10 killed in U.S. drone attacks in northern Pakistan

[News_Editor]

10 killed in U.S. drone attacks in northern Pakistan

2011-05-17 02:00:33 GMT+7 (ICT)

MIRANSHAH, PAKISTAN (BNO NEWS) -- U.S. drone strikes on Monday killed 10 suspected militants in a compound in Pakistan's North Waziristan, Ary news televison reported.

The twin strikes took place in Mir Ali town, approximately 40 kilometers (25 miles) east of Miranshan, the main town in the tribal North Waziristan district near the Afghan border.

Two missiles were fired targeting a vehicle and a militant compound within minutes. Monday's strikes were the fifth and sixth since the May 2 special operation in Abbottabad in which al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed.

Monday's drone strikes came as U.S. Senator John Kerry met with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani in Islamabad. This was the first visit by a senior U.S. official since the Abbotabad secret operation.

Kerry, joined by U.S. Ambassador to Islamabad Cameron Munter, discussed with the Pakistani government the state of the Pakistan-U.S. bilateral relationship following the May 2 operation.

The two sides agreed to recognize and respect each others national interests, particularly in regards to counter terrorism and in working together for promoting reconciliation and peace in Afghanistan.

"It is important to push the 'reset button' in the U.S.-Pakistan relations and use this opportunity to put the relations back on track and work together to develop an effective cooperation to combat terrorism, which is in both countries' best interests," said Senator Kerry.

The Pakistani leadership told Kerry that even though Bin Laden was an enemy of the state, they condemned the lack of trust in regards to the secret operation. They called for working together in any future actions against high value targets in Pakistan.

Pakistan's Afghan border, which the United States considers to be the most dangerous place on Earth, is known to be a stronghold of the Taliban's Haqqani Network, considered one of the top terrorist organizations and threats to U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-05-17

[flying]

These reports of suspected militants killed always fail to provide the numbers of others that are killed as a result of the very same drones.

You never...not once....hear how many bystanders were killed. Yet these attacks are most often described in or near towns. These drones now have pinpoint accuracy? They are firing missiles not bullets.

They're attacks out of desperation....not defending anything...Enough

http://www.expresspakistan.net/2011/05/13/victims-of-drone-attacks/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110422/wl_afp/pakistanunrestusmissile_20110422064434

Edited May 16, 2011 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

I do not think that these drone attacks have anything to do with "desperation". They are going to scare the pants off of terrorist leaders who can never rest without being afraid that they are going to meet Allah at any moment. My guess is that they might seriously curtail this problem in the long-run.

Civilian casualties are a whole different matter, but the truth is that non-combatants have always been killed in warfare and mankind does not seem any less inclined to settle differences with war than they ever have.

War is hell. That is for sure.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[flying]

I do not think that these drone attacks have anything to do with "desperation". They are going to scare the pants off of terrorist leaders who can never rest without being afraid that they are going to meet Allah at any moment. My guess is that they might seriously curtail this problem in the long-run.

Civilian casualties are a whole different matter, but the truth is that non-combatants have always been killed in warfare and mankind does not seem any less inclined to settle differences with war than they ever have.

War is hell. That is for sure.

Are we at war? Declared? With Pakistan or its civilians? Collateral damages are only allowed by International Law if it is incidental.

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[7] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(iv). Article 8(2)(iv) criminalizes:

Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

Article 8(2)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:

a- the anticipated civilian damage or injury;

b- the anticipated military advantage;

c- and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to .

– Luis Moreno-Ocampo

(who has been the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) since June 16, 2003.)

Edited May 17, 2011 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

This is the administration's reasoning on drone strikes:

The United States was in "an armed conflict" with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and its affiliates as a result of the September 11 attacks, Koh said, "and may use force consistent with its inherent right to self-defence under international law."

"With respect to the subject of targeting, which has been much commented upon in the media and international legal circles, there are obviously limits to what I can say publicly," he told a conference of the American Society of International Law.

"What I can say is that it is the considered view of this administration -- and it has certainly been my experience during my time as legal adviser -- that US targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war.

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=131893

[flying]

This is the administration's reasoning on drone strikes:

The United States was in "an armed conflict" with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and its affiliates as a result of the September 11 attacks, Koh said, "and may use force consistent with its inherent right to self-defence under international law."

Exactly my point & opinion.....It is this so called self defense that is being exceeded needlessly

There is nothing advantageous to the defense of the USA to targeting 4-10 *suspected* militants & as a byproduct killing as many or more civilians that pose no threat what so ever to the defense of the USA.

If defense of the USA is truly the goal...then go home to it & protect/defend it.

Do not bankrupt it through needless so called pre-emptive invasions & further waste of life & $$$ on both sides.

I believe there are few thinking Americans that actually believe any of this is making the US safer. More likely an object of hatred & future opportunistic revenge.

