Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pakistan's Abbotabad Report

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
    AM, you might want to look @ Belgium in WW2 for precedent.
    Again, no UN Charter in WWII.
    Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
    https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
      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.
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
        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"
        Last edited by Agnostic Muslim; 17 Jul 13,, 15:17.
        Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
        https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
          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?
          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
            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.
            Last edited by Agnostic Muslim; 17 Jul 13,, 15:36.
            Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
            https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

            Comment


            • 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.
              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

              Comment


              • The UN Charter does not supersede the Hague, does it?
                All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Triple C View Post
                  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.
                  Last edited by Agnostic Muslim; 17 Jul 13,, 15:53.
                  Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                  https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                    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
                    Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                    https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                      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.

                      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.

                      Comment


                      • 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.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                          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.
                          Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                          https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                            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!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • 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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X