Amnesty says OBL raid, Drone Strikes unlawful

[dk33]

---

---

Amnesty says OBL raid 'unlawful'

Updated 1 hour ago From Web Edition


WASHINGTON: Amnesty International criticized the United States on Wednesday for its use of lethal force, particularly for the ‘unlawful’ killing of Osama bin Laden in a clandestine US commando raid in Pakistan last May.

"The US administration made clear that the operation had been conducted under the USA's theory of a global armed conflict between the USA and Al-Qaeda in which the USA does not recognize the applicability of international human rights law," it said in its annual report.

"In the absence of further clarification from the US authorities, the killing of Osama bin Laden would appear to have been unlawful," it said.

Amnesty said a request for clarification over an apparent US drone strike in Yemen last September that killed US-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaqi, his Al-Qaeda co-conspirator Samir Khan and at least two others had also gone unanswered.

"These killings appeared to have amounted to extrajudicial executions," the rights watchdog said.

Amnesty regretted President Barack Obama's failure to shut down Guantanamo, noting that at the end of 2011, nearly two years after his self-imposed closure deadline, "171 men were still held at the base, including four who had been convicted by military commission."

The number of detainees at the US detention center in Cuba currently stands at 169.

The report lamented that five suspects accused of planning the September 11, 2001 attacks "had been held incommunicado for up to four years in secret US custody before being transferred to Guantanamo." (AFP)

Amnesty says OBL raid unlawful - thenews.com.pk

[RayKalm]

Drone strikes, Abbottabad operation unlawful: Amnesty International | The News Tribe

London: Amnesty International, a Human Rights group, on Wednesday heavily criticised the United States (US) for using drone strikes inside Pakistan and Abbottabad operation, which killed al-Qaida Chief Osama Bin Laden, and said that such actions were unlawful.

In its 50th annual report, the US has been criticised by the right group for using lethal force in the killing of Osama bin Laden in a commando raid.

“The US administration made clear that the operation had been conducted under the USA’s theory of a global armed conflict between the USA and Al-Qaeda in which the USA does not recognize the applicability of international human rights law,” Amnesty said.

“In the absence of further clarification from the US authorities, the killing of Osama bin Laden would appear to have been unlawful.”

The report raises serious concerns regarding US drone strikes inside Pakistani territory, which killed several innocent civilians including some low rank militants.

Amnesty said that a request for clarification over an apparent US drone strike in Yemen last September that killed US-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaqi, his Al-Qaeda co-conspirator Samir Khan and at least two others had also gone unanswered.

The report also raises concern about missing persons and Pakistan’s government failure to safeguard the rights of minorities.

“Out of several missing persons across Pakistan, only 220 of them were recovered,” the report said.

The report also said that almost nine journalists were killed during 2011 within the country while a number of people were killed in fighting between the rival political groups in Karachi.

The rights groups say the security council is increasingly “unfit for purpose”, and is failing to match the courage of protesters around the world.

trade when the United Nations meets in July, saying it would be a test for world leaders to place rights over profits.

Amnesty highlighted the failure to end the bloodshed in Syria and said repeated vetoes by major arms exporters Russia and China had left the UN’s top security body “looking redundant as a guardian of global peace”.

The report also singled out emerging powers India, Brazil and South Africa, saying they were “complicit through their silence” on key rights issues.

In its annual report, Amnesty said the vocal support by many global powers in the early months of the Arab Spring in 2011 had not translated into action, with many international leaders now looking the other way.

It has also criticised Canada for failing to arrest former US president George W. Bush during a visit in October, “despite clear evidence that he was responsible for crimes under international law, including torture.”

Drone strikes, Abbottabad operation unlawful: Amnesty International | The News Tribe

[FaujHistorian]

Nothing more than a fat fat fatwa by a Mullah or an Ayatullah. Or perhaps this is like "shor Machao" crowd on the PDF. cheen cheeen cheeen the birds chirp while their nest gets f'd up and invaded by every Tom, Dick and Abdullah.



Amnesty said two bit fing things. so what. If they have some weight, they should go to the international court and sue. Otherwise this is just blabbering of nth degree.

Someone sitting in cushy seats of London blabbers about drones and that Ben Fing Ladeen the Jahannumi.

Will that bring back those who are killed by drones, or you my dear Sir are expecting that Ben Fing Ladeen will appear from the dead?

These articles are find and dandy for the Gora crowd. The Amnesty may win some browni points from Jihadis. But that's all.

if we the Pakistanis want to avoid drones or raids like the one that sent BFL to hell, we must guard our country like a hawk. And not allow anyone to use our land to launch attacks on the NATO or US soldiers.

Hope you get it.

[Alfa-Fighter]

As one says everything fair in love n war.... if terrorist kill your family, then you have right kill his family also.... an eye for an eye and tooth for an tooth, these terrorist already lost they right to live as soon as they kill someone.

[CaptainJackSparrow]

As far as I know, under American law, the US President has the authority to sanction extra-judicial assassinations, especially of non-US citizens. So under US law it might be perfectly legal. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Moreover, it was a war-zone.

