« | »

UN ‘Investigator’: US Can’t Use Drones

From a cheering Associated Press:

UN investigator warns US on use of drones

By Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press Writer Tue Oct 27

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."

"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." …

Alston, a law professor at New York University, said that while there may be circumstances where the use of drones "to carry out targeted executions" is consistent with international law, this can only be determined in light of information on the legal basis for selecting certain individuals.

"What we need then is the U.S. to be more up front and say ‘OK, we’re prepared to discuss some aspects of this program,’" he said.

Alston said the U.S. should provide details on use of drones, disclose what precautions it takes to ensure the unmanned aircraft are used strictly for purposes consistent with international humanitarian law, and what measures exist to evaluate what happened when their weapons have been used.

"Otherwise, you have the really problematic bottom line — which is that the Central Intelligence Agency is running a program which is killing significant numbers of people, and there is absolutely no accountability in terms of the relevant international laws," he said.

Well, there goes that option.

And from what we have heard, an increased use of drones is central to what Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden and Mr. Kerry now want to do in Afghanistan.

But if the United Nations says ‘no,’ then no it is.

And who cares how many American soldiers have to die?

The UN must be obeyed.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, October 28th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

26 Responses to “UN ‘Investigator’: US Can’t Use Drones”

  1. GL0120 says:

    I vote to use the drones on the U.N.; all in favor, say “Aye!”

  2. proreason says:

    Are we allowed to use guns?

    Are sticks ok?

    We wouldn’t want to have an unfair advantage over people who strap bombs to mentally retarded children, set up their weapon systems in schools, and live to chop our heads off.

    Advanced weapons are just too “uncivilized”

  3. Tater Salad says:

    If I was the President I would use the drones to target the U.N. building in New York and anywhere else these socialist morons are “holed” up. What a bunch of loons.

  4. Tater Salad says:

    Well, lets see if the whimpy Obama administration will cave in to these socialist loons.

  5. GL0120 says:

    We’ll need U.N. permission before sending drones after someone; anyone care to bet on the likelihood of the individual being there if / when the drones arrive?
    Not that he’d be forewarned or anything like that.

  6. Right of the People says:

    “it will increasingly be perceived as carrying out indiscriminate killings in violation of international law.”

    Who says they’re indiscriminate? From what I can see, there’s a whole load of two legged animals in that country that could use some killing.

  7. beautyofreason says:

    “”it will increasingly be perceived as carrying out indiscriminate killings in violation of international law.”

    And perception is everything. We must play nice with everyone while fighting a war. And we must not actually kill any enemies, especially not with drones which are not harmful to our own troops.

    The U.N. might as well declare that the U.S. must never go to war with other countries unless it is intent to lose through a weakened, politically correct process.

    War is hell.

    I wonder if the UN told the Islamists to stop beheading journalists on camera.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Here again we, that is THEY, suffer from a basic misunderstanding of war, battle, combat, attack, offensive and objective.

      These are all things taught and re-taught at War College that senior officers attend in their military careers.

      The most egregious and glaring error is that once again, liberals are of the mind that one can fight a “clean” war. That only those who should be targeted will be harmed. And, given today’s technology, that is almost possible. Oddly, drones allow us to do much of that very thing. All from a chair 10,000 miles away where the most hazardous thing the pilot faces is spilling their coffee.

      This is the stuff of science fiction.

      However, the liberals think that by simply uttering the decree that “only the enemy is to be the target” well, again, they do not understand “enemy” or “target”.

      Enemy is any SOB…entity, thing, object that has me in its sights and wants to kill me. Target is me doing the same thing to the enemy.

      Yes, it’s blindingly simple. Like Patton said, “Your job—-is not to die for your country—–. Your job——is to get the OTHER son-of-a-bitch to die for THEIR country”.

      But liberals hate such parochial, straightforward concepts, especially when stated in colorful metaphors or language. In the days when the American Indian tribes were everywhere, a male who would not be a warrior would be called a woman and most likely killed as they were a liability to the group.

      Not that I think liberals should be killed. Instead, they need to never get themselves involved in that business we call the military. When they do, it always turns out badly for the good guys. To them the great challenge is to get the bad guys to come to the table, smoke some pot, listen to some Deep Purple albums and say “far out”.

