• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

UN says: UAV strikes may break int'l law

International law. What a joke.

I guess that we have to worry about the International Police Force coming onto base and arresting our UAV pilots. Then they can have a trial at the International Court, and go to International jail.

Oh, wait, that's never going to happen. Diplomats have to whine about something. It's what they exist for.
 
Bevo said:
International law. What a joke.

I guess that we have to worry about the International Police Force coming onto base and arresting our UAV pilots. Then they can have a trial at the International Court, and go to International jail.

Oh, wait, that's never going to happen. Diplomats have to whine about something. It's what they exist for.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, at some point in the future this U.N. (and many nations') attitude will result in some U.S. military personnel being arrested when they are overseas, subsequent to having been involved in this type of "illegal" activity.
 
Jane Mayer has a good article on this in the 26 Oct New Yorker. It's subscription only and I'm iPhone only so I'll be brief. The concern with these drone attacks is that they're conducted by the CIA with little oversight, and the scope of these killings has been broadening. No doubt we're comfortable launching a missile to kill bin Laden, even if a few others are killed. But are we comfortable with the 16 missile strikes and 200-300 people that were killed in our hunt for Baitullah Mehsud before we finally got him? What of the 50 drug lords suspected of financing the Taliban that were added to the pentagon's list of approved targets? Are we going to target Karzai's brother too?

Don't look at it from a technical standpoint of UAV's replacing piloted aircraft. They're a substitute for CIA assassinations, and were conducting them to an unprecedented degree.
 
The UN is a rediculous organization with no real power. When they decide to sanction someone whose forces do they turn to? When pirates become a problem, who gets sent in? When a country needs a smack down and the UN finally after 10 years decides to approve something, who goes in and does their work? Yet who is always blamed for every problem they can conceive of??
 
mmx1 said:
Jane Mayer has a good article on this in the 26 Oct New Yorker. It's subscription only and I'm iPhone only so I'll be brief. The concern with these drone attacks is that they're conducted by the CIA with little oversight, and the scope of these killings has been broadening. No doubt we're comfortable launching a missile to kill bin Laden, even if a few others are killed. But are we comfortable with the 16 missile strikes and 200-300 people that were killed in our hunt for Baitullah Mehsud before we finally got him? What of the 50 drug lords suspected of financing the Taliban that were added to the pentagon's list of approved targets? Are we going to target Karzai's brother too?

Don't look at it from a technical standpoint of UAV's replacing piloted aircraft. They're a substitute for CIA assassinations, and were conducting them to an unprecedented degree.
Click to expand...

Of course we're not comfortable with that, because those 200-300 people were all innocent civilians.
 
mmx1 said:
But are we comfortable with the 16 missile strikes and 200-300 people that were killed in our hunt for Baitullah Mehsud before we finally got him? What of the 50 drug lords suspected of financing the Taliban that were added to the pentagon's list of approved targets?
Click to expand...

Yes. Next question.
 
lowflier03 said:
The UN is a rediculous organization with no real power. When they decide to sanction someone whose forces do they turn to? When pirates become a problem, who gets sent in? When a country needs a smack down and the UN finally after 10 years decides to approve something, who goes in and does their work? Yet who is always blamed for every problem they can conceive of??
Click to expand...

I understand everyone's frustration with the UN, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The UN performs all kinds of useful (and surprisingly effective) campaigns for a host of issues ranging from world health issues, development, education, human rights, international standards (ICAO is a UN-run body), etc. So while the UNSC may be rather impotent and indecisive, the organization as a whole serves a pretty important role.

Brett
 
Brett327 said:
I understand everyone's frustration with the UN, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The UN performs all kinds of useful (and surprisingly effective) campaigns for a host of issues ranging from world health issues, development, education, human rights, international standards (ICAO is a UN-run body), etc. So while the UNSC may be rather impotent and indecisive, the organization as a whole serves a pretty important role.