For every innocent killed there are probably two new terrorist born

Edited May 17, 2011 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

I believe there are few thinking Americans that actually believe any of this is making the US safer.

That is your opinion, but my opinion is that your opinion is incorrect.

[slapout]

If I remember correctly on 9/11, most of the Americans were on home soil at the time, doing what many say, they do best, consume and spend. If reports of various countries around the world are accurate, many counties are a safer place, due to some preemptive actions.

Recently acquired info will probably bring more action against individuals who may have been brought to the attention of those with the capability to act, by their association with some not so nice people.

If the assertions that 2 terrorists are born for every innocent killed were even half true, the former Allied and Axis countries would be over run with 68 year and older terrorists.

[Steely Dan]

Time to pull the plug on aid to Pakistan my oppinion.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43543

The fantasy-based policy making that has counted Pakistan as a U.S. ally for so many years has been thoroughly discredited. Yet no one in Washington is making any move to change our failed approach to affairs with this rogue state.

[Wallaby]

If the US is indeed now at war then perhaps those that are held at Gitmo and other secret locations around the world should be treated within the bounds of the Geneva Convention.

Quite duplicitous for the US to say they are not prisoners of war but enemy combatants on the one hand but when it suits them they then say it actually is a war.

[Steely Dan]

If the US is indeed now at war then perhaps those that are held at Gitmo and other secret locations around the world should be treated within the bounds of the Geneva Convention.

Quite duplicitous for the US to say they are not prisoners of war but enemy combatants on the one hand but when it suits them they then say it actually is a war.

Whilst Gitmo may not be a shining beacon of democracy I do find your moral equivalence arguments baffling. Pakistan is a barbaric backwards failed state responsible not only for receiving aid with one hand but harbouring terrorists with the other. You can't employ Queensbury rules when dealing with such entities and whilst western democracies may be far from perfect they are still streets ahead of third world theocracies, the U.S only gets a bad rap being in the unenviable position of being world policeman.

[luckizuchinni]

These reports of suspected militants killed always fail to provide the numbers of others that are killed as a result of the very same drones.

You never...not once....hear how many bystanders were killed. Yet these attacks are most often described in or near towns. These drones now have pinpoint accuracy? They are firing missiles not bullets.

They're attacks out of desperation....not defending anything...Enough

http://www.expresspa...-drone-attacks/

http://news.yahoo.co..._20110422064434

I guess you never read the news reports then, which regularly report bystanders killed.

[Wallaby]

If the US is indeed now at war then perhaps those that are held at Gitmo and other secret locations around the world should be treated within the bounds of the Geneva Convention.

Quite duplicitous for the US to say they are not prisoners of war but enemy combatants on the one hand but when it suits them they then say it actually is a war.

Whilst Gitmo may not be a shining beacon of democracy I do find your moral equivalence arguments baffling. Pakistan is a barbaric backwards failed state responsible not only for receiving aid with one hand but harbouring terrorists with the other. You can't employ Queensbury rules when dealing with such entities and whilst western democracies may be far from perfect they are still streets ahead of third world theocracies, the U.S only gets a bad rap being in the unenviable position of being world policeman.

I have no idea why you find it baffling that the US doesn't practice what it preaches.

Stating the US is better than Pakistan is not exactly a glowing reference or inspiring.

It is simply double standards. If it is a war then treat those captured as prisoners of war. If it is not a war then the US should stop claiming they can do what they do because it is legal at times of war. It is one or the other and should not be changed on a whim.

If the US doesn't employ the queensbury rules then it can hardly complain when others don't.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Wallaby

[chuckd]

If the US is indeed now at war then perhaps those that are held at Gitmo and other secret locations around the world should be treated within the bounds of the Geneva Convention.

Quite duplicitous for the US to say they are not prisoners of war but enemy combatants on the one hand but when it suits them they then say it actually is a war.

Whilst Gitmo may not be a shining beacon of democracy I do find your moral equivalence arguments baffling. Pakistan is a barbaric backwards failed state responsible not only for receiving aid with one hand but harbouring terrorists with the other. You can't employ Queensbury rules when dealing with such entities and whilst western democracies may be far from perfect they are still streets ahead of third world theocracies, the U.S only gets a bad rap being in the unenviable position of being world policeman.

I have no idea why you find it baffling that the US doesn't practice what it preaches.

Stating the US is better than Pakistan is not exactly a glowing reference or inspiring.

It is simply double standards. If it is a war then treat those captured as prisoners of war. If it is not a war then the US should stop claiming they can do what they do because it is legal at times of war. It is one or the other and should not be changed on a whim.

If the US doesn't employ the queensbury rules then it can hardly complain when others don't.

Please let us all know when the Taliban signs on as a signatory to the Geneva Convention and begins wearing distinctive uniforms.

