STOP AMERICAN DRONE STRIKES IN PAKISTAN

Stop the American drone strikes in Pakistan.

I don't understand how Pres. Barack Obama can order these non-judicial killings.  Obama is at once the judge, jury and executioner.

How many men, women and children in rural Pakistani villages have been incinerated by American drones?  This is against international law—one country firing missiles across another's borders and killing the target country's people.

These drone strikes are making everyone hate the Americans.  Chris Woods in The Guardian reports that it is radicalizing ordinary Pakistanis.  Writes Woods:

"One of Islamabad's most senior diplomats is warning that CIA drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas are weakening democracy and risk pushing people towards extremist groups.
Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the high commissioner to London and one of Pakistan's top ambassadors, also accuses the US of "talking in miles" when it comes to democracy but "moving in inches"."

UN INVESTIGATOR SAYS U.S. DRONE ATTACKS VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

The Guardian has an article today about how U.N. investigators believe that drone attacks make shambles of international law.  This of course assumes that international law is real and not a fiction.

Owen Bowcott writes:



"The US policy of using aerial drones to carry out targeted killings presents a major challenge to the system of international law that has endured since the second world war, a United Nations investigator has said.

"Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions, told a conference in Geneva that President Obama's attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, carried out by the CIA, would encourage other states to flout long-established human rights standards."

The drone attacks subject Obama (and the war monger Panetta) to charges of war crimes.

Writes Bowcott:

"In his strongest critique so far of drone strikes, Heyns suggested some may even constitute "war crimes". His comments come amid rising international unease over the surge in killings by remotely piloted unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)."

MAY ONE COUNTRY CROSS ANOTHER'S BORDERS TO ATTACK MILITANTS?

What do you think?  Is it in accord with the laws of nations for one country (the United States) to send unmanned aircraft across the borders of another (Pakistan) and attack militants and jihadists?  And can the U.S. do this without the permission of the second country, Pakistan?

Suppose it were in the opposite direction?  Suppose it were Pakistan that was sending armed drones into U.S. airspace?

The second question takes no little reflection. Most Americans would see it as a violation of national sovereignty and an illegal incursion.  It probably would precipitate an immediate counter-strike.

So why does Obama and Panetta think that they are justified in sending drones into Pakistan?  Is there any clearer violation of international laws?  I don't think so.

UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, IT IS ILLEGAL TO ATTACK ANOTHER COUNTRY WITHOUT U.N. RESOLUTION

Under settled concepts of international law, it is illegal for one country to attack another by invading its territorial space. When Colombia under Uribe attacked a FARC camp within Ecuador two years ago, that was illegal, notwithstanding Condoleeza Rice's imprimatur. And now some believe that Israel's war planes attacked and killed two men in a Hyundai within Sudan. If so, it too violates the law of nations.

See this report from the BBC webpage.

ISRAEL EVICTS NINE PALESTINIAN FAMILIES TODAY IN EAST JERUSALEM

Why must the Israeli government approve the eviction of nine Palestinian families from occupied East Jerusalem? Almost immediately after the eviction, Jewish families moved in. Is there any better example of "ethnic cleansing"?

The BBC reports:

""Israeli police have evicted nine Palestinian families living in two houses in occupied East Jerusalem.

"Jewish settlers moved into the houses almost immediately. The US has urged Israel to abandon plans for a building project in the area."

This portion of Jerusalem was seized during the 1967 War. International law prevents the victor, in this case Israel, from annexing the territory and considering it its own. Land seized during an armed conflict must be returned to the defeated peoples. So far Israel refuses to return the land to the Palestinians from whom it was taken. Now Israel is evicting Palestinians who live there.

Reports the BBC:

"The evictions were quickly condemned by the United Nations.

""I deplore today's totally unacceptable actions by Israel," the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Robert H Serry said. "These actions are contrary to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions related to occupied territory.

""These actions heighten tensions and undermine international efforts to create conditions for fruitful negotiations to achieve peace," Mr Perry said.

"Palestinian negotiator Saed Erakat said: "Tonight, while these new settlers from abroad will be accommodating themselves and their belongings in these Palestinian houses, 19 newly homeless children will have nowhere to sleep.""

ISRAEL - STOP ILLEGAL BLOCKADE OF FOOD, MEDICINE TO PALESTINIANS IN GAZA

The BBC reports that Israel has temporarily allowed an easing of the blockade so that fuel and other essentials could be transported into Gaza.

The Palestinians living in Gaza, more than one million, have been punished by Israel for the rocket attacks threatening Israeli villages and towns that have emanated from Gaza. For the last several months, Israel has imposed a total blockade of medicines, food and fuel.

Israel must stop once and for all this cruel and destructive collective punishment. To deny food, medicine and other essentials of life to Palestinians just because some in Gaza have fired missiles cannot be justified as legal under international law. Israel's blockade offends basic human rights as outlined in the Declaration of Human Rights.

BUSH TRIES "OCTOBER SURPRISE" WITH ILLEGAL SYRIAN RAID

Dan Froomkin has a good run-down in today's The Washington Post website of newspaper reaction to the illegal Bush raid of a Syrian village. The result of the incursion was the death of eight people, including one woman and four juveniles.

A survivor on BBC World News last night said that the soldiers ransacked the tents that people were living in, and when they finished and were about to depart, they opened fire without provocation.

Froomkin writes that Bush with this illegal raid is trying to craft another October surprise:

"By approving a U.S. military raid across the Iraqi border into Syria, Bush has changed the rules once again. On Sunday about two dozen special forces soldiers entered the country by helicopter and killed a suspected Iraqi insurgent leader, without the permission or cooperation of the Syrian government. Call it an October surprise -- if not, at least so far, the October surprise."