when Chapter VII violent and/or non-violent measures are authorized etc. What we do know is that UNSC 1368 does not explicitly invoke Chapter VII measures - that on its own could be questioned, but the fact that subsequent resolutions (1386) specifically invoked Chapter VII and specifically authorized and outlined the use of force further establishes the argument that 1368 was little more than a document expressing solidarity with the US while 'condemning and condoling'.
Opinions are one thing. Give me topic and I will give you at least two opinions.
If you think the resolution has been breached, go to court. I think ICJ is the place. Not some bureaucrat with an opinion.


Those military strikes by the US on Pakistani territory, when not authorized by the GoP, are violations of international law, regardless of who is being targeted, unless the US can establish a case for Self-defence which it has not.
Have they been asked to?


Zraver and some others like to suggest that my position opposing unauthorized military strikes by the US on Pakistani territory imply 'support for terrorism' - what they have failed to comprehend is the distinction between opposing ALL military operations against alleged terrorists vs opposing unauthorized military operations by the US on Pakistani territory. I support the latter point, not the former, and it really isn't that hard of a distinction to understand.
I can understand your sentiment. But don't get confused, all attacks are authorized, just not from Islamabad. Until PoG sorts this legality thing, either via diplomacy or via court ruling, USA will continue to strike terror groups on Pak territory.
We have been to this point before, the protests from Pakistan are so mild, they can't even be considered as protests.

Agnostic Muslim
12 Jul 13,, 16:58
Opinions are one thing. Give me topic and I will give you at least two opinions.
If you think the resolution has been breached, go to court. I think ICJ is the place. Not some bureaucrat with an opinion.
'Opinion' on UNSC 1368 NOT authorizing force are pretty unanimous in the legal community. The fact that UNSC 1386 was passed specifically authorizing force further supports the consensus opinion that UNSC 1368 was nothing more than a document of solidarity in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Have they been asked to?
Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter the US has to make its case in the UNSC:


Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. 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.


I can understand your sentiment. But don't get confused, all attacks are authorized, just not from Islamabad. Until PoG sorts this legality thing, either via diplomacy or via court ruling, USA will continue to strike terror groups on Pak territory.
We have been to this point before, the protests from Pakistan are so mild, they can't even be considered as protests.
We have had this argument several times - my position on it is simple, if Pakistan authorizes these attacks then the US needs to show the agreement between the two states doing so, barring which the official GoP position that these military strikes are unauthorized and violations of international law is the only valid and non-speculative position to accept.

Doktor
12 Jul 13,, 17:07
'Opinion' on UNSC 1368 NOT authorizing force are pretty unanimous in the legal community. The fact that UNSC 1386 was passed specifically authorizing force further supports the consensus opinion that UNSC 1368 was nothing more than a document of solidarity in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The underlined bit is a pretty bold statement. Can you quantify 'legal community' and further prove that 90%+ think that way? If so, I will concur with it as a fact. If not, it is just your observation.


Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter the US has to make its case in the UNSC:

if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,
Was there any such event? Has there been attacks on Pakistani Army, infrastructure, communications, resources... in one word assets?


We have had this argument several times - my position on it is simple, if Pakistan authorizes these attacks then the US needs to show the agreement between the two states doing so, barring which the official GoP position that these military strikes are unauthorized and violations of international law is the only valid and non-speculative position to accept.
Does Pakistan have sovereignty over areas under attack? Yes or No. No maybe, no long answers.

Agnostic Muslim
12 Jul 13,, 17:34
The underlined bit is a pretty bold statement. Can you quantify 'legal community' and further prove that 90%+ think that way? If so, I will concur with it as a fact. If not, it is just your observation.
I should have looked this up earlier:


Structure of a resolution

United Nations resolutions follow a common format. Each resolution has three parts: the heading, the preambular clauses, and the operative clauses. The entire resolution consists of one long sentence, with commas and semi-colons throughout, and only one period at the very end. The heading contain the name of the body issuing the resolution (be it the Security Council, the General Assembly, a subsidiary organ of the GA, or any other resolution-issuing organization), which serves as the subject of the sentence; the preambular clauses (also called preambular phrases) indicating the framework through which the problem is viewed, as a preamble does in other documents; and the operative clauses (also called operative phrases) in which the body delineates the course of action it will take through a logical progression of sequentially numbered operative clauses (if it is the Security Council or a UN organ making policy for within the UN) or recommends to be taken (in many Security Council resolutions and for all other bodies when acting outside the UN). Each operative clause calls for a specific action.

The last operative clause, at least in the Security Council, is almost always "Decides [or Resolves] to remain seized of the matter," (sometimes changed to "actively seized"). The reasoning behind this custom is somewhat murky, but it appears to be an assurance that the body in question will consider the topic addressed in the resolution in the future if it is necessary. In the case of Security Council resolutions, it may well be employed with the hope of prohibiting the UNGA from calling an 'emergency special session' on any unresolved matters,[6] under the terms of the 'Uniting for Peace resolution', owing to the Charter stipulation in Article 12 that: "While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation."

The preambular and operative clauses almost always start with verbs, sometimes modified by adverbs then continue with whatever the body decides to put in; the first word is always either italicized or underlined. However, preambular clauses are unnumbered, end with commas, and sometimes do begin with adjectives; operative clauses are numbered, end with semicolons (except for the final one, which ends with a full stop/period), and never begin with adjectives.

The name of the issuing body may be moved from above the preambular clauses to below them; the decision to do so is mostly stylistic, and the resolution still comprises a coherent sentence.
Now, given the above structure, please note that the section of 1368 that Zraver is arguing constitutes an 'authorization for use of force' falls under the 'preamble' of the resolution instead of the 'operative clauses'. This should leave no doubt that UNSC 1368 did not authorize the use of force.

Was there any such event? Has there been attacks on Pakistani Army, infrastructure, communications, resources... in one word assets?
The reference to armed attacks is in the context of 'armed attacks against the State claiming self defence as justification for a military response'.


Does Pakistan have sovereignty over areas under attack? Yes or No. No maybe, no long answers.
More than a long answer - it would be a long discussion. Even so, the US cannot unilaterally determine 'lack of sovereignty' in the territory of another State, bypass the UNSC and conduct unauthorized military operations on that territory.

antimony
12 Jul 13,, 17:49
In Kashmir, the Taliban will be easy game. The locals will report them to the security forces, and in the Kashmri valey they may get initial assistance, but will get caught in the COIN grid pretty soon. We may run out of graves for them.

Why else do you think that the insurgency in J&K is a failure in its 24th year and it succeeded in 6-7 years against the Soviets in Afghanistan? The bear trap became a monkey trap in J&K.

That may be so, but my point is different. We hear all aong that Pakistan only provides "moral support" to the Kashmiri insurgents and all violence there is from local freedom fighters. Looks like the good general did not get that memo!!!

By the way, I am really interested t see how Agnostic Muslim responds to this one.

Doktor
12 Jul 13,, 17:53
I should have looked this up earlier:
Can't find wiki's source. Can you help?


Now, given the above structure, please note that the section of 1368 that Zraver is arguing constitutes an 'authorization for use of force' falls under the 'preamble' of the resolution instead of the 'operative clauses'. This should leave no doubt that UNSC 1368 did not authorize the use of force.
You made a bold claim, I challenge it. Don't put Z into this, he is on a short leash and without cigs ;)


The reference to armed attacks is in the context of 'armed attacks against the State claiming self defence as justification for a military response'.
Yet anyone has to question the "armed attacks", or not?


More than a long answer - it would be a long discussion. Even so, the US cannot unilaterally determine 'lack of sovereignty' in the territory of another State, bypass the UNSC and conduct unauthorized military operations on that territory.
That's a "Yes" or a "No"?

Agnostic Muslim
12 Jul 13,, 18:00
Can't find wiki's source. Can you help?

Try this: http://www.nmun.org/downloads/prep_guide_pdfs/Resolution%20and%20Report%20Segment%20Writing.pdf


Yet anyone has to question the "armed attacks", or not?
Sorry, I didn't quite understand what you meant there.


That's a "Yes" or a "No"?
Short answer, yes.

zraver
12 Jul 13,, 18:13
Excellent, reaffirm a commitment to the Charter of the UN.

The resolution identifies terrorism as a thread and makes a general commitment to combat that threat, it does not authorize the use of force by one or more States against others, or even the use of non-violent measures define in Article 41 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

By all means is not a general commitment, it is as close as the UN comes to declaration of war. Specifically it is language that invokes CIL/LOAC.


This is the only place where 1368 comes even close to authorizing force, and it does so indirectly and in an extremely limited manner by pointing to the articles concerning the right of self defence in the UN Charter. Which in turn brings us back to my previous arguments on how unauthorized US military strikes in Pakistan do not meet the requirements of 'self defence' as defined by the UN and in international law.

It grants the US and her allies the status of belligerent.


Excellent, they should be condemned, but condemnation is not an 'authorization for the use of force' by one or more States against others.

As it should.

Wrong, the UNSC found the US and her allies to be lawful belligerents when it invoked the self defense clause and said by ALL MEANS.


Calls on States to work together, the US in fact has, and is, violating this particular part of 1368 by conducting unauthorized military strikes inside Pakistan.

Wrong again, it is a settled matter of CIL/LOAC you do not need permission tp launch otherwise legal combat ops. Pakistan is a co-belligerent not a neutral and thus has the rights, responsibilities and liabilities of a belligerent power.


Excellent, but again, no authorization for the use of force by one State against another.]/quote]

already authorized


[quote]And the 'steps' the UNSC took to actually authorize the use of force under Chapter VII (excluding self defence) are in UNSC 1386 (quoted at the end)

Now, here is the text of 1386 that explicitly authorizes force in Afghanistan:

Wrong again, ISAF is a separate issue, the right to use force to combat terrorism was already authorized by 1368.



The authorization for ISAF deployment has been renewed/extended multiple times since, which on its own refutes your argument that 'UNSC 1368 provided some sort of blanket and unlimited authorization for the use of force against terrorism', because had that been the case, there would have been no need for UNSC 1378 and the subsequent extensions in the mandate of ISAF in Afghanistan.

No, ISAF is not the war on terror, it is a security force for Afghanistan which is a theater of the war on terror.

However, under your reading , Pakistan is guilty of crimes against peace and security. There was no explicitly worded UNSC authorizing Pakistan to infiltrate troops in Kargil. Lacking that ever so important explicitly worded authorization (rather than plan language readings of CIL/LOAC), Pakistan invaded India and broke the peace and is an aggressor state. However under CIL/LOAC Kargil was not a breach of the peace and was merely two combatants having a skirmish.

Pick one AM, you can't have both.

Oracle
12 Jul 13,, 18:20
@zraver

Ok let suppose pakistan or pakistani military and ISI did created the taliban/terrorists for fight against india or any other purpose or all the stuff you said.
and SWAT and FATA are in mess because we created them and they are now killing us.everything admitted
but
what about USA?didnt they created the terrorists to fight the USSR?didnt they funded the terrorist groups in the past.while now they are fighting the same people now which again are responsible for the suffering of USA(9/11) and thousands of US marine lives

so please make me out the difference between the approach of USA and PAkistan in the past and now?

what is the difference between both the country support for the terrorism in the past,fighting against the same the created for strategic purpose and being kiled by the same.


@Admins

i am new to the forum.
can my post be kindly approved

thanks in advance

Reply to the part in bold - please do not assume, coz' the truth is out there. Benazir Bhutto created the Taliban in 1994, summing the warring warlords of Afghanistan under a single umbrella a.k.a Taliban. And then, the Taliban killed her.

Bhutto helped create Taliban monster (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2008/01/02/bhutto_helped_create_taliban_monster.html)

zraver
12 Jul 13,, 18:33
please note that the section of 1368 that Zraver is arguing constitutes an 'authorization for use of force' falls under the 'preamble' of the resolution instead of the 'operative clauses'.

I quote the entire document as authorizing force


1. Unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks which took place on 11 September 2001 in New York, Washington (D.C.) and Pennsylvania and regards such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a threat to international peace and security;

The bolded part invoked Chapter 7 of the charter



“2. Expresses its deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families and to the People and Government of the United States of America;

US given the status of victim, entitled to self defense
.

3. Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;

two readings possible here- either works. First, recognizes the activation of the NATO alliance following a breach of international peace and security and activation of CIL and LOAC.... Or gives the US the right t punish Pakistan for sheltering OBL on a Pakistani military canton. It is also specific that not just jihadi bombers (perpetrators) can be targeted but also orgnaizers and supporters (C3).


4. Calls also on the international community to redouble their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts including by increased cooperation and full implementation...

You cannot redouble what has not already been started...


5. Expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations;

readinss to take ALL and combat ALL.... no wiggle room there AM, the UN declared the gloves were off and the US and her allies could do as they wished to rub out AQ. Pakistan is lucky she declared co-belligerent status with the US rather than with AQ. That is likely the only reason Islamabad and Karachi are not giant parking lots. But Paksitan did declare co-belligerent status with the US.

That means the rights, responsibilities, obligations and risks of a belligerent. You will find NO international law that declares the territory of a declared belligerent is off limits to another belligerent. Certain targets are off limits, not territory. The only rights Pakistan had under the LOAC as a declared belligerent were that military operations would conform to CIL and follow the principles of proportionality and distinction.

Agnostic Muslim
12 Jul 13,, 18:45
By the way, I am really interested t see how Agnostic Muslim responds to this one.
Respond to what exactly? Fire posted the same article in the thread about Kayani rejecting talks with the Taliban and I offered some thoughts about Musharraf there.

Agnostic Muslim
12 Jul 13,, 19:01
I quote the entire document as authorizing force
You can't

The bolded part invoked Chapter 7 of the charter
It is part of the preamble, it does not invoke Chapter VII at all (see the text of 1386 to see an example of language invoking Chapter VII) - it merely provides 'context' or 'background' for the resolution.

US given the status of victim, entitled to self defense
Expresses sympathy, and identifies the US as a victim of terrorism, it does not authorize self defence or suggest that the US is entitled to self-defence under the self-defence clauses of the UN Charter.

two readings possible here- either works. First, recognizes the activation of the NATO alliance following a breach of international peace and security and activation of CIL and LOAC.... Or gives the US the right t punish Pakistan for sheltering OBL on a Pakistani military canton. It is also specific that not just jihadi bombers (perpetrators) can be targeted but also orgnaizers and supporters (C3).
Does not recognize the activation of the NATO alliance at all - where do you see that even being implied? The language is clear in merely 'encouraging' (note the use of the phrase 'calls on') States to cooperate and holds out potential (undefined) consequences for those 'responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts' (and Pakistan is not guilty of violating any of those conditions).

You cannot redouble what has not already been started...
What has been started, as the call to 'redouble' itself states explicitly, is 'increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 1269 (1999) of 19 October 1999' - there is no 'redoubling of any prior authorization of force'.

readinss to take ALL and combat ALL.... no wiggle room there AM, the UN declared the gloves were off and the US and her allies could do as they wished to rub out AQ. Pakistan is lucky she declared co-belligerent status with the US rather than with AQ. That is likely the only reason Islamabad and Karachi are not giant parking lots. But Paksitan did declare co-belligerent status with the US.
Read it carefully Z - 'readiness to take steps', not an authorization for XYZ steps, or, as you are arguing, 'authorization to use force'. The actual 'steps', specifically the use of force, were outlined in subsequent UNSC Resolutions.

zraver
12 Jul 13,, 19:46
You can't

Funny, because I did

Now please address the rest of my points instead of running away from them while playing your verbal game.

Minskaya
13 Jul 13,, 08:31
AM, here are merely two of the numerous nagging problems I have with your off-the-shelf explanations...

Would you care to tell me about Syed Saleem Shahzad? For those of you who are unfamiliar, Syed Shahzad was a Pakistani journalist who was investigating the extraordinary close links between the ISI and Pakistani militant groups. He was beaten to death and his body was tossed into an irrigation ditch eighty miles south of Islamabad. The ISI denied any involvement in his death. However, the US has electronic intercepts of his execution orders that were traced back to General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, the Director General of the ISI.

What about the Wardak bombing in Afghanistan? Coalition forces had been tipped off that two suspicious fertilizer trucks were navigating NATO supply routes. US military officials notified Pakistani General Kayani who promised that the trucks would be stopped and detained for investigation. However, Kayani did nothing. The trucks remained unmolested in North Waziristan for two months. During this period, the Haqqani Network turned them into suicide vehicles. US General John Allen once again placed a direct call to General Kayani requesting that these trucks be impounded. Kayani replied that he would make a phone call. A few weeks later, one of these trucks pulled up to the perimeter wall of the US military base in Wardak Province, Afghanistan. The driver pushed the detonation button. The explosion was powerful enough to breach the wall and wound seventy US Marines inside the compound. An eight year old Afghan girl half a mile away was killed by the shrapnel.

I have many more examples of ISI collusion AM. While I believe ISI Directorate D has cooperated with the US in regards to capturing AQ operatives on Pakistani soil, the evidence that ISI Directorate S is complicit in the deaths/casualties of coalition forces in the Afghan theater is obvious and legion. You have a bad habit of offering the actions of ISI Directorate D as proof of Pakistani cooperation, while totally ignoring the nefarious activities of ISI Directorate S.

To be quite frank, such disingenuous disambiguation really wears on me.

Agnostic Muslim
14 Jul 13,, 03:01
Funny, because I did
You tried, and I refuted your arguments in post# 87


Now please address the rest of my points instead of running away from them while playing your verbal game.
Again, I addressed, as far as I can tell, all your points related to your interpretation of UNSC Resolution 1368 in post# 87 - the remainder of your arguments are derived from your flawed interpretations of 1368 and therefore are moot.

Agnostic Muslim
14 Jul 13,, 03:24
AM, here are merely two of the numerous nagging problems I have with your off-the-shelf explanations...
We can start with debunking your two 'off the shelf' issues in response to my explanations.


Would you care to tell me about Syed Saleem Shahzad? For those of you who are unfamiliar, Syed Shahzad was a Pakistani journalist who was investigating the extraordinary close links between the ISI and Pakistani militant groups. He was beaten to death and his body was tossed into an irrigation ditch eighty miles south of Islamabad. The ISI denied any involvement in his death. However, the US has electronic intercepts of his execution orders that were traced back to General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, the Director General of the ISI.
Can you provide a credible source to support your allegations of 'the US has electronic intercepts of Saleem Shahzad's execution orders that were traced back to General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, the Director General of the ISI'? I ask because the publicly available statements from US officials do not support your claim:


Pakistan's government "sanctioned" the killing of journalist Saleem Shahzad, the top officer in the US military, Admiral Mike Mullen, has said.

But he said he could not confirm if the country's powerful intelligence agency, the ISI, was involved.
BBC News - Pakistan 'approved Saleem Shahzad murder' says Mullen (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14074814)


What about the Wardak bombing in Afghanistan? Coalition forces had been tipped off that two suspicious fertilizer trucks were navigating NATO supply routes. US military officials notified Pakistani General Kayani who promised that the trucks would be stopped and detained for investigation. However, Kayani did nothing. The trucks remained unmolested in North Waziristan for two months. During this period, the Haqqani Network turned them into suicide vehicles. US General John Allen once again placed a direct call to General Kayani requesting that these trucks be impounded. Kayani replied that he would make a phone call. A few weeks later, one of these trucks pulled up to the perimeter wall of the US military base in Wardak Province, Afghanistan. The driver pushed the detonation button. The explosion was powerful enough to breach the wall and wound seventy US Marines inside the compound. An eight year old Afghan girl half a mile away was killed by the shrapnel.
Are you sure you have the correct details here regarding the communication between the US and Pakistan regarding the "truck bombs"? The reports I have seen indicate that the US informed Pakistan about a potential truck bombing two days before the bombing actually occurred (not two months):


The American commander of Nato in Afghanistan personally asked Pakistan's army chief to halt an insurgent truck bomb that was heading for his troops, during a meeting in Islamabad two days before a huge explosion that wounded 77 US soldiers at a base near Kabul.

In reply General Ashfaq Kayani offered to "make a phone call" to stop the assault on the US base in Wardak province...

... Allen's spokesman said Nato "routinely shares intelligence with the Pakistanis regarding insurgent activities" but he refused to confirm the details of the conversation with Kayani.

The Pakistani military spokesman, General Athar Abbas, said: "Let's suppose it was the case. The main question is how did this truck travel to Wardak and explode without being checked by Nato? This is just a blame game."
US bomb warning to Pakistan ignored | World news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/22/us-bomb-warning-pakistan-ignored)

Gen Athar Abbar raises a valid point (regardless of whether the time frame was two days or two months), why did the US not intercept the trucks when they crossed to the Afghan side and during their journey to the target if the US did in fact have concrete intelligence? In addition, the US conducted one drone strike in North Waziristan on September 4 2011, and a total of 9 drone strikes in July and August of 2011. It would appear that the US not only had ample opportunity to intercept the trucks once they had crossed into the Afghan side, but also had ample opportunity to take them out in any one of the many drone strikes conducted in July, August and early September - so why didn't the US take out the truck bombs if the intelligence it provided Pakistan was so strong?


I have many more examples of ISI collusion AM.
If the rest of your examples are as poorly thought out and distorted as the two here, then you really need to reassess your objectivity.


To be quite frank, such disingenuous disambiguation really wears on me.
Sorry, but the two highly flawed and unsubstantiated examples that you provided in this post suggest 'disingenuous disambiguation' on your part, not mine.

zraver
14 Jul 13,, 03:50
You tried, and I refuted your arguments in post# 87

No you didn't


Again, I addressed, as far as I can tell, all your points related to your interpretation of UNSC Resolution 1368 in post# 87 - the remainder of your arguments are derived from your flawed interpretations of 1368 and therefore are moot.

