Originally posted by Doktor
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Pakistan's Abbotabad Report
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View PostIt 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.
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 PostThe 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.
BTW, Pak Army is killing Pakistani civilians, too. Without due process. It's called collateral. Not pretty if you are on the receiving end.
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 PostAgain, no UN Charter in WWII.
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 PostWell according to the charter, Art. 39, it is only UNSC who decides if there is breach to peace.
Has Pakistan asked for such review?
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
-
Originally posted by Triple C View PostThe UN Charter does not supersede the Hague, does it?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 PostSo, 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.
"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 VIIPakistan 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 PostUS 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"
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.
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.
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.
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,
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'.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
You could have great career in standup comedy as a side-show to Jeff Dunham's 'Achmed the dead terrorist' act.
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 PostHorse 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.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 PostYes 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'.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View PostFine, then ask the UN to extend the mandate of an UNPROFOR mission into Pakistan. The US does not currently have that either.
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.
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
Comment