Will Pakistan finally stand up against US drone attacks?

AVERAGE INDIAN

EXORCIST
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
3,062
Likes
3,456
Country flag


The Peshawar high court has delivered a damning verdict on the strikes. Pakistan must now move towards protecting the security of its citizens

Thursday's landmark decision by the Pakistani high court in Peshawar is a remarkable document: Chief Justice Dost Muhammad Khan examines the US use of drones against Pakistan's tribal areas and reaches several conclusions that, while obvious to most sensible observers, seem to have eluded American authorities for several years.

The case was filed last year by Shahzad Akbar, of the Foundation for Fundamental Rights (FFR), a legal charity based in Islamabad. The case was brought by families of victims killed in a US drone strike on 17 March 2011. The strike – one of more than 300 Obama has launched at Pakistan – is infamous: more than 50 people were killed, including many community elders who had gathered to settle a local dispute over a chromite mine. For the locals it was the equivalent of a strike on the high court itself.

The chief justice's first finding is perhaps the most obvious: "[Drone strikes] are absolutely illegal and a blatant violation of sovereignty of the state of Pakistan." The strikes are, he says, international war crimes, given that there is no state of war between the US and its nominal ally, Pakistan.

It does not matter whether General Pervez Musharraf gave the CIA a wink and a nod when he was the country's dictator. "[T]here is nothing in writing to the effect," writes the chief justice. In any event, no government can legitimately authorise the murder of its own citizens – certainly not without a public announcement through the democratic process. Indeed, Musharraf is currently facing the music for a number of illegal acts he allegedly took while in office.

The American use of drones is, in the chief justice's legal opinion, wholly disproportionate under international law. He notes that 9/11 still provides the US administration's pretext for a "global war on terror", yet there has been "not a single "¦ terror incident "¦ anywhere in the USA" emanating from Pakistan in more than a decade since. How, then, can it be proportionate to kill more than 3,000 Pakistanis, including "infant babies, pre-teen and teenage children, women and others".

Rather than respond with force first and ask questions afterwards, the chief justice orders the Pakistan government to try to solve the dispute through the rule of law. The Pakistan government must make an immediate and genuine complaint to the UN. If the UN security council reaches the appropriate conclusion (which he feels legally it must, absent a US veto), or the general assembly adopts a resolution, and "the US authorities do not comply "¦ the government of Pakistan shall sever all ties with the USA and as a mark of protest shall deny all logistic and other facilities to the USA within Pakistan".

Then he makes another self-evident pronouncement: the Pakistan military's first obligation must be to preserve the security of its own citizens. The "security forces shall ensure that in future such drone strikes are not conducted and carried out within the sovereign territory of Pakistan". Again, rather than shoot first, the government shall administer a "proper warning"; if this does not work, the Pakistan air force must immediately shoot down the drones. Even though I am American myself, I find it hard to argue with this unhappy suggestion: after all, if the Pakistanis were terrorising Texas with Predator drones, I would expect Barack Obama to send the US air force into immediate action.

Ultimately, the US must bear full responsibility for its actions. "The government of Pakistan shall mak[e] a request to the UN secretary general to constitute an independent war crime tribunal, to direct the US authorities to immediately stop the drone strikes "¦ and to immediately arrange for the complete and full compensation for the victims' families."

This judicial decision is all about democracy and the rule of law. America has held itself out as a proponent of these ideals for more than 200 years. It is a shame that the CIA's supposedly secret drones campaign marks such a sharp departure from both, following on from earlier policy catastrophes such as Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

In contrast, Saturday's election marked the first time in its 66-year history that Pakistan has made the transition from one democratically elected government to another. The apparent victor, Nawaz Sharif's PLM-N party, has promised to stop US drone strikes in Pakistan. The court's decision will light a judicial fire under this vow.

:plane::plane:

Will Pakistan finally stand up against illegal US drone attacks? | Clive Stafford Smith | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,573
The chief justice's first finding is perhaps the most obvious: "[Drone strikes] are absolutely illegal and a blatant violation of sovereignty of the state of Pakistan." The strikes are, he says, international war crimes, given that there is no state of war between the US and its nominal ally, Pakistan.
Does the chief justice consider what agreement is in place between GoP and US regarding drone operations, that would make speaking of sovereignty and state of war (not to mention war crimes) irrelevant?

If Pakistan "tacitly agrees" to drone strikes, does this ruling mean anything?


Pakistan's government publicly condemns these attacks, but has secretly shared intelligence with the United States[7] and also allegedly allowed the drones to operate from Shamsi Airfield in Pakistan until 21 April 2011, when 150 Americans left the base.[8] According to secret diplomatic cables leaked by Wikileaks, Pakistan's Army Chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani not only tacitly agreed to the drone flights, but in 2008 requested Americans to increase them.[9] However, Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik said, "drone missiles cause collateral damage. A few militants are killed, but the majority of victims are innocent citizens."[10] The strikes are often linked to anti-American sentiment in Pakistan and the growing questionability of the scope and extent of CIA activities in Pakistan.
Drone attacks in Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Guardian is quite left-wing, I believe.)
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,987
Likes
23,528
Country flag
The choice for Pakistan is simple :

Drones or F-16 ?

They can choose between the two...
 

Waffen SS

New Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
492
Likes
344
If they resist then who will give money to Pakistan?Pakistan is not Iran.