No, I can cite chapter and verse of CIL/LOAC and prove that Pakistan is a co-belligerent with the US against AQ. But that can resolved next. First, show me any part of CIL/LOAC that prevent belligerents conducting military operations in the territory of a belligerent- allied or enemy.

If you can't show me some actual codified examples I expect you to concede the point that allies/ co-belligerents can conduct military operations on each others or another belligerents territory.

Minskaya
14 Jul 13,, 07:43
Sorry, but the two highly flawed and unsubstantiated examples that you provided in this post suggest 'disingenuous disambiguation' on your part, not mine.
Although you have been provided ample room to come to terms with Pakistani diplomatic artifice and military duplicity, you adamantly refuse to accept any Pakistani culpability whatsoever. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that you are at minimum a rabid Pakistani nationalist and perhaps even a funded mouthpiece. At this juncture, you exist here solely as an exemplar to all regarding the nature and pitfalls of blind and rabid nationalism.

antimony
14 Jul 13,, 08:02
Respond to what exactly? Fire posted the same article in the thread about Kayani rejecting talks with the Taliban and I offered some thoughts about Musharraf there.

Its not even about Musharraf. Its about Pakistan's wide-eyed-innocence when Kashmir and "pakistani sponsored terrorism" is mentioned in the same breath. your generals and politicians keep claiming that its all indigenous and that Pakistan only provides moral support. Looks like that's not true after all

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 13:15
No you didn't
Yes, I refuted your interpretations of 1368 in post# 87, and your lack of counterarguments (to post#87) would imply that my position, that 1368 did not authorize any kind of military strikes, is correct.


No, I can cite chapter and verse of CIL/LOAC and prove that Pakistan is a co-belligerent with the US against AQ. But that can resolved next. First, show me any part of CIL/LOAC that prevent belligerents conducting military operations in the territory of a belligerent- allied or enemy.

If you can't show me some actual codified examples I expect you to concede the point that allies/ co-belligerents can conduct military operations on each others or another belligerents territory.
I have clearly pointed out the conditions codified by the UN Charter that must be met for Jus du Bellum to be invoked - you tried to argue that (1) 1368 authorized military strikes, an argument I debunked (2) Pakistan consented to US military strikes on her territory, an argument that I also debunked (3) US has been carrying out military strikes in Pakistani territory under the justification of Self-defence, an argument that I also debunked given the conditions that must be met for self-defence to be invoked.

If you have any other arguments to offer, you claim to be able to cite 'chapter and verse of the CIL/LOAC' in support of your position, then please go ahead. You claim that the US has the legal international right to 'conduct unilateral and unauthorized military strikes inside Pakistan', therefore it is your burden to establish the veracity of that claim.

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 13:19
Although you have been provided ample room to come to terms with Pakistani diplomatic artifice and military duplicity, you adamantly refuse to accept any Pakistani culpability whatsoever. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that you are at minimum a rabid Pakistani nationalist and perhaps even a funded mouthpiece. At this juncture, you exist here solely as an exemplar to all regarding the nature and pitfalls of blind and rabid nationalism.
Whether or not I am a rabid Pakistani nationalist and/or a funded mouthpiece has no bearing on my arguments refuting your claims of ISI involvement in the two incidents you chose to highlight in your previous post.

If you have other sources or facts to support your claims related to your two examples in the previous post, please go ahead and post them, barring which I would expect you to show the same civility and 'intellectual honesty' as I did in retracting my argument related to the 'US not exploring all options for talks with the Taliban before invading Afghanistan' when certain facts related to Mullah Omar's views about OBL and AQ were brought to light.

zraver
15 Jul 13,, 13:36
Wrong AM answer my question about the rights of belligerents or be branded a coward without the strength of his convictions.

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 14:21
Wrong AM answer my question about the rights of belligerents or be branded a coward without the strength of his convictions.
You already have my answer - as I pointed out above the UN Charter allows for military action by one State against another (when not authorized by the UNSC) only in the case of self-defence, and self-defence has certain conditions that need to be met which the US has not in the case of military strikes in Pakistan.

You are the one claiming to quote 'chapter and verse' in support of your argument, and the burden of establishing the case is now yours, given that your 1368 claims have been thoroughly debunked - so go ahead, start quoting your 'chapter and verse' so we can understand and analyze your claims.

zraver
15 Jul 13,, 14:27
You are a liar.

You have no evidence that belligerents cannot conduct military operations on the territory of another belligerent. Azuiiz is just one of many Pakistani politicians who affirmed that that US and Pakistan are co-belligerents in a global war on terror. There is no self defense clause needed to conduct operations in the territory of a belligerent.

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 14:32
You are a liar.

You have no evidence that belligerents cannot conduct military operations on the territory of another belligerent.
Your argument is a common logical fallacy brought up by people who run out of arguments to make - demanding that the opponent 'prove a negative'. You claim the US has the right to conduct military operations inside Pakistani territory, so it is your burden to establish why that claim is valid. I have made my position clear, quoting the UN Charter, why the US does not have the right to conduct unilateral and unauthorized military operations on Pakistani soil, so stop hiding and please provide us your 'chapter and verse quotations of international law' justifying your position.


There is no self defense clause needed to conduct operations in the territory of a belligerent.
The UN Charter does not make that distinction in Chapter VII - please provide excerpts from the UN Charter and international law you claim support your position. I have already quoted the relevant sections of Chapter VII that refute your claims.

anil
15 Jul 13,, 16:05
Muh se saath page bhar ka sandas nikal dala, UN charter tumare baap ne likha tha kya?

Doktor
15 Jul 13,, 16:11
And in English that would be?

anil
15 Jul 13,, 16:16
I asked who wrote the UN charter

zraver
15 Jul 13,, 16:59
Your argument is a common logical fallacy brought up by people who run out of arguments to make - demanding that the opponent 'prove a negative'. You claim the US has the right to conduct military operations inside Pakistani territory, so it is your burden to establish why that claim is valid.


I already have, and have done so repeatedly.

1. Pakistan has on multiple occasion declared itself to be at war with Al Queda and the Taliban and that she was a co-belligerent with the United States.
2. CIL/LOAC allow belligerents to undertake military action on each others territory without requiring permission from either the belligerent country or the UN. Examples i showed included Holland and France during WWII and Korea and Kuwait post WWII/UN era.


I have made my position clear, quoting the UN Charter, why the US does not have the right to conduct unilateral and unauthorized military operations on Pakistani soil, so stop hiding and please provide us your 'chapter and verse quotations of international law' justifying your position.

Ypu are the one who is hiding, I have asked you repeatedly for any example, any citation that shows a belligerent needs permission and you have failed to provide it. On the other hand I have provided you with four different legal examples of belligerents conducting military operations on the territory of an ally.


The UN Charter does not make that distinction in Chapter VII - please provide excerpts from the UN Charter and international law you claim support your position. I have already quoted the relevant sections of Chapter VII that refute your claims.

Its not about the UN charter, its about CIL/LOAC. You know this but are dodging the question. If you were to answer truthfully you would be forced to admit that you are a shrill for those who support terrorism and are yourself by default a support of terrorists.

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 17:35
And in English that would be?
A derogatory way of asking 'who wrote the UN Charter' - the literal translation into English, "Who wrote the UN Charter, your father?", doesn't really convey the derogatory nature of the question.

Doktor
15 Jul 13,, 17:36
Z,

To my understanding, AM just doesn't like the fact that a foreign military, be it allied or not, is conducting ops in his own country. Without authorization of GoP.

Not very hard concept to swallow. Imagine the guard of the Pakistani diplomatic mission opening fire killing one US citizen who looks alike some terrorist and killing few bystanders including kids. Hey, you are belligerents and that fella looked like a wanted terrorist.
How would you feel?

If US drone attacks are so just and helpful why no other coalition country is performing such ops in Pakistan?

Note: I took diplomatic mission as an example as for the moment couldn't search for armed personal of foreign armies on US turf.

Minskaya
15 Jul 13,, 17:43
If you have other sources or facts to support your claims related to your two examples in the previous post, please go ahead and post them
Pakistani journalist Saleem Shazad was about to spill the beans about the ISI and its deep ties to terrorism.

Here is the Asian Human Rights Commission report on the ISI murder of Syed Saleem Shahzad and the subsequent GOP cover up.

Everyone should take five minutes and read this. PAKISTAN: Saleem Shahzad case - rule of law or rule of ISI? (http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-ART-020-2012)

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 17:47
I already have, and have done so repeatedly.

1. Pakistan has on multiple occasion declared itself to be at war with Al Queda and the Taliban and that she was a co-belligerent with the United States.
2. CIL/LOAC allow belligerents to undertake military action on each others territory without requiring permission from either the belligerent country or the UN. Examples i showed included Holland and France during WWII and Korea and Kuwait post WWII/UN era.

Ypu are the one who is hiding, I have asked you repeatedly for any example, any citation that shows a belligerent needs permission and you have failed to provide it. On the other hand I have provided you with four different legal examples of belligerents conducting military operations on the territory of an ally.
Examples of past events are not substitutes for rulings by international courts and/or the language of treaties, conventions and charters (in this case the UN Charter) that actually outline/codify the conditions/justifications under which one country can carry out military strikes in/against another. You indicated you could 'quote chapter and verse of international law' supporting your position, and I am still waiting for you to do that in order to analyze the basis of your position and respond if necessary.

Its not about the UN charter, its about CIL/LOAC. You know this but are dodging the question. If you were to answer truthfully you would be forced to admit that you are a shrill for those who support terrorism and are yourself by default a support of terrorists.
It is about the UN Charter - LOAC, specifically jus ad bellum, derives legitimacy from certain conditions being met. Since both Pakistan and the US accept the UN Charter, the language of the Charter outlining reasons under which one State may carry out military operations against another override all else (barring any later convention/treaty accepted by the UN and/or concerned parties on the same issue). Those reasons, as I argued in my previous posts, are (1) UNSC authorization for military strikes (2) self defence as defined in the UN Charter - unauthorized and unilateral US military strikes in Pakistan do not qualify as legitimate under either of those two conditions.

Doktor
15 Jul 13,, 17:58
I asked who wrote the UN charter

There were series of events that lead to the Charter. I don't think any Pakistani, or Indian lawyer participated in that, tho there is a possibility since both were under Brits at the time.

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 18:00
Pakistani journalist Saleem Shazad was about to spill the beans about the ISI and its deep ties to terrorism.

Here is the Asian Human Rights Commission report on the ISI murder of Syed Saleem Shahzad and the subsequent GOP cover up.

Everyone should take five minutes and read this. PAKISTAN: Saleem Shahzad case - rule of law or rule of ISI? (http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-ART-020-2012)
OK, I read it, but I see no new information offered in this article by William Gomes - it repeats the same speculation and unsubstantiated claims quoting 'anonymous sources' that we have seen elsewhere, whereas I provided a direct quote from Admiral Mullen from the US (who would have a strong interest in highlighting any ISI wrong doing given his 'Haqqanis are a veritable arm of the ISI rant') stating that there was no evidence linking the ISI to the murder.

BTW, one of the primary arguments used by those alleging the ISI murdered Shahzad is that he 'exposed' communication between Al Qaeda and the Pakistan Navy in which AQ was negotiating for the release of AQ members and the PN refused. If anything, this account while damaging in the sense that the PN had been infiltrated, also highlighted the fact that the PN had broken up an AQ cell in the PN and refused to release the AQ members, which in turn allegedly led to the attack on the Mehran Naval Base.

Doktor
15 Jul 13,, 18:08
Z,

To my understanding, AM just doesn't like the fact that a foreign military, be it allied or not, is conducting ops in his own country. Without authorization of GoP.

Not very hard concept to swallow. Imagine the guard of the Pakistani diplomatic mission opening fire killing one US citizen who looks alike some terrorist and killing few bystanders including kids. Hey, you are belligerents and that fella looked like a wanted terrorist.
How would you feel?

If US drone attacks are so just and helpful why no other coalition country is performing such ops in Pakistan?

Note: I took diplomatic mission as an example as for the moment couldn't search for armed personal of foreign armies on US turf.

Just to add...

As stated before, I don't see the GoP as genuinely worried much about the situation. Hence their mild response.

Firestorm
15 Jul 13,, 18:13
If US drone attacks are so just and helpful why no other coalition country is performing such ops in Pakistan?

In a coalition, wouldn't the individual players divide up the tasks amongst them? The US has the best and most number of armed drones and probably the best intelligence about the movements of Taliban/AQ commanders in Pakistan. So they got this task.

zraver
15 Jul 13,, 18:27
Z,

To my understanding, AM just doesn't like the fact that a foreign military, be it allied or not, is conducting ops in his own country. Without authorization of GoP.

In the end it does not matter if he likes it or not. The legality boils down to a very simple question. Is Pakistan a co-belligerent with the US against Al Queda and the Taliban. Multiple statements from the Government of Pakistan say yes, she is a co-belligerent. That means the US does not need authorization or permission to conduct otherwise lawful military operations.

I've given 4 examples of this. That it hasn't happened recently inside the US doesn't matter, what matters is that it has happened repeatedly across decades and multiple conflicts establishing itself as part of CIL/LOAC. I asked AM specifically to provide ANY source relating to CIL/LOAC that in anyway implies the territory of a belligerent is inviolate. he has failed to do so.


Not very hard concept to swallow. Imagine the guard of the Pakistani diplomatic mission opening fire killing one US citizen who looks alike some terrorist and killing few bystanders including kids. Hey, you are belligerents and that fella looked like a wanted terrorist.
How would you feel?

looks like or was? If the shooting followed the LOAC there is not much to complain about now is there.



If US drone attacks are so just and helpful why no other coalition country is performing such ops in Pakistan?/quote]

Who else has armed drones in sufficient numbers to do them? Not only that, the GoP has on occasion given the US targeting data for drone strikes inside Pakistan as well as providing critical infrastructure support.

[quote]Note: I took diplomatic mission as an example as for the moment couldn't search for armed personal of foreign armies on US turf.

Following 9-11, NATO E-3 sentry aircraft assisted in actively patrolling US air space (active combat operations). During WWI and II Royal navy, Canadian and other allied ships conducted active convoy escort and anti-submarine duties in US waters. Currently, in NORAD Canadian military officers jointly protect North American airspace, during the cold war these same officers had authority to launch nuclear missiles, interceptors and other weapons. The USAF, USMC, and USN fighter squadrons routinely conduct operations with on-loan foreign pilots at the controls of fully armed and capable US jets.....

Officer of Engineers
15 Jul 13,, 18:32
Following 9-11, NATO E-3 sentry aircraft assisted in actively patrolling US air space.Added to this, Canadian CF-18s were also patrolling the skies of Buffalo and New York. If so ordered, they were to shoot down civilian airliners in American skies.

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 18:35
Added to this, Canadian CF-18s were also patrolling the skies of Buffalo and New York. If so ordered, they were to shoot down civilian airliners in American skies.
And why would they shoot down civilian airliners in American skies? For shits and giggles, or because the targeted airliners posed an imminent threat to Canada, which could not be handled by the US in time, which would legitimize Canadian military action under the UN's 'self-defence' articles in the UN Charter.

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 18:38
In the end it does not matter if he likes it or not. The legality boils down to a very simple question. Is Pakistan a co-belligerent with the US against Al Queda and the Taliban. Multiple statements from the Government of Pakistan say yes, she is a co-belligerent. That means the US does not need authorization or permission to conduct otherwise lawful military operations.

I've given 4 examples of this. That it hasn't happened recently inside the US doesn't matter, what matters is that it has happened repeatedly across decades and multiple conflicts establishing itself as part of CIL/LOAC. I asked AM specifically to provide ANY source relating to CIL/LOAC that in anyway implies the territory of a belligerent is inviolate. he has failed to do so.

Again, examples from history mean nothing given that the language of the UN Charter codifies instances in which one State can carry out armed attacks against another. The language of the UN Charter trumps all else (except where the Charter points out exceptions).

Triple C
15 Jul 13,, 18:39
Or an imminent strike against U.S. which Canada intends to avert. The colonel's point, or so it seems to me, is that the Canadians were authorized to do as they wish under the strictures of US-Canadian agreement.

Unlike two people in a bed room, Pakistan's silence is hard to construe as anything other than consent, a problem better took up with the government of Pakistan than with the U.S.

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 18:45
Or an imminent strike against U.S. which Canada intends to avert. The colonel's point, or so it seems to me, is that the Canadians were authorized to do as they wish under the strictures of US-Canadian agreement.

Unlike two people in a bed room, Pakistan's silence is hard to construe as anything other than consent, a problem better took up with the government of Pakistan than with the U.S.
Pakistan's government is anything but 'silent' when it comes to her official position on the issue of US military strikes inside Pakistan, especially in the last few years - they have repeatedly been called violations of international law and unauthorized by Pakistan. The US has not provided any 'US-Pakistan Agreement' under which the US could claim to have been authorized to conduct military strikes inside Pakistan.

That the Pakistani government is faced with bad options in either case, and is being forced to live with a perceived 'less bad' option out of two bad options is not the equivalent of consent.

Triple C
15 Jul 13,, 18:49
Did your government cut ties with the U.S.? Renounce American military aid? Claim that Pakistan is not a partner in war against terrorist groups?

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 18:55
Did your government cut ties with the U.S.? Renounce American military aid? Claim that Pakistan is not a partner in war against terrorist groups?
All actions with very negative repercussions, especially for a country in the midst of two major COIN campaigns and a struggling economy (and I am not referring to the military aid part but the other potential economic fallout, including potential economic sanctions). Hence my point that the Pakistani government is being forced to refrain from any tangible actions that could end the drone strikes, which does not equate to consent.

Firestorm
15 Jul 13,, 18:56
Pakistan's government is anything but 'silent' when it comes to her official position on the issue of US military strikes inside Pakistan, especially in the last few years - they have repeatedly been called violations of international law and unauthorized by Pakistan.
Uh, they were doing that even back when the Shamsi airbase was in operation and the ISI was working with the US in carrying out the drone strikes. Who is to say they are not playing the same game of double-talk now as well? Only way to prove they are serious this time would be to shoot down a drone or do one of the things that Triple C mentions above.

zraver
15 Jul 13,, 18:58
Examples of past events are not substitutes for rulings by international courts and/or the language of treaties, conventions and charters (in this case the UN Charter) that actually outline/codify the conditions/justifications under which one country can carry out military strikes in/against another. You indicated you could 'quote chapter and verse of international law' supporting your position, and I am still waiting for you to do that in order to analyze the basis of your position and respond if necessary.

There is zero language making the claim you are making. You know what the words customary and precedent mean right?

Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907. Is still the principle authority as to what Belligerents may not do. It operates under a premise of that which is not specifically prohibited is permitted.


It is about the UN Charter - LOAC, specifically jus ad bellum, derives legitimacy from certain conditions being met. Since both Pakistan and the US accept the UN Charter, the language of the Charter outlining reasons under which one State may carry out military operations against another override all else (barring any later convention/treaty accepted by the UN and/or concerned parties on the same issue).

Pakistan has entered a declared state of co-belligerency with the US against Al Queda. She is a belligerent not a neutral.



Those reasons, as I argued in my previous posts, are (1) UNSC authorization for military strikes (2) self defence as defined in the UN Charter - unauthorized and unilateral US military strikes in Pakistan do not qualify as legitimate under either of those two conditions.

Hog wash, Pakistan and the US are belligerents and their action are governed by CIL/LOAC. There is nothing in the controlling documents to say that a belligerent may not conduct military operations in the territory of another belligerent.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jul 13,, 19:02
And why would they shoot down civilian airliners in American skies? For shits and giggles, or because the targeted airliners posed an imminent threat to Canada, which could not be handled by the US in time, which would legitimize Canadian military action under the UN's 'self-defence' articles in the UN Charter.How about reading the situation before spouting off your bullshit. If a Canadian CF-18 pilot sees a civilian airliner heading towards a target in Buffalo, then under NORAD, that Canadian plane might as well be an American one with the exact same authority to shoot down that airliner.

zraver
15 Jul 13,, 19:04
Again, examples from history mean nothing given that the language of the UN Charter codifies instances in which one State can carry out armed attacks against another. The language of the UN Charter trumps all else (except where the Charter points out exceptions).

The UN charter does not deal with the rights of belligerent, those are spelled out on other documents. Under those documents and the customs of war (they do have enforceable power per the ICJ) Pakistan is a belligerent- period full stop. The rights to territorial inviolability in regards to military operations DO NOT EXIST for belligerents.

There is nothing illegal under CILLOAC about the US conducting military operations in Pakistan. The US as a lawful belligerent operating in the territory of a lawful belligerent needs no permission.

check and mate. You can continue to deny but those who can read know the truth. Your claims are unsupported pigs swallop base don nothing more than your attempts to justify the GoP's continued support of international terrorist including including members of several groups who have killed thousands all over the globe. This makes you a supporter of global jihad and one day karma is going to get you and most of us here will celebrate. You've advocated for our harm long enough afterall.

Triple C
15 Jul 13,, 19:06
All actions with very negative repercussions, especially for a country in the midst of two major COIN campaigns and a struggling economy (and I am not referring to the military aid part but the other potential economic fallout, including potential economic sanctions). Hence my point that the Pakistani government is being forced to refrain from any tangible actions that could end the drone strikes, which does not equate to consent.

Yes, that would suck. But it seems to me that your own government's lack of resolve and/or means is the heart of the problem.

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 19:19
The UN charter does not deal with the rights of belligerent, those are spelled out on other documents.
I have asked you repeatedly to quote (or link to) the relevant documents that you claim support your position so that they I can analyze them and offer an appropriate response, if necessary.