Brett
Click to expand...
That begs another question: how do you separate the baby from the bath water? How do you stop the blatant corruption and criminal acts (such as rape) committed by the UN or under its purview?
 
Brett327 said:
I understand everyone's frustration with the UN, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The UN performs all kinds of useful (and surprisingly effective) campaigns for a host of issues ranging from world health issues, development, education, human rights, international standards (ICAO is a UN-run body), etc. So while the UNSC may be rather impotent and indecisive, the organization as a whole serves a pretty important role.

Brett
Click to expand...

It performs an important role as long as everyone agrees. I'll certainly agree that some of its agencies do good work, but that work only gets done because health, standardization, and regulation are in the member states' interest. Who's going to argue that clean water or published aircraft instrument approaches are bad? But when it comes to human rights, international security and law, etc, they accomplish little more than hand-wringing and provide a venue for small states to rail about how evil the major powers are and why they should have all their debt forgiven.

I believe it's inherently impossible to get states to set aside self-interest in favor of whatever an unelected, unaccountable international body decides is important. Nor do I think that's necessarily a bad thing. We haven't signed on to the ICC for precisely this reason - because there's no way in hell we should subject our soldiers (including drone pilots) to the political whims of whoever's chairing a UN committee.

The Geneva Conventions does not require, and never has, that no civilians be put at risk. Neither does it say that collateral damage is a war crime. Deliberate targeting of non-combatants is a different thing altogether.
 
First off, the UN hasn't said that the strikes violate 'International law', just a UN official. A fine distinction but an important one. In reality, it will likely go nowhere, even in the UN.

mmx1 said:
Jane Mayer has a good article on this in the 26 Oct New Yorker. It's subscription only and I'm iPhone only so I'll be brief. The concern with these drone attacks is that they're conducted by the CIA with little oversight, and the scope of these killings has been broadening. No doubt we're comfortable launching a missile to kill bin Laden, even if a few others are killed. But are we comfortable with the 16 missile strikes and 200-300 people that were killed in our hunt for Baitullah Mehsud before we finally got him? What of the 50 drug lords suspected of financing the Taliban that were added to the pentagon's list of approved targets? Are we going to target Karzai's brother too?

Don't look at it from a technical standpoint of UAV's replacing piloted aircraft. They're a substitute for CIA assassinations, and were conducting them to an unprecedented degree.
Click to expand...

From what little you say I think the author of the article is almost certainly very limited on what she knows about the strikes and who is targeted, along with who gets killed in them. Very few people really have the full picture of that effort, to assume that it lacks oversight as well as making assumptions on the targeting and employment parts of the picture is incredibly naive, arrogant or both. I think that too many of the people who criticize the effort and other CIA efforts/operations today still cling to the Church Committee and Hollywood versions of how the CIA does business.

I think a more pertinent historical analogy would be Laos during the Vietnam War, where the enemy uses an international border to facilitate it's operations and as a safe haven. Make no mistake, these guys getting killed are legitimate military targets, killed during ops that are not conducted by the US military due to a myriad of concerns but military targets none the less. Calling them assassinations is a stretch, even for human rights types. The 'collateral damage' piece is sticky but from what little you talked about the article I would say the author is way overstating them. Otherwise there would be much more outcry over them, which has been surprisingly muted for that region of the world. Simply put, it has been very impressive and effective effort.
 
My father in law (the retired UN cultural attache) handed me that New Yorker article yesterday. It's a decent article, but like most NY-er articles, it comes off as "we don't like this, here's why" without offering any alternative suggestions. (I have it scanned and can post it if there's interest. I think it could be covered under fair use that way.)

more_accurate.png


(Tooltip Text: "We live in a world where there are actual fleets of robot assassins patrolling the skies. At some point there, we left the present and entered the future.")
 
Screw the UN...It's a war and we're killing the bad guys. Like it or not, the UN can shove it. They've been about as helpful as a one legged man in a butt kicking contest when it comes to Iran and don't seem to hip on anything that would require them to do more than sanction someone or frown in their general direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top