More ever Pakistani F 16's are under constant observation by US.So if Pakistani scramble their F 16's then US would know it.
 

rock127

Maulana Rockullah
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
9,636
Likes
15,315
Country flag
Pakis finally stands up? They would be asked to shut up and sit down again :lol:

If Pakis do not cooperate then it would be bombed back to stone age.
 

sob

Mod
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
6,425
Likes
3,794
Country flag
They have the pact with the Devil (???) in this case and they have to live with it.

If you look at it every drone strike is rewarded by around US $ 10 Million plus odd change, so can they afford to stop the drones.

And if PAF develops the balls to go after the drones then what will be the reaction of the Americans, I am sure they will not send their Foreign Affairs minister and neither will they treat as a case of acne.
 

drkrn

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
2,455
Likes
901
Does the chief justice consider what agreement is in place between GoP and US regarding drone operations, that would make speaking of sovereignty and state of war (not to mention war crimes) irrelevant?

If Pakistan "tacitly agrees" to drone strikes, does this ruling mean anything?




Drone attacks in Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Guardian is quite left-wing, I believe.)
do you think that these kind of arguments stand in court of law:confused:
putting such agreement in front of court makes it clear that your actions are planned
if any of the two governments goes by the above statement not only ex pakistani PM but also barack obama will have to face immense criticism who knows may be a trial too
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,573
do you think that these kind of arguments stand in court of law:confused:
putting such agreement in front of court makes it clear that your actions are planned
if any of the two governments goes by the above statement not only ex pakistani PM but also barack obama will have to face immense criticism who knows may be a trial too

Will the GoP comply with the order of the Chief Justice?

...the chief justice orders the Pakistan government to try to solve the dispute through the rule of law. The Pakistan government must make an immediate and genuine complaint to the UN. If the UN security council reaches the appropriate conclusion (which he feels legally it must, absent a US veto), or the general assembly adopts a resolution, and "the US authorities do not comply "¦ the government of Pakistan shall sever all ties with the USA and as a mark of protest shall deny all logistic and other facilities to the USA within Pakistan".
 

parijataka

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
4,917
Likes
3,748
Country flag
actually its very good.to fight a guerrilla fight like a guerrilla
sir, you did not get my point - pakistan has a foot in both camps i.e. while it professes support for WoT, it supports Taliban and hid OBL right under Uncle Sam's nose.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,573
sir, you did not get my point - pakistan has a foot in both camps i.e. while it professes support for WoT, it supports Taliban and hid OBL right under Uncle Sam's nose.
Pakistan is cursed. And it sends its troops for UN peacekeeping elsewhere. That does not make sense.
 

ladder

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
5,564
Likes
4,952
Country flag
I think I just repeated the question in the subject of the thread.:notsure:
GoP can plead its inability to implement the order.

a unrelated but a kind of similar situation, where SC of Pakistan ordered the arrest of sitting PM.

He, was not arrested as law enforcement presented their inability to do so.
Finally some compromise was reached.

Rental power case: SC orders arrest of PM Ashraf – The Express Tribune

http://http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/not-enough-proof-to-arrest-raja-pervez-ashraf-pak-s-anti-graft-chief-318666

EDIT: link added
 
Last edited:

Dark Sorrow

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
1,883
Likes
738
Country flag
Even if they want they won't be able to stand up.
More ever till Washington pays Islamabad $$$ Islamabad won't even bother if drones bomb Karachi or Islamabad itself.
 

farhan_9909

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
5,895
Likes
496
even though i dont believe in the words of nawaz

but may be opposition leader imran khan force nawaz to do so.

but i suppose initially they should end diplomatic relations with usa and stop the supply line of nato.

than after few months start shooting the drones.

End of diplomatic relation will bring peace in pakistan since CIA wont be able to fund the pakistani taliban and the border with afghanistan would also be fenced.

we may see sanction and big talks from usa..since they are no more even in a position to attack maldives for the forseeable future.

but atleast we will have peace in pakistan and would also be out from the war we are fighting against our own people for USA
 

rock127

Maulana Rockullah
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
9,636
Likes
15,315
Country flag
even though i dont believe in the words of nawaz

but may be opposition leader imran khan force nawaz to do so.

but i suppose initially they should end diplomatic relations with usa and stop the supply line of nato.

than after few months start shooting the drones.

End of diplomatic relation will bring peace in pakistan since CIA wont be able to fund the pakistani taliban and the border with afghanistan would also be fenced.

we may see sanction and big talks from usa..since they are no more even in a position to attack maldives for the forseeable future.

but atleast we will have peace in pakistan and would also be out from the war we are fighting against our own people for USA
In the world of farhan ---> :flypig:

Perhaps farhan forgot what happened when his superior martial race never surrender Mushi refused to get into WOT.

Musharraf : US 'threatened to bomb' Pakistan back into stone age

 

farhan_9909

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
5,895
Likes
496
In the world of farhan ---> :flypig:

Perhaps farhan forgot what happened when his superior martial race never surrender Mushi refused to get into WOT.

Musharraf : US 'threatened to bomb' Pakistan back into stone age

i dont know how much true this statement is.

but we should have not accepted this at any cost

now we are fighting against our own people for usa..
enemy within family is more dangerous than a outsider..we should had waged war with usa but not our own people

now what happens..usa accuse us for playing a double game..usa is our enemy and our own people are our enemy.

this is high time we end all kind of relation with usa which indirectly will bring peace into pakistan.

until and unless we have relation with terrorist factory producing machine CIA or in return usa..we will never have peace in pakistan.

i dont know when our leader will get this into there mind that usa is the biggest enemy of pakistan not taliban
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top