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 19:24
Yes, that would suck. But it seems to me that your own government's lack of resolve and/or means is the heart of the problem.
I agree, the Pakistani government's lack of means and subsequent lack of resolve allows for the GoP to be compromised and coerced into refraining from taking tangible actions that would stop US military strikes on Pakistani soil. That the US can get away with said coercion also points to glaring flaws in the global system, where the weak are bullied by the powerful. However, unless you want to accept the right of wealthy and powerful Americans to rape, pillage and destroy weaker Americans, you cannot simply argue that 'blackmail/coercion' on the international stage (by the powerful and wealthy) is legitimate.

zraver
15 Jul 13,, 19:24
I have asked you repeatedly to quote (or link to) the relevant documents that you claim support your position so that they I can analyze them and offer an appropriate response, if necessary.

Hague Conventions of 1907 regarding the laws and customs of war- articles 23-30 on the prohibitions enforced on belligerents. There is no territorial protections to anyone but a neutral which Pakistan is not.

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 19:27
How about reading the situation before spouting off your bullshit. If a Canadian CF-18 pilot sees a civilian airliner heading towards a target in Buffalo, then under NORAD, that Canadian plane might as well be an American one with the exact same authority to shoot down that airliner.
Thank you for making my point - the Canadian CF-18 would act in the manner described over US airspace because of NORAD, i.e. a codified agreement between the two States involved that authorizes the hypothetical military response by a Canadian CF-18 over US airspace. There is no such agreement between the US and Pakistan and therefore US military strikes inside Pakistan that are not covered by a US-Pakistani agreement, are not covered by a UNSC Resolution authorizing force, and/or self-defence are violations of international law.

zraver
15 Jul 13,, 19:29
I agree, the Pakistani government's lack of means and subsequent lack of resolve allows for the GoP to be compromised and coerced into refraining from taking tangible actions that would stop US military strikes on Pakistani soil. That the US can get away with said coercion also points to glaring flaws in the global system, where the weak are bullied by the powerful. However, unless you want to accept the right of wealthy and powerful Americans to rape, pillage and destroy weaker Americans, you cannot simply argue that 'blackmail/coercion' on the international stage (by the powerful and wealthy) is legitimate.

Pakistan has made multiple public statements in support of the US, and declaring her self to be an ally and co-belligerent with the US against terrorist. That is not coercion by any definition. What it is, is double dealing by the GoP to play both sides of the fence. Sadly for you AM, public statements backed by private action are legally binding. In that Pakistan has done both in support of the US lead GWoT.

zraver
15 Jul 13,, 19:31
Thank you for making my point - the Canadian CF-18 would act in the manner described over US airspace because of NORAD, i.e. a codified agreement between the two States involved that authorizes the hypothetical military response by a Canadian CF-18 over US airspace. There is no such agreement between the US and Pakistan and therefore US military strikes inside Pakistan that are not covered by a US-Pakistani agreement, are not covered by a UNSC Resolution authorizing force, and/or self-defence are violations of international law.

Find a single international law that says that I dare you.

Triple C
15 Jul 13,, 19:33
I agree, the Pakistani government's lack of means and subsequent lack of resolve allows for the GoP to be compromised and coerced into refraining from taking tangible actions that would stop US military strikes on Pakistani soil. That the US can get away with said coercion also points to glaring flaws in the global system, where the weak are bullied by the powerful. However, unless you want to accept the right of wealthy and powerful Americans to rape, pillage and destroy weaker Americans, you cannot simply argue that 'blackmail/coercion' on the international stage (by the powerful and wealthy) is legitimate.

At the same time, your government is pledged to capture or kill terrorists whom had attacked the U.S., disclaimed responsibility for any actions committed by groups in the federal territories as acts of your state. Now, your government protests when US attacks the same group of people whom you are unable to deal with. Do you not see the glaring contradiction?

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 19:34
Hague Conventions of 1907 regarding the laws and customs of war- articles 23-30 on the prohibitions enforced on belligerents. There is no territorial protections to anyone but a neutral which Pakistan is not.
Thanks - which convention specifically?

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 19:36
At the same time, your government is pledged to capture or kill terrorists whom had attacked the U.S., disclaimed responsibility for any actions committed by groups in the federal territories as acts of your state. Now, your government protests when US attacks the same group of people whom you are unable to deal with. Do you not see the glaring contradiction?
The Pakistani government has repeatedly offered to conduct the drone strikes as Pakistan led or joint US-Pakistan led operations. The US has refused to engage in such a collaborative approach so the problem is on the US side, not the Pakistani.

zraver
15 Jul 13,, 19:37
Thanks - which convention specifically?

That is just it, there is NO CONVENTION limiting the right of belligerents to conduct military operations in the territory of another belligerent. Lots of rules on what can't be attacked, or how people are to be treated etc, but not one sentence about where operations can be conducted in the territories of a belligerent.

zraver
15 Jul 13,, 19:38
The Pakistani government has repeatedly offered to conduct the drone strikes as Pakistan led or joint US-Pakistan led operations. The US has refused to engage in such a collaborative approach so the problem is on the US side, not the Pakistani.

There is NO international law, custom or treaty that requires the US to do so. Pakistan is a belligerent not a neutral.

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 19:41
Find a single international law that says that I dare you.

There is NO international law, custom or treaty that requires the US to do so. Pakistan is a belligerent not a neutral.
The US is a signatory to the UN Charter is she not?

zraver
15 Jul 13,, 19:46
The US is a signatory to the UN Charter is she not?

There is nothing in the UN charter that limits the right of lawful belligerents except as otherwise provided for in treaty. It still operates under the premise of that which is not specifically prohibited is in fact permitted.

So either put up or shut up Mr Jihadi.

Triple C
15 Jul 13,, 19:52
"The Pakistani government has repeatedly offered to conduct the drone strikes as Pakistan led or joint US-Pakistan led operations. The US has refused to engage in such a collaborative approach so the problem is on the US side, not the Pakistani."

Why, do you think, is that the case? Can it be that the U.S. has legitimate reasons to be concerned that the sharing of information with Pakistan might adversely and critically effect the outcome of military operations in a negative direction?

I can understand why Pakistanis are upset; foreign weapons platform over one's own country routinely using lethal force with tragic results can do that. But can you honestly argue you don't see the U.S. having good reasons to go after the group of people the entire civilized world, including its less savory members, had condemned? If your government concedes that the terrorists is the enemy of Pakistan, and yet cannot guarantee relevant members of its state remain uncompromised by the enemy, then what can you reasonably expect of the U.S.?

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 19:54
There is nothing in the UN charter that limits the right of lawful belligerents except as otherwise provided for in treaty. It still operates under the premise of that which is not specifically prohibited is in fact permitted.

So either put up or shut up Mr Jihadi.
The complete lack of any mention of the 'rights of co-belligerents' in a treaty from over a hundred years ago does not change the fact that Pakistan and the US both accept the far more recent UN Charter which limits and restricts military action by one state against another:


Article 1:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

Article 2, paragraph 4

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Article 33

The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 19:58
"The Pakistani government has repeatedly offered to conduct the drone strikes as Pakistan led or joint US-Pakistan led operations. The US has refused to engage in such a collaborative approach so the problem is on the US side, not the Pakistani."

Why, do you think, is that the case? Can it be that the U.S. has legitimate reasons to be concerned that the sharing of information with Pakistan might adversely and critically effect the outcome of military operations in a negative direction?
Because of US hubris and paranoia.


I can understand why Pakistanis are upset; foreign weapons platform over one's own country routinely using lethal force with tragic results can do that. But can you honestly argue you don't see the U.S. having good reasons to go after the group of people the entire civilized world, including its less savory members, had condemned? If your government concedes that the terrorists is the enemy of Pakistan, and yet cannot guarantee relevant members of its state remain uncompromised by the enemy, then what can you reasonably expect of the U.S.?
No, I honestly can't understand the US position, because any honest and sane military analyst on this board (or elsewhere) will have no trouble accepting the fact that the US is not going to win an insurgency with a handful of drone strikes here or there, or for that matter even dent it. That is borne out by the facts on the ground today despite almost a decade of drone strikes. At the end of the day it is Pakistan and Afghanistan alone that can make a positive long-term impact on the situation on the ground, and therefore arguing that joint US-Pakistan drone operations or Pakistan led drone operations would significantly compromise US military operations in Afghanistan is a claim detached from reality.

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 20:03
There is nothing in the UN charter that limits the right of lawful belligerents except as otherwise provided for in treaty. It still operates under the premise of that which is not specifically prohibited is in fact permitted.

So either put up or shut up Mr Jihadi.

Z,

Also note this:


As a result, on November 17, 1950, the General Assembly passed resolution 378, which referred the issue to be defined by the International Law Commission. The commission deliberated over this issue in its 1951 session and due to large disagreements among its members, decided "that the only practical course was to aim at a general and abstract definition (of aggression)".[15] However, a tentative definition of aggression was adopted by the commission on June 4, 1951, which stated:

"Aggression is the use of force by a State or Government against another State or Government, in any manner, whatever the weapons used and whether openly or otherwise, for any reason or for any purpose other than individual or collective self-defence or in pursuance of a decision or recommendation by a competent organ of the United Nations".[16]

Officer of Engineers
15 Jul 13,, 20:05
Oh horse puckey! Find me an international law that says we or our allies must continue to suffer attacks because you cannot or will not eliminate the threat! The law of self defence says if you cannot act, then we have to the right to. Just because the bad guy is shooting from your house does not mean we don't have the right to shoot back.

zraver
15 Jul 13,, 20:06
The complete lack of any mention of the 'rights of co-belligerents' in a treaty from over a hundred years ago does not change the fact that Pakistan and the US both accept the far more recent UN Charter which limits and restricts military action by one state against another:

That treaty is still valid law you moron.

None of the UN articles you posted deal with how wars are fought.

Show me a single CIL/LOAC that limits the right of belligerents to wage war in the territory of another belligerent.I've asked 50 or so times now and you've yet to reply a single time.

zraver
15 Jul 13,, 20:10
Z,

Also note this:

As a result, on November 17, 1950, the General Assembly passed resolution 378, which referred the issue to be defined by the International Law Commission. The commission deliberated over this issue in its 1951 session and due to large disagreements among its members, decided "that the only practical course was to aim at a general and abstract definition (of aggression)".[15] However, a tentative definition of aggression was adopted by the commission on June 4, 1951, which stated:

"Aggression is the use of force by a State or Government against another State or Government, in any manner, whatever the weapons used and whether openly or otherwise, for any reason or for any purpose other than individual or collective self-defence or in pursuance of a decision or recommendation by a competent organ of the United Nations".[16]

1. Nothing in there that prohibits individual action in pursuit of collective war aims.
2. Not a legally binding treaty
3. No prohibitions on the rights of belligerents

Still waiting on you to show a single CIL/LOAC that says belligerents may not conduct military operations in the territory of a belligerent.

Under CIL if it is not specifically prohibited it is permitted. Every treaty on the planet operates under than premise.

Triple C
15 Jul 13,, 20:11
Because of US hubris and paranoia.


Be that as it may, look at the eponymous town of the report. As to not denting terrorism, it seems that not fighting it at all would certainly be ineffective.

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 20:19
That treaty is still valid law you moron.

None of the UN articles you posted deal with how wars are fought.

Show me a single CIL/LOAC that limits the right of belligerents to wage war in the territory of another belligerent.I've asked 50 or so times now and you've yet to reply a single time.
This is a circular argument you are making, since you are the one making the claim, how about 'you show me me a single CIL/LOAC that does not limit the right of belligerents to wage war in the territory of another belligerent'?

The lack of any language relating to the 'rights of co-belligerents' does not automatically imply that 'anything goes'. Implicit in the term 'co-belligerent' is the recognition of the fact that two or more 'co-belligerent States' are cooperating in pursuit of a common goal and will therefore come to an agreement on issues such as military operations on each others territory, and the circumstances in which such operations can take place. Unauthorized and unilateral military strikes by one 'co-belligerent' on another 'co-belligerent' (opposed by the co-belligerent being targeted) render the definition of 'co-belligerent' moot. At this point the co-belligerent conducting the military strikes turns into the aggressor State (assuming the strikes cannot be justified as self-defence or authorized by the UN). There is no such agreement between the US and Pakistan on US military strikes inside Pakistan and therefore being 'co-belligerents' means nothing and the US is in fact playing the role of an aggressor State, and not an ally, in the case of many of these military strikes and violating international law in the process.

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 20:21
Be that as it may, look at the eponymous town of the report. As to not denting terrorism, it seems that not fighting it at all would certainly be ineffective.
And it would certainly be more effective to have the Pakistani military and public on board with joint US-Pakistan drone strikes - after all, hypothetically, how many of the drone strikes can Pakistan effectively 'compromise' and get away with if they were being operated jointly?

Agnostic Muslim
15 Jul 13,, 20:25
Oh horse puckey! Find me an international law that says we or our allies must continue to suffer attacks because you cannot or will not eliminate the threat! The law of self defence says if you cannot act, then we have to the right to. Just because the bad guy is shooting from your house does not mean we don't have the right to shoot back.

If you want to argue self-defence, which the UN Charter recognizes, that is a valid argument to make. Whether US military strikes in Pakistan qualify as self-defence is another discussion, but at least Z should drop this ridiculous line of defence of 'the lack of any mention of the rights of co-belligerents in the 1907 Hague Convention' as somehow allowing a State to 'do whatever it wants' in the territory of a co-belligerent regardless of whether or not the targeted 'co-belligerent' approves or not. Even the US government hasn't made the argument Z is making in defense of its military operations inside Pakistan.

zraver
15 Jul 13,, 20:33
This is a circular argument you are making, since you are the one making the claim, how about 'you show me me a single CIL/LOAC that does not limit the right of belligerents to wage war in the territory of another belligerent'? it is not a circular argument


The lack of any language relating to the 'rights of co-belligerents' does not automatically imply that 'anything goes'.

Yes it does because states are sovereign having only those limits on them they have agreed to.


Implicit in the term 'co-belligerent' is the recognition of the fact that two or more 'co-belligerent States' are cooperating in pursuit of a common goal and will therefore come to an agreement on issues such as military operations on each others territory, and the circumstances in which such operations can take place.

Nice claim, now support it. Show for example the agreement between the Danish Government in Exile and the U.S., U.K. and Poland regulating where the allies could drop paratroopers.


Unauthorized and unilateral military strikes by one 'co-belligerent' on another 'co-belligerent' (opposed by the co-belligerent being targeted) render the definition of 'co-belligerent' moot.

No they do not. There were literally tens of thousands of military acts during WWII on the territory of co-belligerents without out that governments approval or even knowledge.


At this point the co-belligerent conducting the military strikes turns into the aggressor State (assuming the strikes cannot be justified as self-defence or authorized by the UN). There is no such agreement between the US and Pakistan on US military strikes inside Pakistan and therefore being 'co-belligerents' means nothing and the US is in fact playing the role of an aggressor State, and not an ally, in the case of many of these military strikes and violating international law in the process.

No it doesn't, anymore than the wholesale destruction of France by allied air power made France an enemy of the allies before D-day.

As for the bolded part, once again- show me a single CIL/LOAC that says the US can't act as a belligerent in the territory of another belligerent.

zraver
15 Jul 13,, 20:35
If you want to argue self-defence, which the UN Charter recognizes, that is a valid argument to make. Whether US military strikes in Pakistan qualify as self-defence is another discussion, but at least Z should drop this ridiculous line of defence of 'the lack of any mention of the rights of co-belligerents in the 1907 Hague Convention' as somehow allowing a State to 'do whatever it wants' in the territory of a co-belligerent regardless of whether or not the targeted 'co-belligerent' approves or not. Even the US government hasn't made the argument Z is making in defense of its military operations inside Pakistan.

I'll take that as an admission of failure by you to find a single example that would support your claim that belligerents are somehow restrained in what action they may undertake in the territory of another belligerent other than those specific prohibitions spelled out on treaty.

You lost Mr. Jihadi

lemontree
16 Jul 13,, 05:00
Muh se saath page bhar ka sandas nikal dala, UN charter tumare baap ne likha tha kya?

Dude keep it civil.

lemontree
16 Jul 13,, 05:07
The Pakistani government has repeatedly offered to conduct the drone strikes as Pakistan led or joint US-Pakistan led operations...
The refusal is with good reason, since the Pakistani intelligence and military have been found to be playing a double game. The problem is with with Pakistan and its attitute to follow a confrontational policy in the sub-continent. The same policy that has made Pakistan hell on earth for its own citizens.

Parihaka
16 Jul 13,, 07:36
Muh se saath page bhar ka sandas nikal dala, UN charter tumare baap ne likha tha kya?

In English only from now on

Agnostic Muslim
16 Jul 13,, 12:43
it is not a circular argument

Yes it does because states are sovereign having only those limits on them they have agreed to.
And the 'limits' are clearly codified in the UN Charter:

Article 1:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

Article 2, paragraph 4

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Article 33

The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.


Nice claim, now support it. Show for example the agreement between the Danish Government in Exile and the U.S., U.K. and Poland regulating where the allies could drop paratroopers.
Whether the Danes, UK, US and Poland approved or not of military operations on their soil is their business. If those States wanted to operate on the basis of a verbal agreement or something else, and chose not to oppose military strikes by co-belligerents on their soil, then that is their prerogative - their behavior and their choice does not constitute a legal framework governing unauthorized unilateral military strikes by one State on another for all eternity.

No they do not. There were literally tens of thousands of military acts during WWII on the territory of co-belligerents without out that governments approval or even knowledge.
There was also no UN Charter limiting armed attacks by one State against another - and if none of the co-belligerents officially opposed military acts by other co-belligerents on their territory, then that becomes consent, whereas Pakistan has repeatedly, officially, opposed US military strikes on her territory as being violations of international law. Consent by certain States in WWII to military operations by co-belligerents on their soil is not the equivalent of some sort of blanket international legal cover for unauthorized, unilateral military operations by one co-belligerent on the territory of another co-belligerent. Military operations are now covered by the UN Charter.

No it doesn't, anymore than the wholesale destruction of France by allied air power made France an enemy of the allies before D-day.
Unauthorized, unilateral military strikes by one co-belligerent on another co-belligerent (that officially opposes those military strikes on her territory) turn the co-belligerent carrying out those military strikes into an aggressor State, and those military strikes then need to be justified under (1) Self Defence (2) UN authorization since consent of the State being targeted is missing.


As for the bolded part, once again- show me a single CIL/LOAC that says the US can't act as a belligerent in the territory of another belligerent.
The UN Charter restricts armed force against other States to (1) self defence (2) UNSC authorized use of armed force (3) Consent of the State being targeted - The US meets none of those criteria in the case of military strikes in Pakistan, and since the UN Charter did not exist at the time of the 1907 Hague Convention, any language covering missing contingencies is now covered by the UN Charter that both the US and Pakistan are signatories to.

Agnostic Muslim
16 Jul 13,, 12:49
The refusal is with good reason, since the Pakistani intelligence and military have been found to be playing a double game. The problem is with with Pakistan and its attitute to follow a confrontational policy in the sub-continent. The same policy that has made Pakistan hell on earth for its own citizens.
Please see my exchange with TripleC starting with post 141. I don't believe the argument of 'joint US-Pakistan drone strikes would compromise US operations in Afghanistan' has any merit.

Agnostic Muslim
16 Jul 13,, 12:53
I'll take that as an admission of failure by you to find a single example that would support your claim that belligerents are somehow restrained in what action they may undertake in the territory of another belligerent other than those specific prohibitions spelled out on treaty.

You lost Mr. Jihadi
Read the post again please - my comments were pretty clear that the argument of 'self defence' in the case of military strikes by one nation on another (co-belligerent or not) is a valid defense (whether any particular instance of the exercise of armed self defence is actually legal or not is another argument). At no point in my post did I agree with your position revolving around 'missing language in the 1907 Hague Convention'.

Doktor
16 Jul 13,, 13:09
AM,

Are you arguing this:


All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

US drone attacks don't do any the listed. They are not occupational force, they are helping an ally in need. Something that ally can't do, but says wants to be done.

Try something else.

Agnostic Muslim
16 Jul 13,, 13:25
AM,

Are you arguing this:


US drone attacks don't do any the listed. They are not occupational force, they are helping an ally in need. Something that ally can't do, but says wants to be done.

Try something else.
US Drone strikes are 'the use of force' and therefore they are in violation of that particular article. Which 'ally' are you referring to here? If Pakistan, then the US is carrying out drone strikes on Pakistani soil despite the refusal of Pakistan to authorize them (or many of them at least). It is not 'help' in that case.

Officer of Engineers
16 Jul 13,, 13:26
Please see my exchange with TripleC starting with post 141. I don't believe the argument of 'joint US-Pakistan drone strikes would compromise US operations in Afghanistan' has any merit.You're in contact with our targets, giving them safe haven, telling them what to deal with us, and know exactly where they are ... and you're telling me that Pakistan won't compromise our operations?

Are you serious?

Agnostic Muslim
16 Jul 13,, 13:29
You're in contact with our targets, giving them safe haven, telling them what to deal with us, and know exactly where they are ... and you're telling me that Pakistan won't compromise our operations?

What has the US accomplished with its drone strikes so far? Nothing tangible in terms of countering the Afghan insurgency, so yes, I don't see how joint US-Pakistan drone strikes would compromise US operations since there isn't much to compromise even with the existing unilateral, illegal US drone strikes.

zraver
16 Jul 13,, 14:19
And the 'limits' are clearly codified in the UN Charter:

No they are not, the part you underlined territorial integrity and/or political independence was a reaction to the wars of agression in WWII. The US drone strikes do neither.


Whether the Danes, UK, US and Poland approved or not of military operations on their soil is their business. If those States wanted to operate on the basis of a verbal agreement or something else, and chose not to oppose military strikes by co-belligerents on their soil, then that is their prerogative - their behavior and their choice does not constitute a legal framework governing unauthorized unilateral military strikes by one State on another for all eternity.

