quote:

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- 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."

"That would remove the great majority of issues that come before these bodies right now," Alston said. "The onus is really on the government of the United States to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions, extrajudicial executions are not, in fact, being carried out through the use of these weapons."

<more>

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UN_UN_EXTRAJUDICIAL_KILLINGS?SITE=DCSAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-10-27-21-16-0

Agent991 posted the above on one of my other threads yesterday and it went unnoticed. It seems to me that it is worth a thread of its own, particularly in light of some of the comments received by the SECSTATE in Pakistan ... for example ...

quote:

During an interview broadcast live in Pakistan with several prominent female TV anchors, before a predominantly female audience of several hundred, one member of the audience said the Predator attacks amount to "executions without trial" for those killed.

Another asked Clinton how she would define terrorism.

"Is it the killing of people in drone attacks?" she asked. That woman then asked if Clinton considers drone attacks and bombings like the one that killed more than 100 civilians in the city of Peshawar earlier this week to both be acts of terrorism.

"No, I do not," Clinton replied.

<more>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33548966/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

To the extent that such views gain traction, they undermine one of the keystones of Biden's Aghanistan strategy proposal ... heavy reliance of drone attacks in conjunction with SOF operations ... and undercut the moral authority that many claim is am imperative in our international diplomacy.

To hell with the UN. They want a clean war, let them do it. HA!!! fat chance of that happening.

Who is this sausage nigel Philip Alston?

Silliest damn argument I ever heard. In uniform or out, whatever their legal status is on the battlefield, those people are at war with us and are killing our soldiers. The ones being targeted for attack by RPVs are doubtless leaders, logistics people or fighters transiting to Afghanistan- which makes them legitimate military targets. Taking out an enemy command post/C2 element with a precision strike is hardly an "extrajudicial execution". I'm surprised they didn't throw in "assassination".

Unless something is going on that we haven't heard about, those types of targets are not "indiscriminate". There may have been mistakes & malfunctions that led to unfortunate civilian deaths, and their have been civilian deaths that resulted from the bad guys carting their friends and family around with them, but that's the nature of war- too bad, so sad.

quote:

Originally posted by Sand_Flea:
Who is this sausage nigel Philip Alston?

He's a lawyer out of New York City college for liberals. Serving in the UN is his extended background, never served in military.

Is this the definition of Arse?

quote:

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.

wonder how he would feel about an arbitrary nuke hit?

quote:

Originally posted by Sand_Flea:
Who is this sausage nigel Philip Alston?

As the article notes, he is a law professor at New York University and the U.N. Human Rights Council's investigator on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions.

BTW ... he's an Australian, not an American. You can learn more about him here:

http://its.law.nyu.edu/facultyprofiles/profile.cfm?personID=19742

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Alston

Whether one agrees with him or not, he is apparently no light-weight and, as Wiki notes, "is a prominent international law scholar and human rights practitioner".

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:
"is a prominent international law scholar and human rights practitioner".

There are many other countries he can use his skills dealing with human rights than ours....

quote:

Originally posted by EAG154:

quote:

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.

wonder how he would feel about an arbitrary nuke hit?

We should have done that from the very start.

These UN folks are after our butts everyday. They also want certain cities of the United States to be brought in front of the international court for not having proper housing for its citizens.

You want information on where our laws are originating? Try the United Nations.

lONG PAST time to pitch the UN lot out of the USA. Let them set up shop in, say India, China, Turkey, Jordan, S. Arabia, Patagonia, any "garden spot" not here.

wonder what he considers the difference between a predator strike and an apache or fast mover? I suppose he thinks the Afghanis have the chance to shoot down a manned bird?

quote:

Originally posted by peter3_1:
lONG PAST time to pitch the UN lot out of the USA. Let them set up shop in, say India, China, Turkey, Jordan, S. Arabia, Patagonia, any "garden spot" not here.

The UN needs to be abolished. Just a quazi governmnet without a country, and just as corrupt. Had good ideas at the start, but it's time has passed.

quote:

Originally posted by peter3_1:
lONG PAST time to pitch the UN lot out of the USA. Let them set up shop in, say India, China, Turkey, Jordan, S. Arabia, Patagonia, any "garden spot" not here.

If DeGaulle could do it, so can we, if we had the cajones to do it.

MS QUERTY As always, you are thorough as well as fair. Thank You for creating a Post in regards to this topic. The Biden Plan may now need to be revised due to UN Interference. I saw our Troops ''outeigh'' the UN Rappateour. Does anyone think this UN Alston will back down?? Me, I have my doubts. UN Ratcheting Up The Condemnation On The US....

quote:

Originally posted by Navy_Grunt:

quote:

Originally posted by EAG154:

quote:

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.

wonder how he would feel about an arbitrary nuke hit?

We should have done that from the very start.

How I wish!!

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

To the extent that such views gain traction, they undermine one of the keystones of Biden's Aghanistan strategy proposal ... heavy reliance of drone attacks in conjunction with SOF operations ... and undercut the moral authority that many claim is am imperative in our international diplomacy.

Al Qaeda does not respect intentional borders. They use subterfuge to cross international borders and attack civilians as a way to make war on America, Great Britain, Spain, etc.. They have bases in Pakistan, Somalia Sudan, etc.. They have fighters in Iraq, Europe, Philippines, the United States, etc..

The result of al Qaeda actions has generated a war like no other – a war that has no borders. In such a war, the rules that were created to limit wars of large armies controlled by nation states do not apply.

If this were a traditional war and one army found out that the commanders of another army were gathered in one place, that place and those commanders would be a legitimate target.

In this war, al Qaeda leaders and fighters are targets, no matter where they are.

The killing of civilians when targeting the bad guys should be a consideration because that is the moral thing to do and because killing innocents hurts our cause. But not killing the enemy because civilians “might” be killed is no way to fight a war.

We cannot defeat an enemy that gets to have a safe haven or use civilians as effective shields.

If the government of the country where al Qaeda is hiding cannot kill or capture these guys who are planning and training for the next attack on America, then we have to – because that is the only way to defeat those who would attack us again.

We have a right to wage war against those who are waging war against us, no matter where they hide.

What is the alternative to winning the war against al Qaeda?

quote:

Whether one agrees with him or not, he is apparently no light-weight and, as Wiki notes, "is a prominent international law scholar and human rights practitioner".

he is still a heaping, steaming pile of human excrement. he needs to get a real job like, say investigation of real executions and assassinations by UN soldiers in Africa. You know they guys who are supposed to be protecting the populace instead of raping them all.

quote:

The killing of civilians when targeting the bad guys should be a consideration because that is the moral thing to do and because killing innocents hurts our cause. But not killing the enemy because civilians “might” be killed is no way to fight a war.

I agree. But there was times that folks were screaming that Bush and the Israeli's were guilty of war crimes because the bad guys hid among the citizens. They were just as wrong then as this guy is now. They should be condemning those that use the citizens as shields instead of those who do not.

The UN needs to lose us as members and kicked off our land. We end up paying the most and suppling the most troupes and equipment while they do nothing but try to undermine us at every turn.

quote:

Originally posted by FlankerFlyer:

quote:

Whether one agrees with him or not, he is apparently no light-weight and, as Wiki notes, "is a prominent international law scholar and human rights practitioner".

he is still a heaping, steaming pile of human excrement. he needs to get a real job like, say investigation of real executions and assassinations by UN soldiers in Africa. You know they guys who are supposed to be protecting the populace instead of raping them all.

Concur. They also should look into scandals involving the UN leaders such as the Oil for Food fiasco, and bring them to justice too.