[Wallaby]

Please let us all know when the Taliban signs on as a signatory to the Geneva Convention and begins wearing distinctive uniforms.

So one poster compares the US to Pakistan and you compare the US to the Taliban. Again, doesn't really inspire.

If the US says it is at war then it is obligated to treat the prisoners as such. Either they are at war or they aren't, can't have it both ways.

The US holds itself out as a beacon for all that is right and good. Their actions don't show it.

[Ulysses G.]

If the US says it is at war then it is obligated to treat the prisoners as such. Either they are at war or they aren't, can't have it both ways.

Not true. According to the Geneva Convention, if combatants are not wearing uniforms, they can be shot as spies.

[Steely Dan]

Please let us all know when the Taliban signs on as a signatory to the Geneva Convention and begins wearing distinctive uniforms.

So one poster compares the US to Pakistan and you compare the US to the Taliban. Again, doesn't really inspire.

If the US says it is at war then it is obligated to treat the prisoners as such. Either they are at war or they aren't, can't have it both ways.

The US holds itself out as a beacon for all that is right and good. Their actions don't show it.

Without wishing to be deliberately provocative I think you are searching for a level of consistency which is unrealistic and are so doing so to bash one of your favourite bete noires. Put it this way the behaviour of white Australians towards the indigenous aborigines has sometimes left a lot to be desired. At least the U.S settlers gave some perks to the native indians by allowing casinos on their land, which is more than the Australian white settlers have done for their indigenous minority.

I'm not having a go at Australia here by the way just pointing out that you may not like the same high standard of behaviour shone in your own direction.

Meanwhile Christians are murdered or intimidated in Pakistan from it's blasphemy laws. Women have no rights whatsoever. Moderate Muslim voices are silenced by fanatical murderers whilst the govermnent holds it's hand out for U.S aid to fight 'extremism'. Perhaps you should road test your moral equivalence arguments by going to live in Pakistan, or failing that at least be as ready or more ready to condemn the far more serious human rights abuses that go on there.

[Wallaby]

If the US says it is at war then it is obligated to treat the prisoners as such. Either they are at war or they aren't, can't have it both ways.

Not true. According to the Geneva Convention, if combatants are not wearing uniforms, they can be shot as spies.

The ones being held have not been shot as spies have they? You are applying the geneva convention when the US says it doesn't have to. What the US can and cannot do is one thing. What they ARE doing is another.

So, if the US says it is a war then they are prisoners of war and should be treated as such.

Just because one country isn't a signatory to the geneva convention doesn't absolve the US from its obligations as a signatory.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Wallaby

[Ulysses G.]

So, if the US says it is a war then they are prisoners of war and should be treated as such.

If they are not wearing uniforms, they are not prisoners of war. They are a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Convention. They are unlawful combatants.

[Wallaby]

So, if the US says it is a war then they are prisoners of war and should be treated as such.

If they are not wearing uniforms, they are not prisoners of war. They are a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Convention. They are unlawful combatants.

Spies cannot just be shot, they must receive a trial first.

Unlawful combatants should also be treated humanely. The US cannot complain how other countries treat US prisoners when they themselves do as they see fit.

Taken from the link below.....'In doing so, the administration has drawn a distinction between lawful combatants, who are protected by the Geneva Conventions, and unlawful combatants, who are not protected but who should be treated humanely and receive care in the form of privileges—not rights—consistent with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions.

http://www.cfr.org/international-law/findings-report-enemy-combatants-geneva-conventions/p5842

[Ulysses G.]

Read some more:

The authority to determine enemy combatant status, including of U.S. citizens, ultimately falls within the president’s constitutional responsibility as Commander in Chief. In the vast majority of cases, determinations of enemy combatant status and decisions to detain are made at the tactical level. The administration has determined that the detainees of the war on terrorism are unlawful combatants and do not qualify for the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. However, the United States has treated and will continue to treat detainees in accordance with the principles of the Geneva Conventions. It is the position of the U.S. government that providing the right to counsel for enemy combatants compromises the government’s ability to gather information and prevent future terrorist attacks. While non-U.S. citizens detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have no right to habeas corpus relief, U.S. citizen enemy combatants detained in the United States may petition for habeas corpus.

The Constitution and the Third Geneva Convention permit the government to detain enemy combatants for the duration of a conflict. In the administration’s view, questions concerning the length of detention for enemy combatants of the current conflict are premature for two reasons. First, the conflict is not over. Second, the administration does not desire to keep detainees longer than necessary.

[Wallaby]

Yes I read it. unlawful combatants, who are not protected but who should be treated humanely and receive care in the form of privileges—not rights—consistent with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions.

As you have pointed out, the US has decided not to comply with that.

I didn't argue against holding the prisoners for the duration. I am arguing about their treatment whilst being held.

In any event, I didn't think the US was at war with Pakistan. Though wikileaks did provide the cables that showed that Pakistan will jump up and down about the attacks in public but tacitly approve it.