Yes it does, it is called precedent. The only limits on a states rights must come via treaty.


There was also no UN Charter limiting armed attacks by one State against another - and if none of the co-belligerents officially opposed military acts by other co-belligerents on their territory, then that becomes consent, whereas Pakistan has repeatedly, officially, opposed US military strikes on her territory as being violations of international law.

Pakistan's complaints and attempts to forge new CIL DO NOT matter. CIL/LOAC are clear- there is NO LAW limiting the right of belligerents to conduct military operations in the territory of a belligerent. You have been asked repeatedly to provide any citation to your claim. You have failed to do so. Not only that but you deliberately misrepresented the idea and definition of sovereignty.


Consent by certain States in WWII to military operations by co-belligerents on their soil is not the equivalent of some sort of blanket international legal cover for unauthorized, unilateral military operations by one co-belligerent on the territory of another co-belligerent. Military operations are now covered by the UN Charter.

It wa snot consent, no consent was asked for or given because it WAS NOT NEEDED. Neither was it needed in WWI, Korea or Kuwait. The UN charter does not deal with CIL/LOAC.


Unauthorized, unilateral military strikes by one co-belligerent on another co-belligerent (that officially opposes those military strikes on her territory) turn the co-belligerent carrying out those military strikes into an aggressor State, and those military strikes then need to be justified under (1) Self Defence (2) UN authorization since consent of the State being targeted is missing.

No it does not. Sovereign states do not need permission to pursue legitimate war aims. In an otherwise legal war, the territory of a belligerent friend or enemy is a valid battlezone unless otherwise noted by treaty (ie undefended towns).


The UN Charter restricts armed force against other States to (1) self defence (2) UNSC authorized use of armed force (3) Consent of the State being targeted - The US meets none of those criteria in the case of military strikes in Pakistan, and since the UN Charter did not exist at the time of the 1907 Hague Convention, any language covering missing contingencies is now covered by the UN Charter that both the US and Pakistan are signatories to.

You will find no evidence of #3- it is a deliberat lie created from whole cloth by YOU to support your idea of jihad against the west. You will also find that the definition of self defense under the LOAC include offensive operations designed to impair and disrupt enemy attacks.


Read the post again please - my comments were pretty clear that the argument of 'self defence' in the case of military strikes by one nation on another (co-belligerent or not) is a valid defense (whether any particular instance of the exercise of armed self defence is actually legal or not is another argument). At no point in my post did I agree with your position revolving around 'missing language in the 1907 Hague Convention'.

You have been asked repeatedly to provide any proof of your claim that a belligerent needs permission to conduct otherwise legal military operations and have failed to do so. You even tried to slide in a false definition not found in the UN charter and to redefine sovereignty. You FAILED.


What has the US accomplished with its drone strikes so far? Nothing tangible in terms of countering the Afghan insurgency, so yes, I don't see how joint US-Pakistan drone strikes would compromise US operations since there isn't much to compromise even with the existing unilateral, illegal US drone strikes.

Massive disruption of the Al Queda and Taliban command networks, massive attrition of bomb makers and insurgent leaders... Ad din commando raids and the policy has inflicted the biggest loses on the leadership of any insurgency ever. The number of attacks in the rest of the world is down- way down. No more Mumbais or daily attacks in J/K. Instead the dogs you infected with rabies are now biting their handlers. For the rest of the world that is a GOOD result.

Pakistan is a double dealing state sponsor of terrorism. This is a policy you support and defend which makes you a supporter of terrorism and complicit in all of the dead Paksitanis killed by your talibunny homies.

Doktor
16 Jul 13,, 14:45
US Drone strikes are 'the use of force' and therefore they are in violation of that particular article. Which 'ally' are you referring to here? If Pakistan, then the US is carrying out drone strikes on Pakistani soil despite the refusal of Pakistan to authorize them (or many of them at least). It is not 'help' in that case.

It is not use of force against Pakistan's assets. Is it?

anil
16 Jul 13,, 16:16
I asked who wrote the UN charter

There were series of events that lead to the Charter. I don't think any Pakistani, or Indian lawyer participated in that, tho there is a possibility since both were under Brits at the time.
Sometime back OoE had went through pain in one of the other threads explaining the actual nature of world order, it was about true nuclear states and global security frameworks.

Doktor
16 Jul 13,, 16:37
Sometime back OoE had went through pain in one of the other threads explaining the actual nature of world order, it was about true nuclear states and global security frameworks.

You asked about UN Charter. SF conference was finished before Trinity test.

anil
17 Jul 13,, 07:49
@Doktor

Had the UN charter clearly legalised pre emption then half the world would be attacking the other half. It doesn't allow that because the human race are not prophets(able to see the future). In the kurukshetra war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurukshetra_War), krishna could see the future and so he actively engaged in pre-emptive strategies. He did that because he could(because he was a god).

The true nuclear states follow an active pre-emption policy because they can(they have proclaimed themselves as gods just like hiranyakashipu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiranyakashipu) did. The rest are supposed to follow the UN charter.

Minskaya
17 Jul 13,, 08:24
@Doktor

Had the UN charter clearly legalised pre emption then half the world would be attacking the other half.
They didn't have non-state actors flying jet airliners into city skyscrapers when the Charter was penned. Like the telegraph, the Charter is a lingering vestige from a bygone era.

pChan
17 Jul 13,, 08:40
Sorry in advance for digressing from the main topic of this thread.

If you are not looking for internet brownie points doled out by the god of Armchair Generals then I believe it makes sense to just glean info from certain posters & not get into verbal games. For some their online avatar is like the game second life - they have a self-anointed role to play & any of those inconvenient points that would require them to question their positions, which a reasoned debater would accept & address will be brushed off.

I visit this forum occasionally & I find it frustrating that so many good posters & military men running around in circles with such posters. Wise up people...

Doktor
17 Jul 13,, 09:45
They didn't have non-state actors flying jet airliners into city skyscrapers when the Charter was penned. Like the telegraph, the Charter is a lingering vestige from a bygone era.

Until it is changed or abolished it is valid.

anil
17 Jul 13,, 10:20
Q: What is legal?
A: Anything that has consensus

If they took a vote whether or not to conduct drone strikes in the afpak landscape, what would you think the world would vote for?

Someone of this forum said that if a state cannot prevent its non-state actors from launching attacks on other states then it has no right to be sovereign. This is the situation, this is the bottom line. The UN charter has already been thrown out the window.

Some are giving too much importance to the charter. The actual security apparatus is not so rigid as you think.

Doktor
17 Jul 13,, 10:41
Q: What is legal?
A: Anything that has consensus
There is one step in between - passing a veto.


If they took a vote whether or not to conduct drone strikes in the afpak landscape, what would you think the world would vote for?
If vote ever gets to the table... can you predict the outcome?


Someone of this forum said that if a state cannot prevent its non-state actors from launching attacks on other states then it has no right to be sovereign. This is the situation, this is the bottom line. The UN charter has already been thrown out the window.
So UK is not a sovereign country? Mind you there are UK-grown terrorist around the world and on home turf.


Some are giving too much importance to the charter. The actual security apparatus is not so rigid as you think.
Until some new world order comes to play Charter it is.

anil
17 Jul 13,, 11:20
I wasn't talking about "approval from the UN" but a consensus in general.

Whether the UK deserves sovereignty is for anyone to decide. However, my opinion is that if a nation cannot prevent its citizens from launching overseas attacks then it has no business running a sovereign state in the first place. Let others jump in and adsorb its territories.

lemontree
17 Jul 13,, 11:51
Please see my exchange with TripleC starting with post 141. I don't believe the argument of 'joint US-Pakistan drone strikes would compromise US operations in Afghanistan' has any merit.
The joint drone strikes were with reference to operations within Pakistan and not Afghanistan.

Agnostic Muslim
17 Jul 13,, 14:23
They didn't have non-state actors flying jet airliners into city skyscrapers when the Charter was penned.
Flying 'jet airliners into city skyscrapers' is just an evolution of the means with which violence can be perpetrated - the attacks do not themselves justify 'preemptive use of force' without the presence of an imminent threat.

Agnostic Muslim
17 Jul 13,, 14:25
The joint drone strikes were with reference to operations within Pakistan and not Afghanistan.
Operations within Pakistan are conducted with the intent of improving the situation inside Afghanistan - the overall US goal is combating the insurgency in Afghanistan, and the handful of drone strikes here and there in Pakistan do so little to support that goal that there is little that could be compromised, in even the worse case scenario, were the drone strikes joint US-Pakistan operations.

Officer of Engineers
17 Jul 13,, 14:49
Immeniant threat? Are you freaking serious? It's a damned war. We're the immeniant threats! We find them. We kill them. We don't wait for them to try to kill us.

Agnostic Muslim
17 Jul 13,, 14:51
No they are not, the part you underlined territorial integrity and/or political independence was a reaction to the wars of agression in WWII. The US drone strikes do neither.
US drone strikes are a military act of aggression - acts that are opposed and condemned by the government of Pakistan. As I pointed out to you before:

"Aggression is the use of force by a State or Government against another State or Government, in any manner, whatever the weapons used and whether openly or otherwise, for any reason or for any purpose other than individual or collective self-defence or in pursuance of a decision or recommendation by a competent organ of the United Nations"

Yes it does, it is called precedent. The only limits on a states rights must come via treaty.
The only 'precedent' established by those States is a 'precedent' of co-belligerents consenting to military operations by other co-belligerents on their soil in pursuit of a common goal of combating common enemies/belligerents. Pakistan's official position makes it clear that there is no consent for US military operations on Pakistani soil, which makes those military operations acts of aggression, which in turn then need to be justified under (1) Self-Defence (2) UNSC Authorization under Chapter VII. Your ludicrous argument is that a State can do anything it wants to any other State in the world because the 1907 hague Conventions did not contain language covering XYZ'. The phrase 'limits on States rights via treaty' only applies in the case of a State choosing to limit its own rights (for example by allowing another State to conduct military operations on its soil without any additional prior authorization). The UN Charter further codifies limits States face when conducting military operations against/on other States.


Pakistan's complaints and attempts to forge new CIL DO NOT matter. CIL/LOAC are clear- there is NO LAW limiting the right of belligerents to conduct military operations in the territory of a belligerent. You have been asked repeatedly to provide any citation to your claim. You have failed to do so. Not only that but you deliberately misrepresented the idea and definition of sovereignty.
There is no need to forge any new CIL/LOAC - your perverted interpretation of the 1907 Hague Conventions (as in your concoction of an LIC/LOAC out of thin air given the complete lack of any language supporting your position) has no traction given that the UN Charter clearly lays out the circumstances under which force can be exercised and those circumstances are (1) Self-defence (2) UNSC Authorization (3) Consent.

It wa snot consent, no consent was asked for or given because it WAS NOT NEEDED. Neither was it needed in WWI, Korea or Kuwait. The UN charter does not deal with CIL/LOAC.
If none of the co-belligerents opposed Allied military operations on their soil in pursuit of a common goal of defeating a common enemy, then that constitutes consent. Pakistan however has officially, formally and repeatedly opposed and condemned unilateral and unauthorized US military operations on her soil as being violations of international law, and after having your distorted interpretation of UNSC Resolution 1368 debunked, you have descended into arguing that the lack of any language whatsoever governing military operations on allied States somehow suggests a legal precedent/principle of 'anything goes unless the States enter into a treaty'.

No it does not. Sovereign states do not need permission to pursue legitimate war aims. In an otherwise legal war, the territory of a belligerent friend or enemy is a valid battlezone unless otherwise noted by treaty (ie undefended towns).
Good, you are implicitly accepting my point - 'legitimate war' - 'legitimate war aims' would have to be justified under (1) Self defence (2) UNSC Authorization. Without either of those two justifications your arguments about the 'rights of co-belligerents' are nothing more than gobbledygook.

You will find no evidence of #3- it is a deliberat lie created from whole cloth by YOU to support your idea of jihad against the west. You will also find that the definition of self defense under the LOAC include offensive operations designed to impair and disrupt enemy attacks.
Nonsense - consent by a State to military operations by another State on her territory is by definition an 'agreement between States', which means the armed action is not an act of 'aggression and/or hostility'.

You have been asked repeatedly to provide any proof of your claim that a belligerent needs permission to conduct otherwise legal military operations and have failed to do so. You even tried to slide in a false definition not found in the UN charter and to redefine sovereignty. You FAILED.Make up your mind first whether you are talking about 'belligerents' or 'co-belligerents' - the two terms are not necessarily interchangeable. That said, regardless of which term you wish to use, there is absolutely NO language in the 1907 Hague Conventions that assigns co-belligerent States the right to carry out military operations on the territory of other co-belligerents without authorization/consent. Your examples from WWII only illustrate the absence of any opposition/condemnation of military operations by one co-belligerent on another co-belligerent State's territory, which would be construed as consent.

Massive disruption of the Al Queda and Taliban command networks, massive attrition of bomb makers and insurgent leaders... Ad din commando raids and the policy has inflicted the biggest loses on the leadership of any insurgency ever. The number of attacks in the rest of the world is down- way down. No more Mumbais or daily attacks in J/K. Instead the dogs you infected with rabies are now biting their handlers. For the rest of the world that is a GOOD result.
Yet insurgent attacks in Afghanistan continue apace and leaked US documents themselves illustrate that the CIA has no idea who it is killing in a vast majority of her drone strikes. A large number of the Al Qaeda command core was in fact neutralized by Pakistani or joint US-Pakistani intelligence operations, and not drone strikes. The Mumbai attacks happened despite the US campaign of drone strikes, not to mention that the LeT had little to no presence in the tribal areas where the US conducts drone strikes at that time. The violence in JK was down long before the drone strikes picked up - in addition there is no evidence of any Kashmir focused insurgent group being the target of sustained drone strikes. As with the rubbish about the 'missing language in the 1907 Hague Conventions' you have offered little other than a litany of distorted and unsubstantiated claims to try and justify your argument.

This is a policy you support and defend which makes you a supporter of terrorism and complicit in all of the dead Paksitanis killed by your talibunny homies.
:biggrin: You could have great career in standup comedy as a side-show to Jeff Dunham's 'Achmed the dead terrorist' act.

Agnostic Muslim
17 Jul 13,, 14:55
Immeniant threat? Are you freaking serious? It's a damned war. We're the immeniant threats! We find them. We kill them. We don't wait for them to try to kill us.
Yes I am 'freaking serious' - the UNSC Resolutions do not authorize ISAF military operations inside Pakistan and (thank you for making my point again) when you state 'we don't wait for them to try and kill us' you are indicating that those you are 'killing' intend on 'trying to kill you' which means that the people being targeted by the US pose an 'imminent threat' to the US, which would justify self-defence. The problem is that the self-defence argument in the case of US military operations in Pakistan just doesn't fly given that the US has not established 'imminent threat' in those cases. Heck, the CIA's own documents reveal that the US doesn't even know who it is killing in the vast majority of its strikes, operating merely on 'patterns'.

Agnostic Muslim
17 Jul 13,, 15:00
It is not use of force against Pakistan's assets. Is it?
It is a use of force against Pakistani civilians and their assets. Unless the US can establish that all her targets are/were 'imminent threats' those military operations are in violation of the UN Charter.

Doktor
17 Jul 13,, 15:04
AM, you might want to look @ Belgium in WW2 for precedent.

Agnostic Muslim
17 Jul 13,, 15:05
AM, you might want to look @ Belgium in WW2 for precedent.
Again, no UN Charter in WWII.

Doktor
17 Jul 13,, 15:11
It is a use of force against Pakistani civilians and their assets. Unless the US can establish that all her targets are/were 'imminent threats' those military operations are in violation of the UN Charter.
The last drone attack killed militants. It was confirmed by your forces as well as local authorities. They were so FUBAR mil and civ authorities couldn't agree if they were Arabs or from Turkmenistan. What Pak civilians?

BTW, Pak Army is killing Pakistani civilians, too. Without due process. It's called collateral. Not pretty if you are on the receiving end.

Agnostic Muslim
17 Jul 13,, 15:14
The last drone attack killed militants. It was confirmed by your forces as well as local authorities. They were so FUBAR mil and civ authorities couldn't agree if they were Arabs or from Turkmenistan.
The only 'confirmations' were those in the media by the usual 'anonymous sources'. The US did not establish imminent threat to justify cross-border military operations under self-defence.

BTW, Pak Army is killing Pakistani civilians, too. Without due process. It's called collateral. Not pretty if you are on the receiving end.
Yes, and innocent people die in the cross-fire of police encounters as well. The difference being that Pakistani security forces are conducting military operations inside their own country, authorized by the Pakistani government under the Pakistani constitution. US drone strikes are violations of international and Pakistani law.

And again:

"Aggression is the use of force by a State or Government against another State or Government, in any manner, whatever the weapons used and whether openly or otherwise, for any reason or for any purpose other than individual or collective self-defence or in pursuance of a decision or recommendation by a competent organ of the United Nations"

Doktor
17 Jul 13,, 15:20
Again, no UN Charter in WWII.

Well according to the charter, Art. 39, it is only UNSC who decides if there is breach to peace.

Has Pakistan asked for such review?

Agnostic Muslim
17 Jul 13,, 15:33
Well according to the charter, Art. 39, it is only UNSC who decides if there is breach to peace.

Has Pakistan asked for such review?
The US has to ask the UNSC to authorize military action inside Pakistan because 'elements in FATA constitute a breach of peace' (a determination that the UNSC would have to then make). It is the US that is carrying out military strikes in another country, not Pakistan. The Charter is clear on when armed force can be used, and the US is not meeting her obligations under the UN Charter. Pakistan has officially voiced her opposition and condemnation and a UN investigation has indicated that US military operations inside Pakistan are violations of international law.

I fail to see why you are trying so hard to defend the indefensible, instead of calling on the Americans here to petition their government to cooperate with Pakistan and/or demand UNSC authorization for military strikes in Pakistan.

Doktor
17 Jul 13,, 15:37
So, GoP's inaction is everyone's fault but their own.

Bluntly put, the peace is not breached, therefor there is no foreign aggression. All this according to the UN Charter you are so fond of.

Triple C
17 Jul 13,, 15:38
The UN Charter does not supersede the Hague, does it?

Agnostic Muslim
17 Jul 13,, 15:51
The UN Charter does not supersede the Hague, does it?
The Hague has no language whatsoever, in favor or against, on the issue of 'co-belligerents', whereas the UN Charter does, therefore yes, in the case of the use of armed force by one State against another the UN Charter does supersede the 1907 Hague Conventions.

Agnostic Muslim
17 Jul 13,, 15:53
So, GoP's inaction is everyone's fault but their own.
That is a false statement - as I have pointed out repeatedly, the GoP has offered to conduct joint US-Pakistan drone strikes or Pakistan led drone strikes/air strikes based on US intelligence. Therefore the argument of 'GoP inaction' carries no weight and is merely an excuse trotted out time and again to justify US violation of international law.


Bluntly put, the peace is not breached, therefor there is no foreign aggression. All this according to the UN Charter you are so fond of.

You haven't read the definition of 'aggression' then:

"Aggression is the use of force by a State or Government against another State or Government, in any manner, whatever the weapons used and whether openly or otherwise, for any reason or for any purpose other than individual or collective self-defence or in pursuance of a decision or recommendation by a competent organ of the United Nations"

The US is engaged in 'aggression' and it is 'using Armed force against another State' without establishing (1) Self-defence (2) UNSC Authorization under Chapter VII

zraver
17 Jul 13,, 16:18
US drone strikes are a military act of aggression - acts that are opposed and condemned by the government of Pakistan. As I pointed out to you before:

"Aggression is the use of force by a State or Government against another State or Government, in any manner, whatever the weapons used and whether openly or otherwise, for any reason or for any purpose other than individual or collective self-defence or in pursuance of a decision or recommendation by a competent organ of the United Nations"

The drone strikes meet the definition of two of those criteria in that they are self defense and collective (they meet the war aims of the US, NATO Pakistan, Afghanistan and ISAF).

Collective does not require consent, if it did you would have legal documents says as such.


The only 'precedent' established by those States is a 'precedent' of co-belligerents consenting to military operations by other co-belligerents on their soil in pursuit of a common goal of combating common enemies/belligerents. Pakistan's official position makes it clear that there is no consent for US military operations on Pakistani soil, which makes those military operations acts of aggression, which in turn then need to be justified under (1) Self-Defence (2) UNSC Authorization under Chapter VII. Your ludicrous argument is that a State can do anything it wants to any other State in the world because the 1907 hague Conventions did not contain language covering XYZ'. The phrase 'limits on States rights via treaty' only applies in the case of a State choosing to limit its own rights (for example by allowing another State to conduct military operations on its soil without any additional prior authorization). The UN Charter further codifies limits States face when conducting military operations against/on other States.

Wrong, there is no need for the government of Pakistan to consent, she already has when she became a belligerent.



There is no need to forge any new CIL/LOAC - your perverted interpretation of the 1907 Hague Conventions (as in your concoction of an LIC/LOAC out of thin air given the complete lack of any language supporting your position) has no traction given that the UN Charter clearly lays out the circumstances under which force can be exercised and those circumstances are (1) Self-defence (2) UNSC Authorization (3) Consent.

There is no treaty language requiring consent. Regardless of what your masters tell you to say, the complete lack of any existing legal foundation to the limits of sovereign power when pursuing war aims except those set by treaty is what matters.


If none of the co-belligerents opposed Allied military operations on their soil in pursuit of a common goal of defeating a common enemy, then that constitutes consent.

Consent is not needed. "The rights of belligerents are not unlimited", that phrase is from the Hague Conventions. They then specifically go on to deliberately limit the rights of belligerents in a number of ways and afford protections to non-belligerents in a number of ways. Consent is not in there. Those conventions are still the primary controlling authority in the conduct of military operations.

