More Awesome Obama . . .

Because the Awesome Obama thread is in summation mode, I am creating this third thread to highlight Obama's on-going war crimes.

quote:

---

U.S. drone strikes resume in Pakistan; action may complicate vital negotiations, April 29 2012

​

CIA drone missiles hit militant targets in Pakistan on Sunday for the first time in a month, as the United States ignored the Pakistani government’s insistence that such attacks end as a condition for normalized relations between the two perpetually uneasy allies.

​

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...04/29/gIQAIprqpT_story.html

---

quote:

---

Why I Interrupted Obama Counterterrorism Adviser John Brennan

​

[The USA] deems the entire world a war zone, where it can operate at will, beyond the confines of international law.

​

After the strike, the Pakistani government voiced its strongest and most public condemnation yet, accusing the United States of violating Pakistani sovereignty, calling the campaign a total contravention of international law and established norms of interstate relations. Earlier in April the Pakistani Parliament unanimously condemned drone strikes . . .

​

The UK-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism is the group that keeps the best count of casualties from U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. According to its figures, since 2004, U.S. has killed between about 2,500-3,000 people in Pakistan. Of those, between 479 and 811 were civilians, 174 of them children.

​

We saw poor children on the receiving end of our attacksmaimed for life, with no legs, no eyes, no future.

​

Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer who has been representing drone victims and who started the group Foundation for Fundamental Rights, disputes even these figures and claims that the vast majority of those killed are ordinary civilians.

​

zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.

---

Apparently, drone use is too special to keep in just one part of the world. How lucky for earthlings that Obama is expanding their use. Not to worry though, the president is too hampered by congress and constitutional/international laws for that to happen.

quote:

---

Deadly Drone Strike on Muslims in the Southern Philippines

​

The U.S. drone strike, targeting accused leaders in the Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah organisations, marked the first time the weapon has been used in Southeast Asia.

​

Just as in Pakistan and other theatres of the "war on terror", the strike has provoked controversy, with a Filipino lawmaker condemning the attack as a violation of national sovereignty. This controversy could increase with the recent American announcement that it plans to boost its drone fleet in the Philippines by 30 per cent.

​

By unleashing the drones, the U.S. has pushed the conflict between centre and periphery in the Philippines in a dangerous direction. If there is one lesson we can learn from half a millennium of history it is this: weapons destroy flesh and blood, but cannot break the spirit of a people motivated by ideas of honour and justice.

​

Page not found – Brookings

---

quote:

---

The Obama Contradiction

​

He has few constraints (except those he’s internalized). No one can stop him or countermand his orders. He has a bevy of lawyers at his beck and call to explain the legality of his actions. And if he cares to, he can send a robot assassin to kill you, whoever you are, no matter where you may be on planet Earth.

​

He sounds like a typical villain from a James Bond novel. You know, the kind who captures Bond, tells him his fiendish plan for dominating the planet, ties him up for some no less fiendish torture, and then leaves him behind to gum up the works.
As it happens, though, he’s the president of the United State, a nice guy with a charismatic wife and two lovely kids.

​

He can send his drone assassins and special ops troops just about anywhere to kill just about anyone he thinks should die, national sovereigntybe damned. He firmly established his right to do this by going after the worst of the worst,killingOsama bin Laden in Pakistan with special operations forces and an American citizen andjihadi, Anwar al-Awlaki, in Yemen with adrone.

​

zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.

---

Edited by dronester, : clarity

What do you mean by "war crime"?

we pay good money to bomb them. It's not like we aren't paying to invade their sovereignty.

Far be it from me to argue with the always-accurate "Z Communications", but an alternative view from within Pakistan:

quote:

---

Pakistan army chief sought more drone coverage in '08: Wikileaks

​

(Reuters) - Pakistan's top military leader not only tacitly agreed to the controversial drone campaign against militants, in 2008 he asked Washington for "continuous Predator coverage" over tribal areas, according to recently released U.S. State Department cables.

---

http://www.reuters.com/...an-wikileaks-idUSTRE74J3UV20110520Pakistan, in January, reaffirmed its agreement with the United States to allow drone attacks on its soil. Despite the "official" line from Pakistan - necessary to avoid inflaming a jihadist backlash - these drone attacks are carried out with their permission.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

"in '08?"Thanks Crash, but do you have any news that isn't hugely out of date? Even your unlinked January report doesn't include the recent happenings in Pakistan. It seems you accidentally missed my other corroborating sources. Seems to be an on-going problem:http://www.washingtonpost.com/...04/29/gIQAIprqpT_story.htmlPage not found – Brookings

Huh?Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems you share Madeleine Albright's (previous United States Secretary of State) mindset. When asked about the 500,000 Iraqi children killed by US led sanctions in the '90s, after careful consideration she replied, "we think the price is worth it."Madeleine Albright - Wikipedia

CS, it seems my first two posts were unclear. Can you be more specific?

What makes the things that are described in those articles count as war crimes?

CS, is there a specific part of Rahvin's message in the first post, Message 1, that you find unclear?: In addition to violating the sovereignty of Pakistan, Obama is apparently now violating the sovereignty in the Philippines Message 2.Obama has directed drones to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and now the Philippines. When I read the following article, I thought about the term "chickens coming home to roost":

quote:

---

Why Drones Have Become The Weapon Of Choice

​

More worrying to Americans should be a report saying that there are already 63 drone bases inside the United States.

​

Remember the NDAA bill passed last year, and signed quietly into law on New Year’s eve by President Obama? The Administration assured one and all that it would not apply to military operations on U.S. soil or against American Citizens.

​

It now turns out that the NDAA is being interpreted as authorization to deploy military drones (unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs) into domestic airspace.

​

zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.

---

I don't see that it's "out of date", but that it supports my contention that Pakistan might be saying one thing and asking us for another. How would a report in January include something that hadn't happened yet?

No. What is unclear is how these articles are showing "war crimes".

Yes, it does support your contention that Pakistan might have said one thing and asked for another . . . in 2008.Err, good job Crash. Kudos. Well . . . , since it couldn't, maybe it would've been more useful for you to post something more recent and germane to the topic?

What is it that US citizens should worry about related to drone bases in the US?

Do you not agree that drone-attacks that violate sovereignty is an act of war?If Cuba or Iran used drone attacks on the USA, then would you consider it an act of war?CS, give me a clue, are you only quibbling about semantics or a wishfully arguable legal definition? (the definition of "is" perhaps?)