You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Fifth Column
Legal trouble for US over drones
2011-05-11
[Arab News] A human rights
...which often intentionally defined so widely as to be meaningless...
 group says it is searching for ways to use the British and American legal system to pursue those behind the drone strikes in Pakistain's tribal belt.

Reprieve Director Clive Stafford-Smith, a London-based lawyer who has fought for Guantanamo detainees, says there are «endless ways in which the courts in Perfidious Albion, the courts in America, the international courts and Pak courts can get involved" in legal bids to block the drone strikes.

Stafford-Smith gave few details of his proposed legal campaign Monday, but Reprieve has seen past success in defending those caught up in the US campaign against international terrorism.

The legal advocacy group has represented several Guantanamo Bay detainees, including UK resident Binyam Mohamed.
Posted by:Fred

#6  Wouldn't the drone strikes fall under right of reprisal for cross border attacks in A-stan?

That's a really good question, Lowspark. I never heard of such a right, but I've lived a sheltered life, so my not knowing is not meaningful.
Posted by: trailing wife   2011-05-11 23:27  

#5  Wouldn't the drone strikes fall under right of reprisal for cross border attacks in A-stan?
Posted by: Lowspark   2011-05-11 14:49  

#4  From the link in #3:
the court of public opinion has already been be ceded by default to Reprieve and other fascist advocacy groups that can and will develop and execute sustained PR strategies focused on forcing totalitarian rule on the electorate by entrenching contrary legal perspectives.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2011-05-11 12:57  

#3  Good take on what this is really all about.
Posted by: tu3031   2011-05-11 10:09  

#2  S.J.RES.23 -- Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)

--S.J.Res.23--

S.J.Res.23

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2011-05-11 07:55  

#1  This may sound counterintuitive, but I wish Stafford-Smith much luck with his initiative, it has been long in coming. I have always believed a Congressionally approved, formal Declaration of War, limited, time-lined or otherwise, should have preceeded such events. Cross-border Predator missions flying hither and yawn whacking people via kinetic strikes should not be the focus of the Central Intelligence Agency. To be perfectly blunt, I fear a quasi-military, organization with this type of unfettered authority, classified budget line and perhaps so should everyone else. We celebrate our "civilian control of the military." Where lies the "control" of 'these' people?

Yesterday the Agency announced it would permit members of the US Congress to review detailed imagery from the recent Abbottabot raid, but they (members of Congress) would have to contact the Agency and set up appointments. How considerate of them, and generous of their time and resources.

Posted by: Besoeker   2011-05-11 02:31  

00:00