You have been asked repeatedly to provide specific language and have failed repeatedly. There is zero evidence based on existing CIL/LOAC that the US drone strikes or commando raids are illegal.


Pakistan however has officially, formally and repeatedly opposed and condemned unilateral and unauthorized US military operations on her soil as being violations of international law,

Claims unsupported by any existing treaty or custom.


and after having your distorted interpretation of UNSC Resolution 1368 debunked, you have descended into arguing that the lack of any language whatsoever governing military operations on allied States somehow suggests a legal precedent/principle of 'anything goes unless the States enter into a treaty'.

Not debunked, but it was clear that as usual you were not going to concede anything, you never do unless your masters tell you to.


Good, you are implicitly accepting my point - 'legitimate war' - 'legitimate war aims' would have to be justified under (1) Self defence (2) UNSC Authorization. Without either of those two justifications your arguments about the 'rights of co-belligerents' are nothing more than gobbledygook.

It is a legal war. Thus it may be fought in the territory of any legal belligerent. I've already addressed self defense and collective.


Nonsense - consent by a State to military operations by another State on her territory is by definition an 'agreement between States', which means the armed action is not an act of 'aggression and/or hostility'.

Then show me treaty language limiting the right of belligerents co or not to conduct military operations in the territory of another.


Make up your mind first whether you are talking about 'belligerents' or 'co-belligerents' - the two terms are not necessarily interchangeable.

I started with co-belligerent to show that allies do not need permission and gave you multiple examples. But this right of allied action is built upon the right of all belligerents to conduct military operations against their enemy



That said, regardless of which term you wish to use, there is absolutely NO language in the 1907 Hague Conventions that assigns co-belligerent States the right to carry out military operations on the territory of other co-belligerents without authorization/consent.

Yes there is in that of the list of prohibitions, the right to conduct military operations in the territory of a belligerent co or not is not prohibited. Nor is it added in any follow on treaty.


Your examples from WWII only illustrate the absence of any opposition/condemnation of military operations by one co-belligerent on another co-belligerent State's territory, which would be construed as consent.

Not just WWII, from from 1907-2013 more than 100 years of military operations on every continent without consent ever being required by law or custom.


Yet insurgent attacks in Afghanistan continue apace and leaked US documents themselves illustrate that the CIA has no idea who it is killing in a vast majority of her drone strikes. A large number of the Al Qaeda command core was in fact neutralized by Pakistani or joint US-Pakistani intelligence operations, and not drone strikes. The Mumbai attacks happened despite the US campaign of drone strikes, not to mention that the LeT had little to no presence in the tribal areas where the US conducts drone strikes at that time. The violence in JK was down long before the drone strikes picked up - in addition there is no evidence of any Kashmir focused insurgent group being the target of sustained drone strikes. As with the rubbish about the 'missing language in the 1907 Hague Conventions' you have offered little other than a litany of distorted and unsubstantiated claims to try and justify your argument.

All groups supported by Pakistan at some point... Regardless, there is no legal language prohibiting the actions of a belligerent in the territory of another. Nor is there a requirement for success. The requirements are for distinction and proportionality. Drone strikes and commando raids are the most distinguishing and proportionally narrow war tools that have ever existed.


:biggrin: You could have great career in standup comedy as a side-show to Jeff Dunham's 'Achmed the dead terrorist' act.

nah, your funny, after-all your a live jihadi supporting terrorist who deserves a trip to gitmo.

Officer of Engineers
17 Jul 13,, 16:18
Horse Puckey. UNPROFOR combat operations did not have Chapter VII approval and they are extremely LEGAL. Not one of UNPROFOR member countries were under attack by the belligerants and we neither sought permission nor ask for forgiveness when we engaged in offensive operations against the belligerants.

Agnostic Muslim
17 Jul 13,, 16:32
Horse Puckey. UNPROFOR combat operations did not have Chapter VII approval and they are extremely LEGAL. Not one of UNPROFOR member countries were under attack by the belligerants and we neither sought permission nor ask for forgiveness when we engaged in offensive operations against the belligerants.
Fine, then ask the UN to extend the mandate of an UNPROFOR mission into Pakistan. The US does not currently have that either.

Officer of Engineers
17 Jul 13,, 16:32
Yes I am 'freaking serious' - the UNSC Resolutions do not authorize ISAF military operations inside Pakistan and (thank you for making my point again) when you state 'we don't wait for them to try and kill us' you are indicating that those you are 'killing' intend on 'trying to kill you' which means that the people being targeted by the US pose an 'imminent threat' to the US, which would justify self-defence. The problem is that the self-defence argument in the case of US military operations in Pakistan just doesn't fly given that the US has not established 'imminent threat' in those cases. Heck, the CIA's own documents reveal that the US doesn't even know who it is killing in the vast majority of its strikes, operating merely on 'patterns'.That is MORE THAN GOOD ENOUGH IN A STATE OF WAR!

Officer of Engineers
17 Jul 13,, 16:35
Fine, then ask the UN to extend the mandate of an UNPROFOR mission into Pakistan. The US does not currently have that either.Get it through your head. When the UN finally failed, we took off the blue berets and put on our helments. The point is that legal combat operations that has nothing to do with self defence and with no UN permission has taken place in Yugoslavia. Operations ALLIED FORCE and the Kosovo War were NOT UN approved operations.

But they were all legal.

zraver
17 Jul 13,, 16:37
The North Atlantic Council reported to the UN on 12 Sep 2001 tha tis was invoking article 5 of the Washington Treaty (collective defense). The UNSC accepted this, since by your own words, lack of objection is consent. Article 5 has some pretty specific language in both how it defines collective defense vs concert of action and what that entails.

Article 5 of the Washington Treaty:


The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

NATO's Strategic Concept recognizes the risks to the Alliance posed by terrorism.

More importantly, is that UNSCR 1373,78, and 86 explicitly re-affirm the right of self defense mentioned in 1368 in the face of terrorism also explicitly recognized as a threat to international peace and security. None of those resolutions however call on NATO to end its article 5 invocation.

Doktor
17 Jul 13,, 16:40
That is a false statement - as I have pointed out repeatedly, the GoP has offered to conduct joint US-Pakistan drone strikes or Pakistan led drone strikes/air strikes based on US intelligence. Therefore the argument of 'GoP inaction' carries no weight and is merely an excuse trotted out time and again to justify US violation of international law.
That's not the action I was referring to. I was actually talking legal actions. You know like protests, withdrawal of Ambassadors...


You haven't read the definition of 'aggression' then:

"Aggression is the use of force by a State or Government against another State or Government, in any manner, whatever the weapons used and whether openly or otherwise, for any reason or for any purpose other than individual or collective self-defence or in pursuance of a decision or recommendation by a competent organ of the United Nations"

The US is engaged in 'aggression' and it is 'using Armed force against another State' without establishing (1) Self-defence (2) UNSC Authorization under Chapter VII
And you haven't read UN Charter which you so fondly put into discussion.

UN Charter, Chapter VII:


Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Did they determined breach of peace? No! So all nice and dandy.

Agnostic Muslim
17 Jul 13,, 16:59
The drone strikes meet the definition of two of those criteria in that they are self defense and collective (they meet the war aims of the US, NATO Pakistan, Afghanistan and ISAF).
Great, you are at least accepting the fact that US military operations need to meet the criteria of (1) Self-defense (2)


Collective does not require consent, if it did you would have legal documents says as such.Consent is inherent to the 'collective' - without consent there is no collective and no 'co-belligerent', only aggressors and belligerents.


Wrong, there is no need for the government of Pakistan to consent, she already has when she became a belligerent.Pakistan has only consented to assisting ISAF efforts as required under UNSC Resolutions. Pakistan has not consented to any thing beyond that, and any military operations on Pakistan territory without (1) Pakistani consent (2) UNSC authorization (3) Self-defense are acts of aggression and violations of the UN Charter/international law.

There is no treaty language requiring consent. Regardless of what your masters tell you to say, the complete lack of any existing legal foundation to the limits of sovereign power when pursuing war aims except those set by treaty is what matters.Think a little - 'consent' does not require a 'treaty', 'consent' IS the treaty/agreement authorizing one State to carry out military operations on the territory of the State 'consenting'. There is no 'treaty language' legitimizing military operations by one State against another outside of (1) Self defence (2) UNSC Authorization (3) Consent, since the act of consent constitutes an agreement between the parties concerned.

Consent is not needed. "The rights of belligerents are not unlimited", that phrase is from the Hague Conventions. They then specifically go on to deliberately limit the rights of belligerents in a number of ways and afford protections to non-belligerents in a number of ways. Consent is not in there. Those conventions are still the primary controlling authority in the conduct of military operations.Pakistan is not a 'belligerent', according to you, it is a 'co-belligerent'. And second, the UN Charter filled in the 'blanks' on placing limits on the use of force by one State against another.

You have been asked repeatedly to provide specific language and have failed repeatedly. There is zero evidence based on existing CIL/LOAC that the US drone strikes or commando raids are illegal.
You must be blind if you can't see the 'specific language' I have provided repeatedly - the quotes from the UN Charter limiting the use of armed force by one State against another in the case of (1) self defence (2) UNSC authorization. Since the Hague Conventions say nothing whatsoever on the issue of 'co-belligerents', the language of the UN Charter prevails.

Claims unsupported by any existing treaty or custom.
Claims supported by the UN Charter and the definition of 'aggression'.

Not debunked, but it was clear that as usual you were not going to concede anything, you never do unless your masters tell you to.
Your inability to respond to my last set of arguments debunking your distorted interpretation of 1368 would suggest your arguments were invalid and you have no response. You may use whatever ad hominems you wish as an excuse.

It is a legal war. Thus it may be fought in the territory of any legal belligerent. I've already addressed self defense and collective.Again, untangle the knots you are tying in your mind first - is Pakistan a belligerent or 'co-belligerent? The two terms are not necessarily interchangeable. Pakistan is a 'co-belligerent' in that it is providing logistical support (and military support limited to Pakistani territory) as required under the UNSC Resolutions on Afghanistan and bilateral agreements with the US. Outside of that support and those agreements any unilateral and unauthorized US military operations on Pakistani territory are violations of the UN Charter and international law. It really is that simple.

Then show me treaty language limiting the right of belligerents co or not to conduct military operations in the territory of another.
I have already provided you with excerpts from the UN Charter on 'the use of armed force' and what constitutes 'aggression'. The limits placed by the UN Charter supersede any 'missing language' in the 1907 Hague Conventions.


I started with co-belligerent to show that allies do not need permission and gave you multiple examples. But this right of allied action is built upon the right of all belligerents to conduct military operations against their enemy
Again, smoke a few cigarettes and untie the knots in your mind - are you now arguing that Pakistan is a belligerent whereas previously you were arguing Pakistan was a 'co-belligerent'? Make up your mind about what actual line of defense you want to pursue before engaging in a discussion.


Yes there is in that of the list of prohibitions, the right to conduct military operations in the territory of a belligerent co or not is not prohibited. Nor is it added in any follow on treaty.
Limits on the use of armed force by one State against another are established in the UN Charter which supersedes any 'missing language' in the Hague Conventions. So until the US withdraws from the UN, the Charter language governs the use of armed force and US military operations in Pakistan, that are not approved by the GoP, are violations of the UN Charter and international law.

Not just WWII, from from 1907-2013 more than 100 years of military operations on every continent without consent ever being required by law or custom.
There were also several hundred years of slavery practiced by States. The UN Charter and the definition of aggression put an end to any chance of your ridiculous interpretation being considered seriously.

All groups supported by Pakistan at some point... Regardless, there is no legal language prohibiting the actions of a belligerent in the territory of another. Nor is there a requirement for success. The requirements are for distinction and proportionality. Drone strikes and commando raids are the most distinguishing and proportionally narrow war tools that have ever existed.
No requirement for success eh? So there goes the argument that joint US-Pakistani drone strikes or Pakistan led drone strikes would 'compromise' US operations, since there is no definition or requirement of 'success'.

nah, your funny, after-all your a live jihadi supporting terrorist who deserves a trip to gitmo.
:wors:

Agnostic Muslim
17 Jul 13,, 17:00
But they were all legal.
Legal under what part of the UN Charter and international law?

Agnostic Muslim
17 Jul 13,, 17:02
Did they determined breach of peace? No! So all nice and dandy.
SO if they never determined 'breach of peace' then what is the US justification for conducting military operations on Pakistani territory?

US military operations in Pakistan (unauthorized by the GoP) are therefore obviously a violation of the UN Charter.

Agnostic Muslim
17 Jul 13,, 17:06
The North Atlantic Council reported to the UN on 12 Sep 2001 tha tis was invoking article 5 of the Washington Treaty (collective defense). The UNSC accepted this, since by your own words, lack of objection is consent. Article 5 has some pretty specific language in both how it defines collective defense vs concert of action and what that entails.

Article 5 of the Washington Treaty:

NATO's Strategic Concept recognizes the risks to the Alliance posed by terrorism.

More importantly, is that UNSCR 1373,78, and 86 explicitly re-affirm the right of self defense mentioned in 1368 in the face of terrorism also explicitly recognized as a threat to international peace and security. None of those resolutions however call on NATO to end its article 5 invocation.

Important excerpts from Article 5:

"self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations,"

The 9/11 attacks were by Al Qaeda which was based in Afghanistan, so there was never any justification for the use of armed force (under self defence) in Pakistan.

"in concert with the other Parties"

The US is not 'acting in concert' with Pakistan when it carries out military operations on Pakistani territory that are not authorized by Pakistan or the UNSC

"Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council."

When was any armed attack from entities based in FATA reported to the UNSC and the measures taken immediately reported to the UNSC?

Doktor
17 Jul 13,, 17:45
SO if they never determined 'breach of peace' then what is the US justification for conducting military operations on Pakistani territory?
One to need justification, there needs to be an accusation.


US military operations in Pakistan (unauthorized by the GoP) are therefore obviously a violation of the UN Charter.
UN never said that. So if they are not illegal...

anil
17 Jul 13,, 18:23
Q: Is the US led war in afpak legal?
A: Yes. It is legal in the united states.

The weight(and validity) of a law depends on its enforcement. All govts makes stupid laws all the time but they hardly enforce it because they know it's a stupid law in the first place.

A law that is not enforced has no weight.

If enforcing laws was so easy then there would have been a UN like global body on each continent and subcontinent.

Bottom line: If the UN has a problem with the US flying drones over pakistan then it will have to enforce its laws. If it doesn't then we are all in agreement. AND THUS THE WAR IS LEGAL. Just constant screaming and kicking will not make it illegal.

zraver
17 Jul 13,, 18:29
Great, you are at least accepting the fact that US military operations need to meet the criteria of (1) Self-defense (2)

Consent is inherent to the 'collective' - without consent there is no collective and no 'co-belligerent', only aggressors and belligerents.

consent is not inherit to the idea of collective. Collective means unified war aims.


Pakistan has only consented to assisting ISAF efforts as required under UNSC Resolutions. Pakistan has not consented to any thing beyond that, and any military operations on Pakistan territory without (1) Pakistani consent (2) UNSC authorization (3) Self-defense are acts of aggression and violations of the UN Charter/international law.

Pakistan is either an ally (which she has claimed multiple times) in which case consent is not needed, or she is an emeny and consent is not needed, She is a belligerent that is all that matters under CIL/LOAC.


Think a little - 'consent' does not require a 'treaty', 'consent' IS the treaty/agreement authorizing one State to carry out military operations on the territory of the State 'consenting'. There is no 'treaty language' legitimizing military operations by one State against another outside of (1) Self defence (2) UNSC Authorization (3) Consent, since the act of consent constitutes an agreement between the parties concerned.

You think a little, you have found zero legal language requiring consent, the principles of sovereignty give a state unlimited freedom of action except as limited by treaty, there are multiple examples of military action without consent on the territory of a co-belligerent and millions of examples against the territory of an enemy and not one required permission.


Pakistan is not a 'belligerent', according to you, it is a 'co-belligerent'. And second, the UN Charter filled in the 'blanks' on placing limits on the use of force by one State against another.

Pakistan by her own admission is a belligerent against Al Queda and the Taliban. Also by her own admission she is a co-belligerent with the US against them. The two have conducted joint operations and solo operations against the same enemy. Permission is not needed to pursue otherwise legitmate war aims. If it was you would have found a treaty saying so.

Nor is the use of drones and commandos an armed attack on Pakistan because the US is not attacking Pakistan but those Pakistan claims to be at war with. The US has made no claims on Pakitani territory or political independence.


You must be blind if you can't see the 'specific language' I have provided repeatedly - the quotes from the UN Charter limiting the use of armed force by one State against another in the case of (1) self defence (2) UNSC authorization. Since the Hague Conventions say nothing whatsoever on the issue of 'co-belligerents', the language of the UN Charter prevails.

The US is pursuing legitimate self defense and has UNSC authorization to do so.

The CIL/LOAC and UN Charter together, severally, individually and collectively say nothing on the right of a belligerent power to conduct legal military operations on the territory of another belligerent power co or enemy. Under the principles of sovereignty and international law that means it is legal.


Claims supported by the UN Charter and the definition of 'aggression'.

1. The US was found to be the victim of an breach of the peace and entitled to engage in self defense. Pakistan declared herself to be a co-belligerent and victim alongside and with the US to these ends.

2. The US has made no claims on the territory or political independence of Paksitan.

3. US military action have obeyed the LOAC

4. There is no treaty in existence requiring a belligerent to gain the permission of another belligerent to conduct other legal operations.

5. A provided and detailed explanation of collective defense as understood by the allies who wrote the UN charter shows clearly that collective defense can be achieved by concert of action or individual action. (Washington Treaty article 5)


Your inability to respond to my last set of arguments debunking your distorted interpretation of 1368 would suggest your arguments were invalid and you have no response. You may use whatever ad hominems you wish as an excuse.

I responded, you were wrong. If my reading of 1368 was wrong, then the specific claims I made about it would not need to be re-affirmed in 1373,1378 and 1386. All of which specifically re-affirm 1368.


Again, untangle the knots you are tying in your mind first - is Pakistan a belligerent or 'co-belligerent? The two terms are not necessarily interchangeable.

She is both, though to be honest I would be much happier if she was a hostile belligerent power. It would make the world a much safer place if the US was free to do what needs to be done. Instead Pakistan claims alliance with the US. Granted, that gives the US rights to conduct military operations, but not the right to seek the end of Pakistan as we know it. That- the end of Pakistan as we know it, is what the world needs. Pakistan is a bigger supporter of terror than Iran.


Pakistan is a 'co-belligerent' in that it is providing logistical support (and military support limited to Pakistani territory) as required under the UNSC Resolutions on Afghanistan and bilateral agreements with the US. Outside of that support and those agreements any unilateral and unauthorized US military operations on Pakistani territory are violations of the UN Charter and international law. It really is that simple.

Contradicted by statements of Pakistani government officials declaring Pakistan to be in a state of war against Al Queda and the Taliban. Pakistan is a belligerent power, who happens to be a co-belligerent with the US.


I have already provided you with excerpts from the UN Charter on 'the use of armed force' and what constitutes 'aggression'. The limits placed by the UN Charter supersede any 'missing language' in the 1907 Hague Conventions.

Misreading, US action is clearly self defense and its right of self defense has been authorized and regardless, the Hague conventions are the controlling power on the actions of a belligerent.


Again, smoke a few cigarettes and untie the knots in your mind - are you now arguing that Pakistan is a belligerent whereas previously you were arguing Pakistan was a 'co-belligerent'? Make up your mind about what actual line of defense you want to pursue before engaging in a discussion.

She is both



Limits on the use of armed force by one State against another are established in the UN Charter which supersedes any 'missing language' in the Hague Conventions. So until the US withdraws from the UN, the Charter language governs the use of armed force and US military operations in Pakistan, that are not approved by the GoP, are violations of the UN Charter and international law.

Treaties do not have missing language, anything left out is presumed to be left out on purpose because of sovereign right.


There were also several hundred years of slavery practiced by States. The UN Charter and the definition of aggression put an end to any chance of your ridiculous interpretation being considered seriously.

The Hague Conventions are still the legal controlling authority on the conduct of military operations.


No requirement for success eh? So there goes the argument that joint US-Pakistani drone strikes or Pakistan led drone strikes would 'compromise' US operations, since there is no definition or requirement of 'success'.

Different issue, but from a laws of war perspective there is no requirement for success.

Officer of Engineers
17 Jul 13,, 20:02
Legal under what part of the UN Charter and international law?Legal as in no one cared enough to charged us with war crimes. As in Pakistan is NOT charging the US with war crimes.

Officer of Engineers
17 Jul 13,, 20:05
The 9/11 attacks were by Al Qaeda which was based in Afghanistan, so there was never any justification for the use of armed force (under self defence) in Pakistan.So we can't follow the bad guys into your house? Osama Bin Ladden was still conducting operations in Pakistan. Or are you saying we can't shoot the bad guys shooting at us in your house? Because frankly that is safe haven for OBL.

lemontree
18 Jul 13,, 07:29
Operations within Pakistan are conducted with the intent of improving the situation inside Afghanistan - the overall US goal is combating the insurgency in Afghanistan, and the handful of drone strikes here and there in Pakistan do so little to support that goal that there is little that could be compromised, in even the worse case scenario, were the drone strikes joint US-Pakistan operations.
Drone strikes are not handful they are have been at a rate of 1 per week or more. These strikes have taken out over 2200 terrorist leaders, which is a good number.

In COIN ops an average of 500 hours of patroling results in one enemy contact (though this varies from insurgency to insurgency). This is a far better way of causing attrition on the Taliban.

Minskaya
18 Jul 13,, 07:52
The 9/11 attacks were by Al Qaeda which was based in Afghanistan, so there was never any justification for the use of armed force (under self defence) in Pakistan.


