Pakistan Issues Demarche to US over Drone Strikes - US Argues Strikes Legal

[SajeevJino]

---

---

ISLAMABAD:;


Pakistan on Monday summoned a senior US diplomat to protest against a drone strike that killed four militants in the tribal belt bordering Afghanistan.

Political Counsellor Jonathan Pratt of the US Embassy was summoned to the Foreign Office, where the Director General (Americas) registered a protest over yesterday's drone attack, Foreign Office spokesman Moazzam Khan said.

Sources said a demarche was handed over to Pratt.

A similar protest was registered in Washington by the Pakistani Embassy, the sources told PTI.

The US yesterday carried out the first drone strike in almost a month in the restive North Waziristan tribal region.

A drone targeted a compound in Miranshah, the main town of the region, killing four suspected militants.

Reports from Miranshah said over 20 militants, including foreign fighters, were living in the compound.

Earlier in the day, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani linked the issue of asking the US to end drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal belt to the presence of foreign fighters on the country’s soil, saying these matters would be discussed with the American administration.

Gilani said a joint session of parliament had framed several recommendations, including one on halting drone attacks, for talks with the US aimed at resetting the relationship between the two countries.

"Parliament said these are our recommendations and in light of these recommendations, you hold talks with the US. We have not yet held talks, we have just held preliminary discussions," the premier told reporters on the sidelines of an official function.

"But there is one other thing in the recommendations that you must keep in mind ?" that foreign fighters should be expelled from Pakistani soil. Our soil should not be used against any other country as well," he said in response to a question about the US continuing drone attacks despite public opposition in Pakistan.

Pakistan summons US diplomat to protest fresh drone strike - NEWSPOLITAN

[JAT BALWAN]

WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama has ordered more openness about the secretive drone war pounding al-Qaida in Pakistan, a top official said Monday, mounting the firmest defense yet of the program.

In a landmark speech on counter-terrorism "ethics", Obama aide John Brennan insisted the program, the source of sharp tensions between Washington and Islamabad, was legal, ethical, proportional and saved US lives.

The top counter-terrorism official gave the most detailed justification and description of the drone program yet, on the eve of the anniversary of the killing of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in a raid in Pakistan by elite special forces.

US officials have generally been loath to publicly discuss the secretive CIA program, which has seen scores of what the US government says are al-Qaida suspects killed in tribal areas of Pakistan and some other nations.

"Broadly speaking, the debate over strikes targeted at individual members of al-Qaida has centered on their legality, their ethics, the wisdom of using them, and the standards by which they are approved," Brennan said.

"The United States government conducts targeted strikes against specific al-Qaida terrorists, sometimes using remotely piloted aircraft, often referred to publicly as drones," Brennan said in a speech to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.

"I'm here today because President Obama has instructed us to be more open with the American people about these efforts."

Brennan said the strikes had been certified as complying with US law by US Attorney General Eric Holder, among other top officials.

"The constitution empowers the president to protect the nation from any imminent threat of attack," Brennan said, adding that Obama's action was also authorized by measures passed by Congress after the September 11 attacks in 2001.

He also argued that the strikes were ethical, proportional and conformed to US efforts to spare innocent civilians from being caught up in the crossfire.

"It is hard to imagine a tool that can better minimize the risk to civilians than remotely piloted aircraft," Brennan said, in a speech briefly interrupted by a Code Pink anti-war protestor.

"There is absolutely nothing casual about the extraordinary care we take in making the decision to pursue an al-Qaida terrorist, and the lengths to which we go to ensure precision and avoid the loss of innocent life."


Obama aide: Drone strikes are legal, ethical - The Times of India

[Papa]

Islamabad should be thankful to them for cleaning off their back-yard.

[Perceptron]

A much more comprehensive article here as to why Miranshah was targeted.

Miramshah serves as the headquarters of the al Qaeda-linked Haqqani Network, a powerful Taliban subgroup that operates in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and is supported by Pakistan's military and its Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate. The Haqqani Network is one of four major Taliban groups that joined the Shura-e-Murakeba, an alliance brokered by al Qaeda late last year. The Shura-e-Murakeba also includes Hafiz Gul Bahadar's group; Mullah Nazir's group; and the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan, which is led by Hakeemullah Mehsud and his deputy, Waliur Rehman Mehsud. The members of the Shura-e-Murakeba agreed to cease attacks against Pakistani security forces, refocus efforts against the US, and end kidnappings and other criminal activities in the tribal areas.