[nuclearpak]

As far as I know, under American law, the US President has the authority to sanction extra-judicial assassinations, especially of non-US citizens. So under US law it might be perfectly legal. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Moreover, it was a war-zone.

Pakistanis a war zone?

That's rich!!!

[Awesome]

Pakistanis a war zone?

That's rich!!!

That too abottabad, that too with a fully functioning government and army and several successive missions against terrorism and capturing several hundred Al Qaeda members 5-6 HVTs.

[dk33]

As far as I know, under American law, the US President has the authority to sanction extra-judicial assassinations, especially of non-US citizens. So under US law it might be perfectly legal. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Moreover, it was a war-zone.

US law applies within the United States - actions outside US borders must comply with the UN Charter, international law and any other international treaties/agreements that the US is a signatory too.

Hypothetically, using your argument, if Saddam's Iraq decided to 'pass a law' that Kuwait was Iraqi territory and military intervention to 'merge Kuwait with Iraq' was necessary, that does not make an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait 'legal' under international law and the UN.

And no, Abbottabad was not and is not a 'war zone' - from an international/UN perspective, no part of Pakistan is.

[AbhimanyuShrivastav]

US law applies within the United States - actions outside US borders must comply with the UN Charter, international law and any other international treaties/agreements that the US is a signatory too.

Hypothetically, using your argument, if Saddam's Iraq decided to 'pass a law' that Kuwait was Iraqi territory and military intervention to 'merge Kuwait with Iraq' was necessary, that does not make an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait 'legal' under international law and the UN.

And no, Abbottabad was not and is not a 'war zone' - from an international/UN perspective, no part of Pakistan is.

Is there a legal action being contemplated by Pakistan, if their legal position is so strong as you say.. If not, why not??

[dk33]

Is there a legal action being contemplated by Pakistan, if their legal position is so strong as you say.. If not, why not??

That has been discussed in several other threads:

- Taking legal recourse, whether through the ICJ or UN, would be an escalation in the relationship with the US, and therefore is probably something that the GoP is not willing to do currently in order to not completely break off ties and leave a negotiated settlement to the issue open.

[Rocky25]

US law applies within the United States - actions outside US borders must comply with the UN Charter, international law and any other international treaties/agreements that the US is a signatory too.

Hypothetically, using your argument, if Saddam's Iraq decided to 'pass a law' that Kuwait was Iraqi territory and military intervention to 'merge Kuwait with Iraq' was necessary, that does not make an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait 'legal' under international law and the UN.

And no, Abbottabad was not and is not a 'war zone' - from an international/UN perspective, no part of Pakistan is.

Stupid Amnesty International! Terrorists are not Human and Human rights does not apply to them!

Why should justice to be served to terrorists like OBL and Kasab? Maharashtra government spending tens of crores of rupees just for serving justice! If some terrorists are meeting in Pakistan with wicked agenda and if Pakistan does not stop them then there is nothing wrong in sending drones and killing them all together.

[ashokdeiva]

though i am against the US drone strikes arrond the world, its the responsibility of each of the country to take out these terrorist on their own and do not give such oppertunity to the US or any other country for that matter.
Not all terrorist are bad, some fight for a cause of a much larger population who are suffering at the hands of invaders, but people like OBL and his associates are not the kind of people who fight for the cause of fellow human beings, they are fanatic idiots who bring trouble to others and to the very people whom he is associated with.
and trying to put him in trail will only invite more hijacking for his release or more bombing, he is better dead at the hands of US commandos rather than live another day.

[dk33]

Stupid Amnesty International! Terrorists are not Human and Human rights does not apply to them!

Why should justice to be served to terrorists like OBL and Kasab? Maharashtra government spending tens of crores of rupees just for serving justice! If some terrorists are meeting in Pakistan with wicked agenda and if Pakistan does not stop them then there is nothing wrong in sending drones and killing them all together.

The question is not about 'human rights' as much as it is about the legality of US actions inside Pakistan.

Given Pakistan's extensive cooperation in neutralizing AQ leaders and members, and its proposals to conduct Pakistan operated or jointly operated drone strikes, the argument that 'the US is doing this because Pakistan is refusing to' is invalid.

[r3alist]

Pakistanis are falling into the trap of hoping the western system will correct itself to help Pakistan.

It won't. Human rights is a concept that has been weaponised and is already being used to further imperial conquests and erode the sovereignty of nations - never lose sight of that, an amnesty report might help add weight to an argument but nothing more than that.

[AbhimanyuShrivastav]

---

---

That has been discussed in several other threads:

- Taking legal recourse, whether through the ICJ or UN, would be an escalation in the relationship with the US, and therefore is probably something that the GoP is not willing to do currently in order to not completely break off ties and leave a negotiated settlement to the issue open.

Your logic, if true, here seems akin to that of an abused spouse in a bad marriage, who keeps on taking the beating to preserve a non existent relationship.. Or alternately, a more practical view, is that Pakistan knows that it will get laughed out of ICJ or UN if it takes this up simply because it was not able to prevent illegal use of its territory by terrorists and USA acted in self defense.