Pakistan Taliban arrive in Syria, and more are to come, CNN told
July 16, 2013

Peshawar (CNN) -- Taliban fighters from Pakistan say they have united with al Qaeda forces in Syria to fight the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The commander of the Pakistan Taliban, Abdul Rashid Abbasi, has told CNN that the first batch of fighters has arrived in Syria and established a command and control center to launch operational activities alongside Syrian rebel fighters.

Abbasi said the fighters were sent after the Pakistan Taliban received a request from the al Qaeda operational commander in Syria, Abu Omar Baghdadi. Pakistan Taliban fighters will be under the command and control structure of al Qaeda in Syria, as it is leading the operation, he said. But the Pakistan Taliban said it will remain based in Pakistan. "We have lots of fighters here and our central command will be operating from here, so there is no reason to stop operations in Pakistan," Abbasi said. "They will go on as usual."
Source: CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/15/world/taliban-joining-syrian-fighters/index.html)

I call bullshit on your persistent claims that the Pakistani Taliban has nothing to do with al Qaeda.

Triple C
18 Jul 13,, 10:33
AM,

You are not seeing the argument: the US does not claim it has the right to violate Pakistani territorial integrity or sovereignty, or the UN Charter. It is claiming that no such violation as defined by law had took place, at all.

The UN renounced violation of territorial integrity & sovereignty by aggression. It does not redefine the said terms or repudiate formerly signed and effective international treaties unless specifically stated.

By entering into conflict against Al Qaeda as a co-belligerent, Pakistan has implicitly acknowledged that territories occupied by AQ forces are battle zones controlled by the enemy. Otherwise Pakistan would have consented to fight Pakistan. This is, of course, impossible under international law.

The US gets away with it because it claims US drone strikes and SF raids are strikes against the enemy, not Pakistan, and the presence of the enemy within Pakistani territories represents an illegal occupation of Pakistan by the said enemy. Pakistan's official agreement to fight the terrorists by necessity concedes a priori that its territorial integrity is already compromised by the enemy.

In other words, you cannot enter into a state of war against hostile combatants on a piece of ground without acknowledging that you no longer exercises effective sovereignty over said ground. This is Lincoln's dilemma in the American Civil War.

This is why war against terror is a problematic concept in international law as terrorists are not sovereign states but are afforded combatant status to allow warfare against it. Again, I sympathize with Pakistan's tough deal, but you've made the deal under the acknowledged rules.

zraver
18 Jul 13,, 15:55
What no reply from AM???? Must be getting instructions form his handlers.

zraver
19 Jul 13,, 03:30
AM,

You have been asked repeatedly to show where the Drone strikes and commando raids violate international law inside of the context of Pakistan being a declared belligerent against Al Queda and the Taliban, and a declared co-belligerent of the United States. You have failed to do so. To wit I am going to list several facts point by point giving you a chance to refute them in front of everyone. Bring your A game, because I found examples of Pakistan playing by the exact same rules the US does. I would love to see you label Pakistan an aggressor state.

1. No one is challenging the territorial integrity of Pakistan except for the Taliban and Al Queda. Nor does the US seek to end the political independence of Pakistan so there is no chapter VII violation.

2. UNSCR 1368 found the US to be a victim of the breach of the peace and its attackers to be a threat to international peace and security. This was explicitly re-affirmed in 1373,1378 and 1386.

3. Self defense does not mean only defensive war may be waged. For example, Pakitan takes the position that Operation Chengiz Khan was a defensive strike.

4.What has become apparent in this thread is that there is NO treaty or international law or custom restricting the right of a belligerent to conduct otherwise legal military operations in the territory of a belligerent.

5. There is no precedent for a co-belligerent needing permission to conduct otherwise legal military operations to advance a common war aim. The controlling authority for the conduct of war, The Hague Conventions of 1907 have several specific prohibitions on belligerent action. Needing permission to conduct other legal operations is not one of them.

6. A treaty Washington Treaty/NATO) was found that describes collective action as being EITHER OR the action of allies in concert or the act of a power by itself to advance common war aims. The writers of the Washington Treaty were by the way and by and large, the writers of the San Fransisco Treaty/ UN Charter.

7. Pakistan has (in the past) provided direct support to US armed drone operations and had the US take out targets on the behalf of Pakistan. This is an admission that the drones them selves are seen by Pakistan as a legitimate weapon of war.

8. Pakistan conducts military operations that have an impact on the US-Pakistan alliance without consulting the US, including conducting operations in another country without the approval of the host government (seizure of Afghan border outpost)..

Agnostic Muslim
24 Jul 13,, 14:51
Source: CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/15/world/taliban-joining-syrian-fighters/index.html)

I call bullshit on your persistent claims that the Pakistani Taliban has nothing to do with al Qaeda.
And I, respectfully, call 'bullshit' on your claim that 'I persistently claimed that the Pakistani Taliban have nothing to do with Al Qaeda'. In fact, if you read through my posts from my early days on WAB, you'll see that I pointed out the connections and cooperation between the TTP, Al Qaeda, Chechen and Uzbek extremists a long time ago.

Agnostic Muslim
24 Jul 13,, 14:52
One to need justification, there needs to be an accusation.

UN never said that. So if they are not illegal...
The UN Charter makes 'exceptions' for the use of 'armed force by States against other States', and the conditions under which those exceptions can occur are clearly outlined in the Charter, therefore it is the State resorting to the use of 'Armed Force' that needs to justify the need for an 'exception' under the UN Charter.

Dreadnought
24 Jul 13,, 15:14
:Dancing-Banana::rolleyes:

Agnostic Muslim
24 Jul 13,, 15:58
AM,
The UN renounced violation of territorial integrity & sovereignty by aggression. It does not redefine the said terms or repudiate formerly signed and effective international treaties unless specifically stated.


More on the rest later (I am limited on time of late), but the UN Charter sets in place clear 'exceptions to the use of Armed force', as in armed force can be used by States only when conditions allowing those 'exceptions' are fulfilled. The argument you and Zraver are making (and please correct me if I am interpreting it incorrectly) is that the 1907 Hague Conventions constitute some sort of 'international treaty' and/or 'international law' outlining the 'right of co-belligerents to carry out military operations on each others territory without any specific approval or agreement covering those military operations', and you justify that interpretation of the 1907 Hague Convention based on the fact that there is no actual language prohibiting 'the right of co-belligerents to carry out military operations on each others territory without any specific approval or agreement covering those military operations'. If this interpretation is not correct, then which 'formerly signed and effective international treaties' do you believe is being 'repudiated/redefined'?

Agnostic Muslim
24 Jul 13,, 16:10
:Dancing-Banana::rolleyes:
I am so glad to see you know how to post smileys on a VB Forum :slap:

Doktor
24 Jul 13,, 16:27
The UN Charter makes 'exceptions' for the use of 'armed force by States against other States', and the conditions under which those exceptions can occur are clearly outlined in the Charter, therefore it is the State resorting to the use of 'Armed Force' that needs to justify the need for an 'exception' under the UN Charter.

Where is the accusation? Who is questioning US intervention and where?

Agnostic Muslim
24 Jul 13,, 16:31
AM,
1. No one is challenging the territorial integrity of Pakistan except for the Taliban and Al Queda. Nor does the US seek to end the political independence of Pakistan so there is no chapter VII violation.
It is the responsibility of the Pakistani government to suppress the domestic threat posed by the TTP and Al Qaeda. Pakistan has no agreement with the US authorizing US military operations on Pakistani soil. By conducting unauthorized military operations on Pakistani soil (without UNSC authorization and/or GoP consent), and in the face of direct Pakistani opposition and condemnation of those military operations, the US is in fact violating Pakistani sovereignty and political independence over her territories.


2. UNSCR 1368 found the US to be a victim of the breach of the peace and its attackers to be a threat to international peace and security. This was explicitly re-affirmed in 1373,1378 and 1386.
And UNSCR 1368 did not, at any point, authorize the use of armed force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The only explicit authorization for the use of armed force came about in later resolutions, and that authorization limited the use of Armed force to Afghanistan.


3. Self defense does not mean only defensive war may be waged. For example, Pakitan takes the position that Operation Chengiz Khan was a defensive strike.
Self Defence, under the UN Charter, requires the presence of an 'imminent threat'. The armed force utilized to eliminate that 'imminent threat' can be defensive or offensive - I did not make any claims about 'self defense being limited to defensive war'.


4.What has become apparent in this thread is that there is NO treaty or international law or custom restricting the right of a belligerent to conduct otherwise legal military operations in the territory of a belligerent.
Pakistan and the US are, according to you, co-belligerents, so this point of yours has no bearing on the discussion.


5. There is no precedent for a co-belligerent needing permission to conduct otherwise legal military operations to advance a common war aim. The controlling authority for the conduct of war, The Hague Conventions of 1907 have several specific prohibitions on belligerent action. Needing permission to conduct other legal operations is not one of them.
The UN Charter expressly prohibits States from using armed force against other States, unless the conditions for the exceptions to the use of armed force in Chapter VII are met, and the US has not met those conditions in the case of military operations on Pakistani territory. Arguing that 'missing language' in the Hague Conventions of 1907 'establishes the right of a co-belligerent to conduct military operations on the territory of another co-belligerent without any specific consent/agreement covering those military operations' (not to mention explicit and official condemnation and opposition from the government of the co-belligerent being targeted) is a concocted argument debunked by the 1899 Convention text:


"On the other hand, it could not be intended by the High Contracting Parties that the cases not provided for should, for want of a written provision, be left to the arbitrary judgment of the military Commanders.

Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity, and the requirements of the public conscience;

They declare that it is in this sense especially that Articles 1 and 2 of the Regulations adopted must be understood;"

And guess what, the UN Charter, in restricting the use of armed force by States only in the case of certain exceptions (which do not include unauthorized military operations by one co-belligerent on another), establish a 'more complete code'.


6. A treaty Washington Treaty/NATO) was found that describes collective action as being EITHER OR the action of allies in concert or the act of a power by itself to advance common war aims. The writers of the Washington Treaty were by the way and by and large, the writers of the San Fransisco Treaty/ UN Charter.
Irrelevant given the text of the Hague Conventions referring to 'cases not provided for' in conjunction with the UN Charter establishing 'exceptions' for the use of Armed force by States.

7. Pakistan has (in the past) provided direct support to US armed drone operations and had the US take out targets on the behalf of Pakistan. This is an admission that the drones them selves are seen by Pakistan as a legitimate weapon of war.
Any past support/consent for US military operations on Pakistani territory does not constitute an 'authorization for US military operations on Pakistani soil for as long as the US desires'. Any past consent ended with the official GoP position condemning and opposing US military operations on Pakistani soil.


8. Pakistan conducts military operations that have an impact on the US-Pakistan alliance without consulting the US, including conducting operations in another country without the approval of the host government (seizure of Afghan border outpost)..
The Pakistani government conducts military operations on Pakistani territory, and it has officially denied 'seizing Afghan border outposts' on Afghan territory.

Firestorm
24 Jul 13,, 17:19
Any past support/consent for US military operations on Pakistani territory does not constitute an 'authorization for US military operations on Pakistani soil for as long as the US desires'. Any past consent ended with the official GoP position condemning and opposing US military operations on Pakistani soil.

Well that's just it. The official position, such as it is has never changed. Pakistan has been condemning drone strikes even when some of the drones were flying sorties from Shamsi airbase, which makes those condemnations quite hollow and only for domestic consumption. Only thing different now is that you are here making noise about it.

Firestorm
24 Jul 13,, 17:25
Here's a Pakistani perspective different from that of AM. She still opposes the Drone strikes, but is a lot more practical about the reasons and responsibility for them.

Drones not a violation of our sovereignty (http://tribune.com.pk/story/580923/drones-not-a-violation-of-our-sovereignty/)




By Neha Ansari
Published: July 23, 2013


If any proof was needed of Pakistan’s consent to drone strikes, it clearly emerges in the Abbottabad Commission report. Nevertheless, Pakistanis still falter at the possibility of their own country allowing the Predator to hover and the Hellfire missiles to destroy. “There were no written agreements [on the drone attacks]. There was a political understanding,” said the report on page 201. This statement validates Pakistan’s — not so tacit — consent to drone strikes. The implications of such evidence are that our country’s argument on drone strikes is based on a false premise: “a violation of our sovereignty”.

We need to understand that with consent professedly given by the host country, i.e., Pakistan, the principle of sovereignty does not apply. If you allow your air space to be used by a foreign country, it is not a breach of state sovereignty. In Pakistan’s case vis-a-vis drone strikes, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), also known as the Law of Armed Conflict, is applicable because of this very consent, not International Human Rights Law. IHL is the body of international law that attempts to humanise war and armed conflict; hence, an armed conflict should be under way for this regime to be applicable. And this law, like it or not, allows for absolute killing.

My argument on drone strikes in Pakistan is two-pronged. First, the use of drones in this country is legal under IHL because we have allowed another state to use force in our sovereign territory and there is a state of ongoing conflict. I would also argue that force is being used against a ‘shared enemy’. For example, the first reported drone strike in South Waziristan in June 2004 killed Nek Muhammad Wazir, a Pashtun militant, who, according to some, allegedly posed a greater threat to Pakistan.

Second, the ways in which surgical strikes are conducted — not the strikes themselves — violate the law. The Predator surgical strikes do not comply with both the cardinal IHL principle of discrimination as well as that of proportionality, which is explained in the Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions 1948. Discrimination requires the state using force to distinguish between the military and civilians. Meanwhile, the proportionality requirement limits the permissible level of force based on the threat posed. The proportionality principle also necessitates that targeting decisions in military operations avoid civilian causalities that are excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.

The status quo on drone strikes cannot be acceptable. The United States cannot conduct a surgical-strike operation without transparency, accountability and fact-finding investigations. Meanwhile, Pakistan cannot continue to turn its face away from the civilian casualties and the resultant fallout. These surgical strikes are driving terrorists into the country’s cities, particularly Karachi. The unabated and unreported civilian casualties are also breeding more terrorists and increasing the number of sympathisers. Ms Riffat, a teacher at a government school on the outskirts of Karachi, found out that one of her students was killed in a drone strike when he went to visit his village in North Waziristan. She later learned that the boy’s family, dejected with the heart-wrenching incident, took out all his brothers and cousins, who studied in the same school, from the primary education system and sent them to a madrassa. This is one of the many unaccounted for eventualities in the drone saga that the Pakistani state cannot ignore anymore. Pakistan needs to stop denying that it is not on board with the drone programme. It is an open secret that the country’s leadership has given its full assent to the drone programme.

Both Pakistan and the US need to own the drone campaign and make amends. For Pakistan, the task is more challenging; introspection is never easy, especially for a country with many skeletons in the closet. Nonetheless, Pakistan needs a reset button on its stance on the drone programme.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 24th, 2013.

She says the Drone strikes lead to more terrorists being bred when civilian casualties take place, which is an argument made by many. The problem is without the drone strikes, nothing else seems to be able to touch the terrorists who are already there. Mounting ground assaults after getting intelligence is slow and many a times unfeasible. Besides, in Pakistan, you never know who might tip off whom about an impending raid. Even the Abbottabad report accepted that, that was a possibility in Waziristan.

Agnostic Muslim
24 Jul 13,, 17:28
Well that's just it. The official position, such as it is has never changed. Pakistan has been condemning drone strikes even when some of the drones were flying sorties from Shamsi airbase, which makes those condemnations quite hollow and only for domestic consumption. Only thing different now is that you are here making noise about it.
Keep in mind that the Musharraf and PPP governments are no longer in power, so even if you want to argue that Musharraf and Zardari 'issued hollow condemnations', you cannot extend the same argument to the new government without any credible evidence supporting the claim.

Agnostic Muslim
24 Jul 13,, 17:29
Where is the accusation? Who is questioning US intervention and where?
It is for the US to make the 'accusation' in the UNSC and obtaining a UNSC 'exception to use armed force'.

Any use of armed force by a State without meeting the conditions governing 'exceptions to the use of armed force' outlined in the UN Charter is automatically a violation of the UN Charter and international law.

Agnostic Muslim
24 Jul 13,, 17:32
Here's a Pakistani perspective different from that of AM. She still opposes the Drone strikes, but is a lot more practical about the reasons and responsibility for them.

Drones not a violation of our sovereignty (http://tribune.com.pk/story/580923/drones-not-a-violation-of-our-sovereignty/)

Her position is not that different from mine, especially this part:

"Both Pakistan and the US need to own the drone campaign and make amends. For Pakistan, the task is more challenging; introspection is never easy, especially for a country with many skeletons in the closet. Nonetheless, Pakistan needs a reset button on its stance on the drone programme."

The 'reset' can be done through:

1. Joint US-Pakistan drone operations
2. Pakistan led drone operations
3. Pakistan led airstrikes based on US intelligence

A fourth option that Daniel Markey has proposed is that the US would continue to operate the drones, but any actual strike using the drones would have to be evaluated and approved by Pakistan

Minskaya
24 Jul 13,, 20:57
A fourth option that Daniel Markey has proposed is that the US would continue to operate the drones, but any actual strike using the drones would have to be evaluated and approved by Pakistan
And there's the rub. The Obama administration does not trust Pakistan with the power of veto. Few can fault them on that score. Once burned twice shy.

Doktor
24 Jul 13,, 21:44
It is for the US to make the 'accusation' in the UNSC and obtaining a UNSC 'exception to use armed force'.

Any use of armed force by a State without meeting the conditions governing 'exceptions to the use of armed force' outlined in the UN Charter is automatically a violation of the UN Charter and international law.
US thinks she has the right and does the thing the right way. Your gov says they don't do it according to the law and that's it. No court, no diplomatic protests, no defending of the territory Pakistan considers violated...

zraver
24 Jul 13,, 22:17
It is the responsibility of the Pakistani government to suppress the domestic threat posed by the TTP and Al Qaeda. Pakistan has no agreement with the US authorizing US military operations on Pakistani soil. By conducting unauthorized military operations on Pakistani soil (without UNSC authorization and/or GoP consent), and in the face of direct Pakistani opposition and condemnation of those military operations, the US is in fact violating Pakistani sovereignty and political independence over her territories.

Wrong on a couple of points.

1. Al Queda was found to be a threat to INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY, and to have breached the peace against the United States.
2. The US does not need Pakistani permission to pursue its legitmate war aims unless Pakistan is a netural state and protected by the rights of neutrals.
3. Pakistan has in fact delcared her self to be a co-belligerent against Al Queda, this means her territory is a legal battle space

[qute]And UNSCR 1368 did not, at any point, authorize the use of armed force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The only explicit authorization for the use of armed force came about in later resolutions, and that authorization limited the use of Armed force to Afghanistan.[/qupte]

Once Al Queda was found to be in breach of the peace in 1368 and the US was found to have been violated the US was declared to enjoy the right of jus ad bellum in 1368.


Self Defence, under the UN Charter, requires the presence of an 'imminent threat'. The armed force utilized to eliminate that 'imminent threat' can be defensive or offensive - I did not make any claims about 'self defense being limited to defensive war'.

I double dog dare you to find any treaty language that supports that claim. Regardless, hitting bomb makers and leadership who are actively engaged in anti-US/ ISAF operations would qualify. As the records show, OBL was very much still in the loop and thus by your own words, the US raid on Abbotabad was legal. Fact is though, once a jus ad bellum exists, it exist until there is a peace. You will find no language to the contrary except the UN charter which does not revoke the right. If you read article 51 the mere fact that Al Queda is still a threat to international peace and security (conducting active military operations in multiple countries on multiple continents, its quite clear the US right still exists because international peace and security is not being maintained.



Pakistan and the US are, according to you, co-belligerents, so this point of yours has no bearing on the discussion.

Belligerent- a party engaged in an armed conflict

co-belligerent- a party engaged in an armed conflict against another armed foe where that foe also has another belligerent against it. Co-belligerents do not have to be allies.

The two are not mutually exclusive, though to be a co-belligerent, you must first be a belligerent.

Regardless, you have been asked multiple times to find any treaty language to support your claim and have failed to produce it. Under the principal of sovereignty, unless something is specifically banned by treaty it is permitted. However, if you want to claim that somethings are illegal or prohibited to states in absence of a treaty...

LETS TALK ABOUT PAKISTAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM....


The UN Charter expressly prohibits States from using armed force against other States, unless the conditions for the exceptions to the use of armed force in Chapter VII are met, and the US has not met those conditions in the case of military operations on Pakistani territory.[/quote]

No it does not, it specifically prohibits the use of armed force to violate the territorial integrity or political independence of a state, the US is doing neither. The idea that the people who wrote the San Francsisco Treaty did not understand what they were writing after the aggression of the 30's and 40's and weakness of the League of nations is absurd. Some nations Government's in Exile signed that treaty while their territory was still occupied.


Arguing that 'missing language' in the Hague Conventions of 1907 'establishes the right of a co-belligerent to conduct military operations on the territory of another co-belligerent without any specific consent/agreement covering those military operations' (not to mention explicit and official condemnation and opposition from the government of the co-belligerent being targeted) is a concocted argument debunked by the 1899 Convention text:


"On the other hand, [U]it could not be intended by the High Contracting Parties that the cases not provided for should, for want of a written provision, be left to the arbitrary judgment of the military Commanders.

Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity, and the requirements of the public conscience;

They declare that it is in this sense especially that Articles 1 and 2 of the Regulations adopted must be understood;"

And guess what, the UN Charter, in restricting the use of armed force by States only in the case of certain exceptions (which do not include unauthorized military operations by one co-belligerent on another), establish a 'more complete code'.