Link : US drone strike kills 4 'militants' in North Waziristan

As long as PA does not go into North Waziristan, Drones will be the only game in town there. Miranshah is well known even to the PA as the international hub for world terrorists to conglomerate and plan attacks in Afghanistan through the facilitation of Al-Qaeda using personnel from the Haqqani network, IMU and Nazir's group. PA dare not put its hand inside the hellhole that is NW, else the blowback will lead to a clusterfcuk situation in Pakistan already reeling under attacks from the TTP.

[BATMAN]

PA have always maintained....... lead us to terrorist and we'll follow.

Without logic or evidence, waging war just for the sake of it is counter productive.
After all NW is Pakistan and not every where in Pakistan, army is deployed.
Why shall a terrorist keep sitting in area surrounded by Pak & US army and under drone attacks?

[dk33]

A much more comprehensive article here as to why Miranshah was targeted.
Link : US drone strike kills 4 'militants' in North Waziristan

As long as PA does not go into North Waziristan, Drones will be the only game in town there. Miranshah is well known even to the PA as the international hub for world terrorists to conglomerate and plan attacks in Afghanistan through the facilitation of Al-Qaeda using personnel from the Haqqani network, IMU and Nazir's group. PA dare not put its hand inside the hellhole that is NW, else the blowback will lead to a clusterfcuk situation in Pakistan already reeling under attacks from the TTP.

Killing 3 or 4 low level militants here or there is not going to put a dent in the insurgency. A strike to take out leadership of a group might be justifiable and actually make an impact in the war, but the majority of the drone strikes have taken out low level militant 'cannon fodder' - recruits who will be easily replaced by others.

[TOPGUN]

It's always ethical when your own a$$ is not under fire in this case a missle from a drone unreal

Islamabad should be thankful to them for cleaning off their back-yard.

Iam all for killing terrorist /cowards but what about the innocent lives that are lost each and everyday should we as human beings be thankful for that ?.. think about what you say and where you say it before saying such unhuman nonsense comments.

[dk33]

Where exactly is the 'legal' argument/justification for the drone strikes in his comments?

Pakistan has offered:

1. To conduct drone strikes itself if provided the technology
2. Joint drone strikes with the US with both Pakistani and US officials involved in the targeting and authorization of the strikes
3. Strikes by the PAF, in case of US reluctance to provide drones to Pakistan, based on intelligence provided by the US

So in light of the above proposals by Pakistan, what 'legality' do unilateral US drone strikes, in the absence of any official authorization by the GoP, or sanction by the UN, have?

Brennan is talking out of his rear-end and trying to obfuscate the issue and paint patently illegal and counter-productive US drone strikes as something that they are not.

[BATMAN]

It's always ethical when your own a$$ is not under fire in this case a missle from a drone unreal



Iam all for killing terrorist /cowards but about lives that are lost should we as human beings be thankful for that.. think about what you say and where you say it before saying such nonsense comments.

This is common sense, but apparently US never adopt sensible ways of doing things, drone strikes are no exception.

Yanks....

[Solomon2]

Pakistan has offered:
1. To conduct drone strikes itself if provided the technology
2. Joint drone strikes with the US with both Pakistani and US officials involved in the targeting and authorization of the strikes
3. Strikes by the PAF, in case of US reluctance to provide drones to Pakistan, based on intelligence provided by the US

I think your own leaders scotched this approach. In Wikileaks Zardari said Pakistani officers have to worry about terrorists when they come home at night. The natural conclusion is that for their own sake Pakistani officials and officers have to be out of the loop as much as possible.

So in light of the above proposals by Pakistan, what 'legality' do unilateral US drone strikes, in the absence of any official authorization by the GoP, or sanction by the UN, have?

You forget that the drone strikes ARE legally sanctioned by the U.N. under UNSC 1373. I've made this point many times: because it's a Chapter VII Resolution Pakistan has the sovereign obligation to eliminate terror havens, terror operations, and terror-training camps from territory under its control; Pakistan demonstrably doesn't act to do so in particular areas, therefore it has no sovereign complaints about actions other nations undertake against terrorists in these areas.

