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
India-Pakistan
UN Official Says Pakistan Demands Immediate End To U.S. Drone Strikes On Its Territory
2013-03-16
[TALKRADIONEWS] The Government of Pakistan never approved U.S. drone strikes in the country and all strikes must cease immediately, senior Pakistani officials told a UN expert earlier this week, denying reports it secretly sanctioned American military operations within its borders.
Everybody yaps about international law like it's some vague thingy that can be anything they want.

Article 57, Hague Convention of 1899

A neutral State which receives in its territory troops belonging to the belligerent armies shall intern them, as far as possible, at a distance from the theatre of war.

It can keep them in camps, and even confine them in fortresses or locations assigned for this purpose.

It shall decide whether officers may be left at liberty on giving their parole that they will not leave the neutral territory without authorization.

"The position of the Government of Pakistan is quite clear. It does not consent to the use of drones by the United States on its territory and it considers this to be a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity." UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism Ben Emmerson said in a statement Friday after a three day trip to Islamabad.
Article 59

A neutral State may authorize the passage through its territory of wounded or sick belonging to the belligerent armies, on condition that the trains bringing them shall carry neither combatants nor war material. In such a case, the neutral State is bound to adopt such measures of safety and control as may be necessary for the purpose.

Wounded and sick brought under these conditions into neutral territory by one of the belligerents, and belonging to the hostile party, must be guarded by the neutral State, so as to insure their not taking part again in the military operations. The same duty shall devolve on the neutral State with regard to wounded or sick of the other army who may be committed to its care.

"As a matter of international law the US drone campaign in Pakistan is therefore being conducted without the consent of the elected representatives of the people, or the legitimate Government of the State. It involves the use of force on the territory of another State without its consent and is therefore a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty." he said.
Presence of troops (definition available if desired) on Pakistain's supposedly allied but politely regarded neutral soil carrying out military operations against U.S. and NATO troops constitutes a legitimate casus belli. We should be drone-zapping downtown Islamabad.
Posted by:Fred

#3  Everybody yaps about international law like it's some vague thingy that can be anything they want.

That's usually what it turns out to be - opinion with a false flag of pseudo-legitimacy. Just another Newspeak term which has lost its original meaning and now simply employed to exert power for which consent doesn't exist except in the mind of the speaker.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2013-03-16 11:09  

#2  Arclight Quetta!


Drink up!
Posted by: Frank G   2013-03-16 10:34  

#1  Preach it FredMan!
Posted by: Shipman   2013-03-16 03:52  

00:00