1.1899 superseded by the 1907 annex...
2. More importantly my argument rests on the generally understood idea of state sovereignty.
3. The specific prohibition is the actions of military commanders, US action in Pakistan is decided by our nations political leadership.
4. The second part I bolded, "usages between civilized nations..." US and UK fighting in France (WWI) US and UK bombing France, Belgium (WWII), US, UK, Poland invading Holland (WWII), UN forces bombing South Korea, UN forces bombing Kuwait, UN forces bombing Afghanistan.... The usage is well established.


Irrelevant given the text of the Hague Conventions referring to 'cases not provided for' in conjunction with the UN Charter establishing 'exceptions' for the use of Armed force by States.

Not irrelevant, same writers, only a couple of years apart, the Washington Treaty written to conform to the San Francisco Treaty. Clearly the people who wrote the UN treaty understood collective action to include individual action towards a joint war aim, or action in concert.


Any past support/consent for US military operations on Pakistani territory does not constitute an 'authorization for US military operations on Pakistani soil for as long as the US desires'. Any past consent ended with the official GoP position condemning and opposing US military operations on Pakistani soil.

Agreement is not needed, the US as a belligerent has the right to fight on the territory of another belligerent. However, if such meaningless agreement or lack of it is so important to you personally, then let us amongst ourselves dispense with the fiction and declare Pakistan to be a belligerent state in violation of breaching the peace in that she that uses and supports terrorism in violation of international law. After all attacks on the US, UK, France, Spain, Italy, India, Maylasia, Philippines, China, Saudi Arabia and many other states trace through or originate in Pakistan.

Lets ask those who are taking part in this discussion if they consider Pakistan an ally or enemy in the war on terror.



The Pakistani government conducts military operations on Pakistani territory, and it has officially denied 'seizing Afghan border outposts' on Afghan territory.

It denies a lot of things.... Blood trails don't lie. Besides, that was only one of many examples of Pakistan using the exact same line of reasoning and application of international law the US is using to conduct operations in Pakistan. If Pakistan has already conducted a fundamentally identical action then via "unclean hands" she cannot complain of the same being done to her.

No matter how you slice it, there is no violation of international law.

Agnostic Muslim
25 Jul 13,, 14:52
Wrong on a couple of points.

1. Al Queda was found to be a threat to INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY, and to have breached the peace against the United States.
Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Any group claiming to be part of Al Qaeda, but operating out of a different country, would require the US to establish 'imminent threat' from that particular group in the UN in order to justify the use of armed force against that group.

2. The US does not need Pakistani permission to pursue its legitmate war aims unless Pakistan is a netural state and protected by the rights of neutrals.
Under the UN Charter the US needs:
1. UNSC authorization
2. Pakistani government permission

In the face of consistent and official Pakistani Government condemnation and opposition to US military operations on her territory, unauthorized US military operations are an act of aggression violating Pakistani sovereignty and political independence and therefore a violation of the UN Charter and international law.


3. Pakistan has in fact delcared her self to be a co-belligerent against Al Queda, this means her territory is a legal battle space

Pakistan may be a co-belligerent against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but she has condemned and opposed US military operations on her territory, which means that US military operations are acts of aggression and a violation of the UN Charter. Again, even the US government has not trotted out this concocted fantasy of an argument you are making here.


And UNSCR 1368 did not, at any point, authorize the use of armed force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The only explicit authorization for the use of armed force came about in later resolutions, and that authorization limited the use of Armed force to Afghanistan.
Once Al Queda was found to be in breach of the peace in 1368 and the US was found to have been violated the US was declared to enjoy the right of jus ad bellum in 1368.
Even that interpretation would limit UN sanction for self-defence to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. In addition, self-defence under the UN Charter requires the US to report all military actions taken under the justification of self-defence to the UNSC - has the US done so in the case of drone strikes in Pakistan?

I double dog dare you to find any treaty language that supports that claim. Regardless, hitting bomb makers and leadership who are actively engaged in anti-US/ ISAF operations would qualify. As the records show, OBL was very much still in the loop and thus by your own words, the US raid on Abbotabad was legal. Fact is though, once a jus ad bellum exists, it exist until there is a peace. You will find no language to the contrary except the UN charter which does not revoke the right. If you read article 51 the mere fact that Al Queda is still a threat to international peace and security (conducting active military operations in multiple countries on multiple continents, its quite clear the US right still exists because international peace and security is not being maintained.

The records show that OBL was far from being an 'operational commander' of Al Qaeda while in hiding, and therefore did not pose an imminent threat. Claims that the US is targeting 'bomb makers' through drone strikes need to be justified officially by the US through:
1. Establishing the identity of the 'bomb makers'
2. Explaining why Pakistan was not provided the intelligence to conduct the military operations to take out the alleged bomb makers



Regardless, you have been asked multiple times to find any treaty language to support your claim and have failed to produce it. Under the principal of sovereignty, unless something is specifically banned by treaty it is permitted. However, if you want to claim that somethings are illegal or prohibited to states in absence of a treaty...
Treaty language specifically arguing against this ludicrous interpretation of yours has been provided from the 1899 Hague Conventions:

"On the other hand, it could not be intended by the High Contracting Parties that the cases not provided for should, for want of a written provision, be left to the arbitrary judgment of the military Commanders.

Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity, and the requirements of the public conscience;

They declare that it is in this sense especially that Articles 1 and 2 of the Regulations adopted must be understood;"

The underlined part, about a 'more complete code of war', is addressed by the UN Charter that allows the use of Armed Force by States only in the case of certain exceptions, and those exceptions do not include 'a co-belligerent being able to carry out military operations without UNSC authorization and/or the consent of the targeted co-belligerent', thereby destroying your concocted defense.



The UN Charter expressly prohibits States from using armed force against other States, unless the conditions for the exceptions to the use of armed force in Chapter VII are met, and the US has not met those conditions in the case of military operations on Pakistani territory.

No it does not, it specifically prohibits the use of armed force to violate the territorial integrity or political independence of a state, the US is doing neither. The idea that the people who wrote the San Francsisco Treaty did not understand what they were writing after the aggression of the 30's and 40's and weakness of the League of nations is absurd. Some nations Government's in Exile signed that treaty while their territory was still occupied.
Again, by carrying out military operations in complete violation of the Pakistani Governments official opposition and condemnation of those military operations, the US is conducting an act of aggression that is a violation of the UN Charter.


1.1899 superseded by the 1907 annex...
What part of the 1907 annex superseded the 1899 language?

2. More importantly my argument rests on the generally understood idea of state sovereignty.
The US is violating State sovereignty and territorial integrity by conducting military operations in Pakistan despite repeated and official Pakistani Government opposition and the absence of any UNSC authorization for said use of armed force.

3. The specific prohibition is the actions of military commanders, US action in Pakistan is decided by our nations political leadership.
The President's of both the US and Pakistan are the 'Commander's in Chief' of their respective military forces.

4. The second part I bolded, "usages between civilized nations..." US and UK fighting in France (WWI) US and UK bombing France, Belgium (WWII), US, UK, Poland invading Holland (WWII), UN forces bombing South Korea, UN forces bombing Kuwait, UN forces bombing Afghanistan.... The usage is well established.
Any interpretation of past 'usages' is moot given the very specific language of the UN Charter allowing the use of Armed Force by States only in the case of certain exceptions, subject to certain conditions being met. The UN Charter limiting the use of Armed Force fills in the 'missing language' of the Hague Conventions, as the Conventions themselves argued should happen.

Not irrelevant, same writers, only a couple of years apart, the Washington Treaty written to conform to the San Francisco Treaty. Clearly the people who wrote the UN treaty understood collective action to include individual action towards a joint war aim, or action in concert.
Action in 'concert' calls for coordinated and jointly approved 'military action' - US military operations in Pakistan are neither coordinated with Pakistan nor approved by Pakistan (they are in fact condemned, opposed and called a violation of Pakistani sovereignty and international law), and therefore are acts of aggression and a violation of the UN Charter.


Agreement is not needed, the US as a belligerent has the right to fight on the territory of another belligerent. However, if such meaningless agreement or lack of it is so important to you personally, then let us amongst ourselves dispense with the fiction and declare Pakistan to be a belligerent state in violation of breaching the peace in that she that uses and supports terrorism in violation of international law. After all attacks on the US, UK, France, Spain, Italy, India, Maylasia, Philippines, China, Saudi Arabia and many other states trace through or originate in Pakistan.
You can 'dispense with the fiction' and make that argument when the US declares war against Pakistan and obtains UNSC authorization for the use of Armed force against Pakistan based on the requirements outlined in the UN Charter.

Lets ask those who are taking part in this discussion if they consider Pakistan an ally or enemy in the war on terror.
Ask away - but your 'views' are irrelevant given that the US has not declared war against Pakistan and has not sought UNSC authorization for the use of armed force against Pakistan.

It denies a lot of things.... Blood trails don't lie.
What 'blood trail'? Pakistan claims it constructed posts and gates on her side of the border and came under attack from Afghan security forces and defended herself against those attacks.

Agnostic Muslim
25 Jul 13,, 14:55
US thinks she has the right and does the thing the right way. Your gov says they don't do it according to the law and that's it. No court, no diplomatic protests, no defending of the territory Pakistan considers violated...
The UN Charter does not give the US 'a blanket right to do things her way' - as long as the US does not meet the requirements needed to justify 'exceptions to the use of Armed Force' outlined in the UN Charter, her open admission of using Armed Force is by default a violation of the UN Charter and her actions illegal.

Agnostic Muslim
25 Jul 13,, 14:57
And there's the rub. The Obama administration does not trust Pakistan with the power of veto. Few can fault them on that score. Once burned twice shy.
In which case the problem is, as I have pointed out in the past, the paranoia and hubris of the US Establishment, and not Pakistan, and the 'pragmatism' that Firestorm commended in the op-ed he posted will go nowhere given US intransigence.

Agnostic Muslim
25 Jul 13,, 15:02
Legal as in no one cared enough to charged us with war crimes. As in Pakistan is NOT charging the US with war crimes.
The absence of 'war crime charges' does not establish legality - establishing that the US/NATO acted in accordance with the UN Charter in conducting the military intervention in Kosovo is the only thing that can establish legality, and I am not surprised that you chose to duck the question of "Legal under what part of the UN Charter and international law?"

Agnostic Muslim
25 Jul 13,, 15:03
Osama Bin Ladden was still conducting operations in Pakistan.
No he wasn't - OBL was operationally irrelevant to Al Qaeda at that point, and in fact had been operationally irrelevant for years.

Officer of Engineers
25 Jul 13,, 15:09
The absence of 'war crime charges' does not establish legality - establishing that the US/NATO acted in accordance with the UN Charter in conducting the military intervention in Kosovo is the only thing that can establish legality, and I am not surprised that you chose to duck the question of "Legal under what part of the UN Charter and international law?"You are a fucking idiot. I was UNPROFOR and I saw the three sides get away with blatant murder. It more than establish our actions were NOT ILLEGAL. We protected civilians through offensive combat actions against those who would do them harm. We evicted them before they could attack.

zraver
25 Jul 13,, 15:56
Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Any group claiming to be part of Al Qaeda, but operating out of a different country, would require the US to establish 'imminent threat' from that particular group in the UN in order to justify the use of armed force against that group.

No it doesn't, if they claim to be, or claim allegiance to Al Queda they are an imminent threat to the US.


Under the UN Charter the US needs:
1. UNSC authorization
2. Pakistani government permission

No she doesn't, since the US is engaged in Jus ad Bellum she can fight her enemies anywhere a state of war exists. Only neutrals are protected and only so long as they comport themselves to the behavior required of neutrals.


In the face of consistent and official Pakistani Government condemnation and opposition to US military operations on her territory, unauthorized US military operations are an act of aggression violating Pakistani sovereignty and political independence and therefore a violation of the UN Charter and international law.

Belligerents are not entitled to having their territory sacrosanct from military operations. Pakistan is a belligerent power and her territory is a battle space. Permission is not needed, which is why the US has not asked for it.


Pakistan may be a co-belligerent against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but she has condemned and opposed US military operations on her territory, which means that US military operations are acts of aggression and a violation of the UN Charter. Again, even the US government has not trotted out this concocted fantasy of an argument you are making here.

Pakistan is a belligerent that is all the matters, as a belligerent she doe snot have the protections of a neutral power.


Even that interpretation would limit UN sanction for self-defence to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. In addition, self-defence under the UN Charter requires the US to report all military actions taken under the justification of self-defence to the UNSC - has the US done so in the case of drone strikes in Pakistan?

yes she has.


The records show that OBL was far from being an 'operational commander' of Al Qaeda while in hiding, and therefore did not pose an imminent threat.

OBL was a commander and had killed over 200,000 people. He was an imminent threat.


Claims that the US is targeting 'bomb makers' through drone strikes need to be justified officially by the US through:
1. Establishing the identity of the 'bomb makers'

That is why they were targeted.... The US isn't just firing missiles through random windows.


2. Explaining why Pakistan was not provided the intelligence to conduct the military operations to take out the alleged bomb makers

There is no legal requirement to do so. The US has taken the position that Pakistan is not legal entitled to know and can get bent. I bet that irks you doesn't it. The country that took you in looks at the country you're loyal too as a necessarily evil, and one that smells. We all know Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism. But I'd love for Pakistan to try and stop the drone strikes. Move from allied to enemy.... PLEASE. Give us the excuse we need to make Pakistan a former NWS.


Treaty language specifically arguing against this ludicrous interpretation of yours has been provided from the 1899 Hague Conventions:

Not it was not.


"On the other hand, it could not be intended by the High Contracting Parties that the cases not provided for should, for want of a written provision, be left to the arbitrary judgment of the military Commanders.

You do understand the difference between the 2 don't you? The High Contracting parties are heads of state or designated representatives speaking on behalf of their nations. Military commanders are uniformed personnel.

Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued[/quote]

issue in 1907 amon other years. No treaty regulating the conduct of war prevents the right of belligerents to pursue otherwise legit war aims.


the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity, and the requirements of the public conscience;

They declare that it is in this sense especially that Articles 1 and 2 of the Regulations adopted must be understood;"

The underlined part, about a 'more complete code of war', is addressed by the UN Charter that allows the use of Armed Force by States only in the case of certain exceptions, and those exceptions do not include 'a co-belligerent being able to carry out military operations without UNSC authorization and/or the consent of the targeted co-belligerent', thereby destroying your concocted defense.

Wrong, I've already shown you two post 1945 examples of the right to conduct military action in the territory of a co-belligerent without permission.


Again, by carrying out military operations in complete violation of the Pakistani Governments official opposition and condemnation of those military operations, the US is conducting an act of aggression that is a violation of the UN Charter.

No its not, but hey if Pakistan feels that way scramble some F-16's and lets settle the issue. I wonder how India would react to this....


What part of the 1907 annex superseded the 1899 language?

The responsibilities of belligerents and rights of neutrals.


The US is violating State sovereignty and territorial integrity by conducting military operations in Pakistan despite repeated and official Pakistani Government opposition and the absence of any UNSC authorization for said use of armed force.

No she is not, I've provided source explanation and debunked every one of your claims.


The President's of both the US and Pakistan are the 'Commander's in Chief' of their respective military forces.

they are not military commanders per the treaty language.


Any interpretation of past 'usages' is moot given the very specific language of the UN Charter allowing the use of Armed Force by States only in the case of certain exceptions, subject to certain conditions being met. The UN Charter limiting the use of Armed Force fills in the 'missing language' of the Hague Conventions, as the Conventions themselves argued should happen.

You've been provided example of example showing, not saying your argument is baseless.


Action in 'concert' calls for coordinated and jointly approved 'military action' - US military operations in Pakistan are neither coordinated with Pakistan nor approved by Pakistan (they are in fact condemned, opposed and called a violation of Pakistani sovereignty and international law), and therefore are acts of aggression and a violation of the UN Charter.

Individual action or in concert.... Funny how you left the individual out. Why do you always ignore the points that refute you?


You can 'dispense with the fiction' and make that argument when the US declares war against Pakistan and obtains UNSC authorization for the use of Armed force against Pakistan based on the requirements outlined in the UN Charter.

Not needed, we are doing what we want inside of the LOAC. Pakistan can either declare war and move against us or not, it doesn't matter except that if Pakistan finally and openly joined her terrorist children we could eradicate the source of the problem.


Ask away - but your 'views' are irrelevant given that the US has not declared war against Pakistan and has not sought UNSC authorization for the use of armed force against Pakistan.

US does not need UNSC authorization to fight a defensive war when the UN has failed to maintain international peace and stability.


What 'blood trail'? Pakistan claims it constructed posts and gates on her side of the border and came under attack from Afghan security forces and defended herself against those attacks.

Pakistan also claims it didn't know OBL was in Abbatobad, didn't know about Mumbai.... the posts were on the Afghan side of the Durand Line. Pakistan probably built the outpost to protect the shipment of arms and militants into Afghanistan. Of course the Afghans would object to and react to this violation of their territory and political independence.

Agnostic Muslim
25 Jul 13,, 19:05
And there's the rub. The Obama administration does not trust Pakistan with the power of veto. Few can fault them on that score. Once burned twice shy.
Found some comments from a retired Pakistani military official speaking to the 'accuracy' of US intelligence, you know, the same kind that the US government then uses to spread propaganda against Pakistan about how 'perfect US intelligence is compromised by Pakistani leaks':


‘Poor US intelligence’
In a fresh development, a retired military figure once responsible for security in Waziristan now says that historically, poor US practice may have contributed to higher non-combatant casualties.

Brigadier Mahmood Shah claimed to Voice of America that CIA drone strikes in the early days of the campaign were based on poor US ground intelligence:

‘They [the US] gave us 28 places that here are militants, then we had full recce [reconnaissance] of the area and we visited the places and we found that 27 out of 28 were incorrect, and one was correct,’ Shah told VoA.

‘So this was the amount of accuracy and if they had the permission to shoot at that time, which we never thought would be possible, you can imagine how many people, civilian people that would have killed.’
US officials attack ‘far from authoritative’ leaked drone report: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/07/25/us-officials-attack-far-from-authoritative-leaked-drone-report/)

Agnostic Muslim
25 Jul 13,, 19:06
You are a fucking idiot. I was UNPROFOR and I saw the three sides get away with blatant murder. It more than establish our actions were NOT ILLEGAL. We protected civilians through offensive combat actions against those who would do them harm. We evicted them before they could attack.
I'll ask the question again, since you appear to have trouble comprehending it, "What part of the UN Charter was used to justify the US/NATO military intervention?"

Minskaya
25 Jul 13,, 19:42
Found some comments from a retired Pakistani military official...
US officials attack ‘far from authoritative’ leaked drone report: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/07/25/us-officials-attack-far-from-authoritative-leaked-drone-report/)
Holy Moley. Yet another "leaked" report. Is there no end to our good fortune?

You also forgot to mention this part...



Now unnamed US officials are questioning the contents of the leaked report. A written statement has been provided to news organisations including the Bureau. The statement notes that the leaked document was based on ‘indirect input from a loose network of Pakistani government and tribal contacts’. As such, an official indicated, ‘the result is a report whose findings are far from authoritative’. The same statement added: ‘The notion that the United States has undertaken operations in Pakistan that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of innocent Pakistanis is ludicrous. There is no credible information whatsoever to substantiate the report’s distorted figures.’

Agnostic Muslim
25 Jul 13,, 19:43
No it doesn't, if they claim to be, or claim allegiance to Al Queda they are an imminent threat to the US.

That would be a child's definition of 'imminent threat' - claiming allegiance to Al Qaeda is not only NOT a threat to XYZ entity, it is not even a crime. An imminent threat (look up the definition outside of a Grimm's brothers book) would require establishing BOTH intent AND the ability of an entity/entities to carry out an armed attack on US interests. Therefore, 1368 only pointed to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan as the 'threat'.

No she doesn't, since the US is engaged in Jus ad Bellum she can fight her enemies anywhere a state of war exists. Only neutrals are protected and only so long as they comport themselves to the behavior required of neutrals.
The UNSC has only authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan - US military operations in Pakistan are therefore acts of aggression and a violation of the UN Charter. You have not provided any facts to counter that, and even the US Government is not imbecilic enough to propagate the ludicrous 'missing language in the 1907 Hague Convention' argument as justification for her actions.


Belligerents are not entitled to having their territory sacrosanct from military operations. Pakistan is a belligerent power and her territory is a battle space. Permission is not needed, which is why the US has not asked for it.

Pakistan is a belligerent that is all the matters, as a belligerent she doe snot have the protections of a neutral power.
Only in the case of the UNSC authorizing the use of force under the conditions outlined in UN Charter, none of which apply in the case of Pakistan. Pakistan is a 'co-belligerent' of the US - the only 'belligerent' that the UNSC has authorized the use of armed force against is Al Qaeda and/or Taliban in Afghanistan, and the language authorizing the use of armed force against those belligerents is very specific in limiting the scope of that armed force to Afghanistan.

yes she has.
Really? When did the US update the UNSC on the military operations (drone strikes and any other military strikes) taken under 'self defence' and obtain UNSC sanction for continued military action in Pakistani territory?

OBL was a commander and had killed over 200,000 people. He was an imminent threat.
OBL did not even plan the 9/11 attacks (KSM was the operational planner, who by the way was arrested by Pakistan and extradited to the US oh ungrateful American) - at the time of his death he had been irrelevant to Al Qaeda from an operational perspective for years, and therefore did not my any yardstick meet the definition of 'imminent threat' justifying the unilateral, unauthorized and therefore illegal use of Armed force by the US in attacking the Abbottabda compound (rather than informing Pakistan and conducting a joint operation).

That is why they were targeted.... The US isn't just firing missiles through random windows.
The CIA's own leaked documents indicate that the US does not know the identities of the majority of the individuals killed in drone strikes, and that in many cases targets are identified based on arbitrarily developed 'patterns', so yes, it would appear that the US is 'firing missiles through random windows', and the increasing amount of evidence coming to light regarding US lies about civilian casualties supports that position.

