Skip to comments.
UN investigator warns US on use of drones (targeted executions may violate international law)
AP on Yahoo ^
| 10/27/09
| Edith M. Lederer - ap
Posted on 10/27/2009 7:53:42 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
UNITED NATIONS A U.N. human rights investigator warned the United States Tuesday that its use of unmanned warplanes to carry out targeted executions may violate international law.
Philip Alston said that unless the Obama administration explains the legal basis for targeting particular individuals and the measures it is taking to comply with international humanitarian law which prohibits arbitrary executions, "it will increasingly be perceived as carrying out indiscriminate killings in violation of international law."
Alston, the U.N. Human Rights Council's investigator on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions, raised the issue of U.S. Predator drones in a report to the General Assembly's human rights committee and at a news conference afterwards, saying he has become increasingly concerned at the dramatic increase in their use, especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan, since June.
He said the U.S. response that the Geneva-based council and the General Assembly have no role in relation to killings during an armed conflict "is simply untenable."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: donttreadonme; drone; drones; investigator; islam; strike; tm; unitednations
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-165 next last
To: NormsRevenge
"it will increasingly be perceived as carrying out indiscriminate killings in violation of international law."Meanwhile open genocide occurs in Sudan with nary a word from the U.N.
121
posted on
10/28/2009 7:29:51 AM PDT
by
americanophile
(Sarcasm: satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language.)
To: Tzimisce
...I like the quote, do you have a reference?
122
posted on
10/28/2009 7:31:08 AM PDT
by
americanophile
(Sarcasm: satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language.)
To: TheCornerOffice
Headlines we’ll never see...
“UN investigator warns Taliban on use of brainwashed, walking dead suicide drones.”
To: NormsRevenge
The UN only approves of manned combat aircraft, for example, United Airlines Flight 93 and American Airlines Flight 11.
124
posted on
10/28/2009 7:43:04 AM PDT
by
Rutles4Ever
(Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna!)
To: Eagles6
"At least GW would have said":
These attacks fall under the category of pre-emption(Bush Doctrine) and the the US's legal right to use pre-emption was settled long ago. That legal right is found in the UN Charter.
To: 444Flyer
To: NormsRevenge
Or what, they will send us an angry letter?
To: NormsRevenge; Slings and Arrows; martin_fierro
Maybe they just have a different thought about
Terminator?
But in all seriousness UN...come on.
128
posted on
10/28/2009 8:00:10 AM PDT
by
Ultra Sonic 007
(To view the FR@Alabama ping list, click on my profile!)
To: Wisconsinlady
So it’s ok to shoot Taliban in the face with a shotgun ,but a hellfire from a drone is extra naughty?
..makes sense.
129
posted on
10/28/2009 8:14:59 AM PDT
by
WOBBLY BOB
(ACORN:American Corruption for Obama Right Now)
To: Rutles4Ever
The UN only approves of manned combat aircraft, for example, United Airlines Flight 93 and American Airlines Flight 11. Yeah, you'd think they guy they'd want to interview is Dipshit up there in his cave with his buddy Loudmouth.
But no, the U.S. is the easy beef, isn't it?
To: NormsRevenge
As far as I know, targeted killings are allowed in war. Prohibitions against political assassinations generally apply in peacetime. Political and military leaders are legitimate targets in wartime, and targeted killings/political assassinations ("decapitation" strikes) are legit in conventional war if they are necessary to accomplish military objectives, and do not prevent the enemy from surrendering and therefore potentially cause the war to continue longer than necessary.
See Operation Vengeance in WW II.
To: NormsRevenge
The U.S. needs to warn the U.N. to STFU and mind their own affairs or we’ll start targeting the U.N.
132
posted on
10/28/2009 8:45:30 AM PDT
by
SoldierDad
(Proud Dad of a U.S. Army Infantry Soldier whose wife is expecting twins SONS.)
To: NormsRevenge
Philip Alston said that unless the Obama administration explains the legal basis for targeting particular individuals and the measures it is taking to comply with international humanitarian law which prohibits arbitrary executions, "it will increasingly be perceived as carrying out indiscriminate killings in violation of international law." So 'targeting particular individuals' equals 'indiscriminate killings'.
These people are so backward, they can't even get their bullshit straight.
Fine Phil, since you're making an issue of it, why don't we go back to World War Two-style carpet-bombing. Would that be okay with you?
Alternately, if you really just have some issue with us taking out some seriously nasty people- then why don't you just say that?
133
posted on
10/28/2009 9:12:48 AM PDT
by
Riley
(The Fourth Estate is the Fifth Column.)
To: NormsRevenge
Is it just me, or is there a big hunk of irony here??
134
posted on
10/28/2009 9:14:19 AM PDT
by
pillut48
(CJ in TX --"God help us all, and God help America!!" --my new mantra for the next 4 years)
To: BykrBayb
It’s absurd. We should just say we’re targeting their cars and cell-phones. Material assets are always legitimate targets.
To: NormsRevenge
This is a nice "rock and a hard place" sort of situation they're trying to put us in:
1) You kill too indiscriminately! Civilians are dying! Be more selective in whom you kill during a war!
2) You kill to selectively! That's "targeted execution"!
It's WAY past time for the UN to pack up and go home. Like the League of Nations before it, the United Nations is an abysmal failure.
136
posted on
10/28/2009 9:24:26 AM PDT
by
TChris
(There is no freedom without the possibility of failure.)
To: TChris
Gaaah!
"to selectively" = "too selectively"
*sheesh*
137
posted on
10/28/2009 9:25:31 AM PDT
by
TChris
(There is no freedom without the possibility of failure.)
To: Markos33
I wish the UN building was the next one taken down.
To: Saoirise
I carry a Drone because I can't carry a Sniper.
139
posted on
10/28/2009 10:07:26 AM PDT
by
444Flyer
("Permission to engage the enemy Sir! " " Permission denied." (Under CIC Obamao.))
To: NormsRevenge; All
Perhaps we can modify the drones to drop candy and a stern message to the terrorists?
140
posted on
10/28/2009 10:14:55 AM PDT
by
Red in Blue PA
(Obama, Hitler, Stalin: Who are 3 people nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-165 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson