Skip to main content

View Diary: When a Drone Flies Over Waziristan, Does It Make a Sound? (32 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In other words... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster

    ... drone strikes aren't a method of waging war, but something far more sinister: extrajudicial killings.

    That's the gist of your argument. Care to defend it?

    Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

    by MBNYC on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 03:58:32 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

      See what the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions

      The report, written by the UN's Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston, will be formally submitted to the UN's Human Rights Council in Geneva tomorrow. It says the use of drones to target militants "violate straightforward legal rules".
      "The refusal by States who conduct targeted killings to provide transparency about their policy violates the international framework that limits the unlawful use of legal force against individuals. A lack of disclosure gives States a virtual and impermissible licence to kill."
      http://www.channel4.com/...
      •  Inapplicable. (0+ / 0-)

        The UNHCR has no legislative power in this country or elsewhere. And I'll just assume that you know the difference between 'law' and 'a report to an international body'.

        And just to cut this short, personally, I find the U.S. use of drones troubling, but I'm also conversant with how to make a political argument. It's unfortunately rather common among American activists to simply proclaim that something is unlawful, whether or not that assertion is either accurate or relevant.

        Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

        by MBNYC on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 04:23:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are right that UNHCR has no legislative power (0+ / 0-)

          But if you want domestic law, that too is being violated:

          The administration justifies its use of armed drones with reference to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force that Congress passed just days after the September 11 attacks. In the AUMF, Congress authorized force against groups and countries that had supported the terrorist strikes. But Congress rejected the Bush administration's request for open-ended military authority "to deter and preempt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States." Deterrence and preemption are exactly what Obama is trying to accomplish by sending robots to kill "suspected militants" or those who happen to be present in an area where suspicious activity has taken place.

          Moreover, in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Congress specifically declared, "Nothing in this section is intended to... expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force [of September 2001]."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site