Perhaps they are like the Thais and saving face.

[Ulysses G.]

I didn't argue against holding the prisoners for the duration. I am arguing about their treatment whilst being held.

What "treatment" are you refering to and what does any of this red herring fallacy have to do with drone attacks?

Edited May 18, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[flying]

These reports of suspected militants killed always fail to provide the numbers of others that are killed as a result of the very same drones.

You never...not once....hear how many bystanders were killed. Yet these attacks are most often described in or near towns. These drones now have pinpoint accuracy? They are firing missiles not bullets.

They're attacks out of desperation....not defending anything...Enough

http://www.expresspa...-drone-attacks/

http://news.yahoo.co..._20110422064434

I guess you never read the news reports then, which regularly report bystanders killed.

Your being redundant....... Of course I read the reports which is why I know the facts & I posted the complaint.

The complaint is as stated.......

These reports of suspected militants killed always fail to provide the numbers....

These reports here on TV are always the same ......

XX suspected terrorist killed by drone attack at xxxx location in Pakistan

Edited May 18, 2011 by flying

[luckizuchinni]

These reports of suspected militants killed always fail to provide the numbers of others that are killed as a result of the very same drones.

You never...not once....hear how many bystanders were killed. Yet these attacks are most often described in or near towns. These drones now have pinpoint accuracy? They are firing missiles not bullets.

They're attacks out of desperation....not defending anything...Enough

http://www.expresspa...-drone-attacks/

http://news.yahoo.co..._20110422064434

I guess you never read the news reports then, which regularly report bystanders killed.

Your being redundant....... Of course I read the reports which is why I know the facts & I posted the complaint.

The complaint is as stated.......

These reports of suspected militants killed always fail to provide the numbers....

These reports here on TV are always the same ......

XX suspected terrorist killed by drone attack at xxxx location in Pakistan

Redundant? Strange choice of vocabulary there. I fail to see how my post was superfluous, excessive, or repetitive.

Ans as to your point, when I read the reports, I usually hear or read the numbers of civilians killed, especially when those non-combatants are women and children. The press loves to report that type of thing as that is newsworthy.

[Wallaby]

I didn't argue against holding the prisoners for the duration. I am arguing about their treatment whilst being held.

What "treatment" are you refering to and what does any of this red herring fallacy have to do with drone attacks?

What treatment am I referring to?.

Just the general treatment the US dishes out, things like the torturing of prisoners in Guantanamo, Abu Graihb, various other 'secret' prisons where they send people they have kidnapped, standard torturing. Just the usual things.

Just follows on from the usual treatment of the US riding roughshod over international laws and norms. If the US doesn't give a dam_n about international laws by bombing a country it isn't even at war with then they can't go complaining when other countries do the same.

They can also no expect an 'enemy' to treat US prisoners within international laws and fairness.

I thought you were going to ignore my posts. Please do as I get a bit tired of educating you.

[Scott]

Take care in your posts. You can state your opinion without arguing with other posters. Everyone has the right to their own opinion. You have the right to disagree and to ignore them.

[Ulysses G.]

I didn't argue against holding the prisoners for the duration. I am arguing about their treatment whilst being held.

What "treatment" are you refering to and what does any of this red herring fallacy have to do with drone attacks?

What treatment am I referring to?.

Just the general treatment the US dishes out

Again, what does any of this have to do with the topic of the thread which is drone attacks?

Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

However, concerning that Red Herring, you seem to be getting official US policy mixed up with the actions of some disturbed individuals who took "justice" into their own hands. They were vigilantes and were charged and convicted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with prisoner abuse.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[flying]

Redundant? Strange choice of vocabulary there. I fail to see how my post was superfluous, excessive, or repetitive.

Ans as to your point, when I read the reports, I usually hear or read the numbers of civilians killed, especially when those non-combatants are women and children. The press loves to report that type of thing as that is newsworthy.

sigh.............Let me break it down to the minutia level.......I am referring to these reports ....here on TV

There has been one every week for awhile now & they always state the same..lacking of damages other than the *suspected*...as I previously mentioned

The reason I said redundant is because you stated the obvious...Of course I read the full reports ( not the ones here on TV )

Otherwise why would I be complaining of the killing of civilians & the lack of mention in these short blurbs....

Edited May 19, 2011 by flying

[Wallaby]

However, concerning that Red Herring, you seem to be getting official US policy mixed up with the actions of some disturbed individuals who took "justice" into their own hands. They were vigilantes and were charged and convicted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with prisoner abuse.

Only some of them. Bush ordered torture and wasn't charged. Italy have arrest warrants out for a couple of CIA operatives for kidnapping. I don't see the US going out of their way to bring them to justice as they demand from other countries.

If you don't like my posts or find them irrelevant then don't respond.