It's pretty ironclad and the wonder is not that the U.S. President has complained but that the U.N. Secretary-General hasn't publicly done so. (He did so privately after 26/11.)

[fd24]

Killing 3 or 4 low level militants here or there is not going to put a dent in the insurgency. A strike to take out leadership of a group might be justifiable and actually make an impact in the war, but the majority of the drone strikes have taken out low level militant 'cannon fodder' - recruits who will be easily replaced by others.

Would be interesting to get the stats on the number of innocent people killed in this manner compared to the acual number of "militants". The "low level militant" are indeed easy to replace and of course their name is used in the propaganda to recruit more. Time i think for these US think tanks to reassess their tactics. These attacks i believe are simply creating a negative result in my opinion.

[dk33]

"There is nothing in international law that bans the use of remotely piloted aircraft for this purpose or that prohibits us from using lethal force against our enemies outside of an active battlefield, at least when the country involved consents or is unable or unwilling to take action against the threat," Brennan added.

1. Pakistan has not consented

2. Pakistan has made multiple proposals to conduct the strikes as a joint effort.

Brennan's 'legal justification' therefore fails miserably, not surprising given that the US Establishment has done nothing but lie to, malign, and backstab Pakistan of late.

I think your own leaders scotched this approach. In Wikileaks Zardari said Pakistani officers have to worry about terrorists when they come home at night. The natural conclusion is that for their own sake Pakistani officials and officers have to be out of the loop as much as possible.

Utter nonsense, given that the same officers are in the limelight even more given their active involvement on the battlefields of Swat and FATA.

You forget that the drone strikes ARE legally sanctioned by the U.N. under UNSC 1373. I've made this point many times: because it's a Chapter VII Resolution Pakistan has the sovereign obligation to eliminate terror havens, terror operations, and terror-training camps from territory under its control; Pakistan demonstrably doesn't act to do so in particular areas, therefore it has no sovereign complaints about actions other nations undertake against terrorists in these areas.

The drone strikes are not sanctioned by the UN, your argument has been debunked pretty much every time you have made it, and I just debunked Brennan's latest bald faced lies and deception in my post above.

[Perceptron]

Killing 3 or 4 low level militants here or there is not going to put a dent in the insurgency. A strike to take out leadership of a group might be justifiable and actually make an impact in the war, but the majority of the drone strikes have taken out low level militant 'cannon fodder' - recruits who will be easily replaced by others.

The US Intelligence (read CIA) does not always release information on the position of the militant in the command chain of the targeted group. Any such holeup could involve the presence of a mid-level to top-level commander along with the group who might have been wounded in the strike, information which is not privy to us. Previous such operations have taken out Tahir Yuldashev, Baiitullah Mehsud, Qari Muhammad Zafar, Ilyas Kashmiri etc. and in many cases the top leadership were present along with mid rung members of their group.

I would say, the more people are made to lie low, the more jumpy they get. Drones are the perfect way to put them in that Catch-22 mode. Your own military leadership acknowledges the fear of drones that have been put into these terrorists.

[somebozo]

The root cause of this drone attacks lies in the systematic hate we have let mullah preach blindly in over society which has created sleeper cells of terrorist based on twisted history and manipulated facts. The fast we cure this menace called mullahism, the sooner we can regain our respect back in the international stage and stop being an icon of humiliation.

[dk33]

---

---

The US Intelligence (read CIA) does not always release information on the position of the militant in the command chain of the targeted group. Any such holeup could involve the presence of a mid-level to top-level commander along with the group who might have been wounded in the strike, information which is not privy to us. Previous such operations have taken out Tahir Yuldashev, Baiitullah Mehsud, Qari Muhammad Zafar, Ilyas Kashmiri etc. and in many cases the top leadership were present along with mid rung members of their group.

I would say, the more people are made to lie low, the more jumpy they get. Drones are the perfect way to put them in that Catch-22 mode. Your own military leadership acknowledges the fear of drones that have been put into these terrorists.

The death of militant leadership is almost always revealed in the days after a strike, so there is no point in not releasing the information about who was targeted, and the US has in fact, through leaks at least, released information about which leadership was targeted.

Even in this case leaks about the identities of the militants targeted have occurred, and no 'leader' was mentioned - the target was simply called a location used by militants to assemble explosives, and the leadership of these groups is going to stay as far away from active operations as they can, which would imply no high level leadership.