There is no legal requirement to do so. The US has taken the position that Pakistan is not legal entitled to know and can get bent. I bet that irks you doesn't it. The country that took you in looks at the country you're loyal too as a necessarily evil, and one that smells. We all know Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism. But I'd love for Pakistan to try and stop the drone strikes. Move from allied to enemy.... PLEASE. Give us the excuse we need to make Pakistan a former NWS.
In the absence of informing Pakistan and obtaining her consent to conduct those military strikes, the US is carrying out acts of military aggression, violating Pakistani political independence and Pakistani territorial sovereignty and therefore violating the UN Charter, so yes, as a signatory to the UN Charter the US absolutely is obligated 'to do so'.


Not it was not.


"On the other hand, it could not be intended by the High Contracting Parties that the cases not provided for should, for want of a written provision, be left to the arbitrary judgment of the military Commanders.

You do understand the difference between the 2 don't you? The High Contracting parties are heads of state or designated representatives speaking on behalf of their nations. Military commanders are uniformed personnel.

Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued

issue in 1907 amon other years. No treaty regulating the conduct of war prevents the right of belligerents to pursue otherwise legit war aims.
'No it was not' what? The UN Charter placed severe limits on the use of Armed Force (by creating exceptions in which Armed Force could be used by States under certain conditions) which covers any 'missing language' in the 1907 Hague Conventions.

Wrong, I've already shown you two post 1945 examples of the right to conduct military action in the territory of a co-belligerent without permission.
And I have already pointed out to you that if those 'co-belligerents' were not opposed to other co-belligerents conducting military operations on their territory, then those military operations had legal cover given that the co-belligerents 'consented' to them. The Pakistani government's official and repeated condemnation of, and opposition to, US military strikes on her territory remove any justification of 'consent', and since they do not have UNSC authorization, become acts of military aggression and violations of the UN Charter.

No its not,
I have explained why unilateral and unauthorized US military operations in Pakistan are a violation of the UN Charter - I'll wait for you to refute the argument with something more than a third graders response of 'no its not'.


The responsibilities of belligerents and rights of neutrals.
The UN Charter, as explained above, does not provide any right to States to use Armed Force outside of the exceptions laid out.


No she is not, I've provided source explanation and debunked every one of your claims.
I can't help you if you wish to keep clinging to a concocted argument of 'missing language in the 1907 Hague Conventions', given that the arguments I have made based on the UN Charter and the 1899 annex clearly destroy your feverishly flawed interpretations of the 1907 Hague Conventions.


they are not military commanders per the treaty language.
And why not?


You've been provided example of example showing, not saying your argument is baseless.
You have provided examples of a political authority claiming to govern territory consenting to military operations by a co-belligerent on her territory. Given the the GoP official condemns and opposes US military operations on Pakistani territory, your examples do not establish the legality of current US military operations in Pakistan - they are violations of the UN Charter.

Individual action or in concert.... Funny how you left the individual out. Why do you always ignore the points that refute you?
I left it out because I assumed you would understand the obvious - 'individual use of armed force by one State on the territory of another', when unauthorized by the UN and opposed and condemned by the State on whose territory the armed force is being used, constitutes armed aggression and a violation of the UN Charter.

Not needed, we are doing what we want inside of the LOAC.
UNSC authorization and/or Pakistan consent is absolutely needed - the LOAC do not override the UN Charter prohibiting the use of Armed Force by States except when conditions are met for specific exceptions outlined in the Charter.

US does not need UNSC authorization to fight a defensive war when the UN has failed to maintain international peace and stability.
Then you can return to this debate when the US withdraws its membership from the UN - until then the UN Charter is binding on all members and unauthorized US military operations in Pakistan are a violation of the UN Charter.

Pakistan also claims it didn't know OBL was in Abbatobad, didn't know about Mumbai.... the posts were on the Afghan side of the Durand Line.
1. No credible evidence suggesting institutional complicity in hiding OBL
2. No credible evidence suggesting institutional complicity in the Mumbai attacks
3. No credible evidence suggesting that the posts attacked by the Afghan security forces were on the Afghan side of the border

Anything else?

Agnostic Muslim
25 Jul 13,, 19:47
Holy Moley. Yet another "leaked" report. Is there no end to our good fortune?

You also forgot to mention this part...

You forgot to mention the the 'statements by anonymous US officials' to different media outlets contradict themselves - the one you quoted above stated that:

"the leaked document was based on ‘indirect input from a loose network of Pakistani government and tribal contacts"

The second 'written statement by anonymous US officials' to a media outlet states that:

"it relies in part on erroneous media reporting"

Apparently 'anonymous US officials' needed to go into propaganda overdrive so bad that they couldn't even coordinate their 'written statements to the press'. But hey, on the positive side it further establishes the lack of credibility of these US 'denials of civilian casualties.

zraver
25 Jul 13,, 20:18
That would be a child's definition of 'imminent threat' - claiming allegiance to Al Qaeda is not only NOT a threat to XYZ entity, it is not even a crime. An imminent threat (look up the definition outside of a Grimm's brothers book) would require establishing BOTH intent AND the ability of an entity/entities to carry out an armed attack on US interests. Therefore, 1368 only pointed to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan as the 'threat'.

Wrong, every Al Queda operation prior to 2001 was conducted through Pakistan. A brief look at Al Queda operations in North America, Europe, Asia and Africa over the course of nearly 2 decades shows ability and intent. There is zero language telling the US she may only defend herself here, or there, but not overthere....


The UNSC has only authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan - US military operations in Pakistan are therefore acts of aggression and a violation of the UN Charter. You have not provided any facts to counter that, and even the US Government is not imbecilic enough to propagate the ludicrous 'missing language in the 1907 Hague Convention' argument as justification for her actions.

Its not missing language because sovereign states do not need permission. I notice you keep ignoring this.... If treaty language was needed to permit rather than to prohibit then Pakistan is in violation of nuclear proliferation.


Only in the case of the UNSC authorizing the use of force under the conditions outlined in UN Charter, none of which apply in the case of Pakistan. Pakistan is a 'co-belligerent' of the US - the only 'belligerent' that the UNSC has authorized the use of armed force against is Al Qaeda and/or Taliban in Afghanistan, and the language authorizing the use of armed force against those belligerents is very specific in limiting the scope of that armed force to Afghanistan.

Then find the case law to support that argument. We can both bat what the Un charter says back and forth but at least I also have case law, precedent and multiple other treaties on my side.


Really? When did the US update the UNSC on the military operations (drone strikes and any other military strikes) taken under 'self defence' and obtain UNSC sanction for continued military action in Pakistani territory?[/qute]

There is no language requiring the US to gain sanction. Now granted I assume the CIA/Pentagon keep the US Ambassador to the UN informed. I note however that full disclosure to the full council is not required.

[quote]OBL did not even plan the 9/11 attacks (KSM was the operational planner, who by the way was arrested by Pakistan and extradited to the US oh ungrateful American) - at the time of his death he had been irrelevant to Al Qaeda from an operational perspective for years, and therefore did not my any yardstick meet the definition of 'imminent threat' justifying the unilateral, unauthorized and therefore illegal use of Armed force by the US in attacking the Abbottabda compound (rather than informing Pakistan and conducting a joint operation).

America, you know the ones who were actually attacked via the use of Pakistani territory by a group allied to an ally of Pakistan doesn't think so.


The CIA's own leaked documents indicate that the US does not know the identities of the majority of the individuals killed in drone strikes, and that in many cases targets are identified based on arbitrarily developed 'patterns', so yes, it would appear that the US is 'firing missiles through random windows', and the increasing amount of evidence coming to light regarding US lies about civilian casualties supports that position.

We don't need the identifies, the attacks need merely be discriminating and proportional. Yet by your own source American Intel is killing militants at the twice the rate is kills civies.


In the absence of informing Pakistan and obtaining her consent to conduct those military strikes, the US is carrying out acts of military aggression, violating Pakistani political independence and Pakistani territorial sovereignty and therefore violating the UN Charter, so yes, as a signatory to the UN Charter the US absolutely is obligated 'to do so'.

If Pakistan actually thinks so she is willing to try and stop us. Doesn't matter if she does or doesn't though, the strikes are legal. The only thing that would change is American ability to end the Pakistani nuclear threat.


'No it was not' what? The UN Charter placed severe limits on the use of Armed Force (by creating exceptions in which Armed Force could be used by States under certain conditions) which covers any 'missing language' in the 1907 Hague Conventions.

The UN prohibits aggression to the territorial integrity or political independence of a state.... Nothing the Us is doing is in violation of that unless you want to claim that the people we are killing are actually agents of, not agents against Pakistan. Killing people who are enemies of the US and Pakistan in areas Pakistan does not control while fighting a jus ad bellum does not violate the UN Charter.


And I have already pointed out to you that if those 'co-belligerents' were not opposed to other co-belligerents conducting military operations on their territory, then those military operations had legal cover given that the co-belligerents 'consented' to them. The Pakistani government's official and repeated condemnation of, and opposition to, US military strikes on her territory remove any justification of 'consent', and since they do not have UNSC authorization, become acts of military aggression and violations of the UN Charter.

I've pointed out over and over again- consent is not needed. A belligerent has the right to conduct otherwise legal military ops in the territory of any other belligerent.


I have explained why unilateral and unauthorized US military operations in Pakistan are a violation of the UN Charter - I'll wait for you to refute the argument with something more than a third graders response of 'no its not'.

No its not is all you deserve since you keep using a deliberate misreading of the UN charter to ignore centuries of customary international law/LOAC. You ignore the experiences of the people who wrote the UN charter and the very clear examples of what they were seeking to prevent and you act as an apologist for terrorist and defend them under a very thin veneer of nationalism.


The UN Charter, as explained above, does not provide any right to States to use Armed Force outside of the exceptions laid out.

Explained over and over again that the US is not in violation.


I can't help you if you wish to keep clinging to a concocted argument of 'missing language in the 1907 Hague Conventions', given that the arguments I have made based on the UN Charter and the 1899 annex clearly destroy your feverishly flawed interpretations of the 1907 Hague Conventions.

deliberate misreading on your part.


And why not?

When two different titular titles are used the obvious inference is that two different entities are envisioned. The High Contracting Parties refer to themselves as High Contracting Parties, not mere military commanders.


You have provided examples of a political authority claiming to govern territory consenting to military operations by a co-belligerent on her territory. Given the the GoP official condemns and opposes US military operations on Pakistani territory, your examples do not establish the legality of current US military operations in Pakistan - they are violations of the UN Charter.

I have provided almost a hundred years worth of examples demonstrating that belligerent do not need permission.


I left it out because I assumed you would understand the obvious - 'individual use of armed force by one State on the territory of another', when unauthorized by the UN and opposed and condemned by the State on whose territory the armed force is being used, constitutes armed aggression and a violation of the UN Charter.

No it doesn't beucase ther eis no mechanism for the UN to authorize a state to defend herself sine that right in inherent.


UNSC authorization and/or Pakistan consent is absolutely needed - the LOAC do not override the UN Charter prohibiting the use of Armed Force by States except when conditions are met for specific exceptions outlined in the Charter.

You are backwards there, violations of the LOAC are/ can be high crimes.


Then you can return to this debate when the US withdraws its membership from the UN - until then the UN Charter is binding on all members and unauthorized US military operations in Pakistan are a violation of the UN Charter.

The US is not in violation.


1. No credible evidence suggesting institutional complicity in hiding OBL
2. No credible evidence suggesting institutional complicity in the Mumbai attacks
3. No credible evidence suggesting that the posts attacked by the Afghan security forces were on the Afghan side of the border

Keep telling yourself that

1. he was found on a Pakistani military canton
2. the attacks were launched from a Pakistani ship and witness testimony implicates Pakistan and the ISI went into CYA mode.
3. Blood trails don't lie, Pakistanis do.

Minskaya
25 Jul 13,, 20:19
Quite frankly, the 'leaked' Pakistani government reports gambit is wearing thin. Try another tack.

Dreadnought
25 Jul 13,, 21:01
I am so glad to see you know how to post smileys on a VB Forum :slap:

Its not the "smileys" its what they are doing. Obviously one is "cheerleading" the other speaks for itself.;)

Dreadnought
25 Jul 13,, 21:36
Umm Yes, about those drone strikes.....

ISLAMABAD – The United States has drastically scaled back the number of drone attacks against militants in Pakistan and limited strikes to high-value targets in response to growing criticism of the program in this country.

Those actions appear to have temporarily appeased Pakistan's powerful generals, who publicly oppose the covert CIA strikes, U.S. officials said. But some officials are still worried about pushback from Pakistan's new civilian leaders, who took power in June with a strong stance on ending the attacks altogether.

The future of the drone program is likely to be a key item on the agenda during U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's visit to Pakistan, which is expected soon.

Only 16 drone strikes have taken place in Pakistan so far this year, compared with a peak of 122 in 2010, 73 in 2011 and 48 in 2012, according to the New America Foundation, a U.S.-based think tank.

The CIA has been instructed to be more cautious with its attacks, limiting them to high-value targets and dropping the practice of so-called "signature strikes" — hitting larger groups of suspected militants based purely on their behavior, such as being armed and meeting with known militants, said a current U.S. intelligence official and a former intelligence official briefed on the drone program.

The CIA embraced the measures, feeling the drone program may be under threat from public scrutiny, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the classified program publicly.

Two other senior American officials said the U.S. scaled back the number of attacks and tightened up its targeting criteria as a concession to the Pakistani army, considered the most powerful institution in the country and the final arbiter on the future of the drone program.

Senior Pakistani army officers made it clear that the program could not continue at the tempo it was being carried out and expressed concern that civilian casualties were breeding more militants, said the U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

The circumstances surrounding a strike on July 3 in Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal area illustrated Washington's intention to go after well-identified targets only, said one of the officials. The attack on a house, which killed at least 16 suspected militants, was backed up by "hugely detailed" intelligence laid out in a 32-page PowerPoint presentation.

The intelligence indicated the target was a gathering of militants from the Haqqani network who were plotting a second attack on the Ariana Hotel in the Afghan capital of Kabul, said the official. The Ariana Hotel has long been suspected of being used by the CIA as a listening post.

President Barack Obama signaled the administration's new approach to drones in a landmark speech in May in which he said attacks would be carried out only on "terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people" and when there is "near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured."

Senior U.S. officials insist they continue to have a secret agreement with Pakistan, or at least from the army, to conduct drone strikes.

But even that agreement seems to be based more on Pakistan's fear of what would happen if it stood up to the U.S. on drone strikes, rather than a real desire to see the program continue. Pakistan relies on the U.S. for hundreds of millions of dollars in civilian and military aid, and even more importantly, for support in getting a $5 billion bailout the country desperately needs from the International Monetary Fund.

The two senior U.S. officials said Pakistani army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani recognizes that the White House views drone attacks as vital to its campaign against al-Qaida and the Taliban, but looks forward to a day when they can stop altogether.

The Pakistani army denied the allegation that Kayani consents to the strikes, calling it an attempt to malign the country and its security agencies.

Some Pakistani officials say the drone program has been useful in the past in killing militants but now draws too much attention and controversy, especially after the covert U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011 outraged Pakistanis who saw it as a violation of the country's sovereignty.

These officials believe Pakistan must be given greater participation in the strikes, or they must be replaced by attacks carried out by the Pakistanis themselves — either with drones given to them by the Americans or their own F-16s.B

But past attempts to work more closely with Pakistani intelligence, or let the Pakistanis carry out attacks themselves, have resulted in militants being tipped off before strikes occur.

Pakistan's request that drone technology be transferred to the country is a non-starter because of U.S. fear that highly classified information would make its way to China, a close ally of Islamabad.

U.S. officials often point to Pakistan's failure to shoot down the slow-flying drones as evidence that they aren't sincere in wanting the program to stop, although this would likely cause a huge crisis in relations between the two countries. They also point to the failure of Pakistan to push the issue aggressively with the United Nations or other international organizations.

But some U.S. officials are worried that Pakistan's new civilian leaders, especially Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, may spark a crisis over the drone program. Khan said this month that Pakistan has conveyed to the U.S. that the drone strikes could lead to a "direct standoff" and "could have serious implications on the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, as well as the post-withdrawal scenario," according to Pakistan's state news agency.

The U.S. military is trucking much of its equipment out of landlocked Afghanistan through Pakistan. Some Pakistani lawmakers have previously advocated preventing the U.S. from using the route unless they stop drone strikes.

Senior Pakistani civilian and military officials have publicly criticized U.S. drone attacks in the past while consenting to them in private. The officials and some rights activists have also claimed the attacks have killed large numbers of civilians, an allegation disputed by the U.S. The comments have whipped up overwhelming levels of opposition to drones among the Pakistani public.

Huma Yusuf, a columnist for Pakistan's Dawn newspaper, wrote on Monday that the current Pakistani government is well-positioned to address the issue of drone strikes "because it does not carry the baggage of almost a decade of 'drone duplicity.'"

"As a good first step Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has said he will not privately sanction strikes while publicly condemning them," wrote Yusuf. "Going beyond routine condemnations, Sharif must now articulate a clear demand regarding drone strikes to take advantage of coalescing pressure."

____

Associated Press writers Kimberly Dozier and Deb Riechmann contributed to this report from Washington.



Read more: US scales down drone program in Pakistan, tightens targeting in response to criticism | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/25/us-scales-down-drone-program-in-pakistan-tightens-targeting-in-response-to/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fnational+%28Interna l+-+US+Latest+-+Text%29#ixzz2a5gcPav8)

Dreadnought
25 Jul 13,, 21:40
If Pakistans military cannot be straight with their own people of why they dont mind these strikes and why they are necessary then what makes you think they would be straight up with the US about how Bin Laden dwelled among them for so long.

They dont exactly have a great track record.

P.S.
Reports out of Pakistan are almost never "leaked" especially a report of that importance. More then likely the "doctored" report for US audience.

Doktor
25 Jul 13,, 21:59
The UN Charter does not give the US 'a blanket right to do things her way' - as long as the US does not meet the requirements needed to justify 'exceptions to the use of Armed Force' outlined in the UN Charter, her open admission of using Armed Force is by default a violation of the UN Charter and her actions illegal.

The law prohibits me to kill or even shoot at someone unless in selfdefense. Now if I kill someone and there are no charges is it illegal?

Doktor
25 Jul 13,, 22:13
That would be a child's definition of 'imminent threat' - claiming allegiance to Al Qaeda is not only NOT a threat to XYZ entity, it is not even a crime.

Thought you are sincerely concerned about the collateral from US ops in Pakistan, even thought you are naive to see something that's visible from half world away, and that's from a person not genuinely interested of the happenings in C&SE Asia. But with this one, you proved me wrong.

Dreadnought
25 Jul 13,, 22:42
The records show that OBL was far from being an 'operational commander' of Al Qaeda while in hiding, and therefore did not pose an imminent threat. Claims that the US is targeting 'bomb makers' through drone strikes need to be justified officially by the US through:
1. Establishing the identity of the 'bomb makers'
2. Explaining why Pakistan was not provided the intelligence to conduct the military operations to take out the alleged

*When the WOT was declared, Pakistan and all other ME countries were in full knowledge that if OBL was located on their soil the US was going to take him out by all means possible. If you think for a moment that the US would only enter Pakistan and not other countries if they knew OBL was there and that it would only do that in Pakistans case then you are sadly mistaken.

OBL and his minions were responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 Americans of all walks of color/creed & nationality on 9-11.

If you think they wipe the slate clean or the priority of capture/kill because he has not been able to communicate futher attacks to his commanders and goes into hiding affords him some kind of save haven then again you are sadly mistaken. He WAS #1 on the list of priority where ever he was hiding. Even if it wasnt Pakistan a US Team would have done the job.

Pakistans intelligence forces have also been known (far too many "coincidences") not to be trusted with such an operations as they can not/will not not police their own ground with regards to terrorists in more then one occurance that dwell on their soil. They somehow "left" just prior to the operation taking place.

The facts have been in the open and stated for some time now. Its not like they hide it.


*Obama's own words............

Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was. That is what we’ve done. But it’s important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/02/remarks-president-osama-bin-laden

Dreadnought
25 Jul 13,, 22:48
Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim
That would be a child's definition of 'imminent threat' - claiming allegiance to Al Qaeda is not only NOT a threat to XYZ entity, it is not even a crime.

Really? Go into the open areas where you live in the US or "tweet" allegiance to AQ and see if you dont get the immediate attention you think a statement like that wont bring. See you on the news.

Officer of Engineers
26 Jul 13,, 01:44
The records show that OBL was far from being an 'operational commander' of Al Qaeda while in hiding, and therefore did not pose an imminent threat.Let me understand this. Pakistan was protecting OBL simply because he was on Pakistani soil.

zraver
26 Jul 13,, 02:16
Let me understand this. Pakistan was protecting OBL simply because he was on Pakistani soil.

The does appear to be the claim that AM is making.

Dreadnought
26 Jul 13,, 04:45
Let me understand this. Pakistan was protecting OBL simply because he was on Pakistani soil.

OOE Sir, I wouldnt say protecting him or total complicity. But clearly someone in the (ISI) had to have at minimum some idea he was there in country and the US had clear reason after months of intell not to notify about the raid. The ISI and security services had to have access and intell on the same people that helped the US gather intell along with a new compund being built so close to their largest military establishment. IMO, In a country where the Tailiban are frequent and dont exactly agree with the governement I would think it would pay them to know exactly who is moving into the neighborhood or next door.

Sound better?

Agnostic Muslim
26 Jul 13,, 14:14
Let me understand this. Pakistan was protecting OBL simply because he was on Pakistani soil.


The does appear to be the claim that AM is making.
That is not the claim I am making at all - what part of my post made that claim?