      They can never entertain the notion that even all the negotiating and chatting in the world will not stop a certain number of them from wanting them dead, preferably in a violent manner, to please….(ugh) allah. Being non-religious, I can see it for the crap it really is. Dogma, idealism, brainwashing, bribery, trickery, etc etc etc.

      But I don’t want to convert them. They are the enemy and I have to kill them before they kill me, or mine. When I kill enough of them, “conversion” becomes academic. A simple, basic, overwhelmingly obvious rule of survival. I have mine….you get your own…but don’t touch mine or I will hurt you. That philosophy is tens of thousands of years old. And pretty well tested.

      In fact, so well, that our very nation allows those who disagree with that premise to flourish and prosper. Isn’t irony ironic?

      One need only imagine what it would be like..and many of us here have, to think if all the conservatives simply left. Went to a new place where they had fortresses, arms, a strong military and used the natural resources to their advantage. Wouldn’t be too long before the hungry, cold, needy liberals showed up at the gate and begged to come in. Would it?

      “Please, protect me”

      “Please, feed me”

      “Please, I’m cold”

      “please, please, please”.

      But here in this nation…we do. We feed the hungry, we clothe the naked, we try our best to house the homeless and so forth through literally thousands of charity foundations that depend on donated money. But every time the government “lends a hand” it goes bust.

      I think, at least for a time, we need to say, “screw islam. If that makes you mad, there’s the door. We’re not saying not to practice your religion but the very moment it interferes with our laws here…on this piece of real estate, buh-bye; You’re no longer welcome here”.

      And to hell with liberals. Giving other people’s money to the poor only makes the givers feel good…and only for a short time. The old, “give a man a fish/teach a man to fish” argument.

      All of us here KNOW what the answer is…and it frustrates us to see it all go haywire. However, if any good can come of it, we will, for years, have a stellar example(s) of what happens when liberalism runs amok and gets its way every time.

      Sorry for the long report…but I have to vent here,….or my head would explode. And nobody wants that.

  8. TwilightZoned says:

    Just food for thought…what if Barry told the UN to say no drones?

    I put nothing past this administration.

  9. GetBackJack says:

    Please, let’s carpet bomb the United Nations until it is a smoking crater the size of Yellowstone and find every office of the UN in the world and reduce them to rubble. Then hunt down their supporters and ideologues … etc etc.

    All in a tale of fiction, of course. No rational Constitution-defending American citizen would dream of using violence against the enemies of our Nation.


  10. Confucius says:

    How about this?

    Strap Mr. Alston to a drone and staple an olive branch to his forehead.

    There. It’s no longer an “unmanned warplane.”

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Wonderful idea!!
      But instead of an olive branch we strap a claymore mine to his forehead. That would make him a ‘Dumb Bomb’!

    • Confucius says:

      To be fair, we don’t know Mr. Alston’s IQ. The claymore mine might make him a “Smart Bomb.” (Are those still allowed?)

  11. Chuckk says:

    Use the drones to target UN “Investigators.”

  12. Chuckk says:

    Use the drones to target UN “Investigators” in Pakistan.

  13. wirenut says:

    AYE !
    International law? Sorry, wrong number. Please hang up and try your number again. The American public is busy right now. Please deposit two trillion dollars or the UN will be disconnected……..Hello? Hello! Hello?…..
    It’s like nobodies there ! Hhuuuumnn, Hello?

  14. canary says:

    There is hope. Obama can’t stand for anyone to tell him what to or not to do, as he suffers ODD Opposite Defiant Disorder. Both one of my neighbors son were born with it, and so she never punishes them. They can’t help it. Bleep the UN

  15. wirenut says:

    Canary, the laws have never changed. It’s not how you ride, but what can you bring to the corral……. For the slaughter.

  16. BillK says:

    It’s never been more clear as to why the UN went unscathed on 9/11…

    “That would remove the great majority of issues that come before these bodies right now,” Alston said

    There is the truth; were it not for this, “these bodies” would have nothing to do, so of course they need to find something to complain about.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »