Friday, May 31, 2013


President Obama has put up a defense of latest policy about using drones in a
 speech delivered at National Defense University. Speaking without his familiar conviction he tried to justify it on grounds that looked made up and lacking in substance. Declaring that use of drones was legal and generally moral and was the only option left when it was not possible to arrest terrorists or intervene through armed forces in the absence of lack of support from the local Governments. These strikes according to him save lives although admitting that civilian casualties can serve as a powerful recruiting tool for terrorist groups. So while saving lives of Americans looked to be his top priority he does not look much disturbed about innocent lives lost due to these attacks what to talk about offering apology or compensating the affected families. While warning against the temptation to see drone strikes as "a cure-all-for- terrorism", he asked Congress to help him set modest new safeguards instead of trying to end this dangerous temptation. Those deciding about drone attacks have the discretion to decide about the imminent threat to US without clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future. They have become judge as well as the executioner. If the analogy is taken to its logical conclusion, then every country will have the right to define imminent threat and the corresponding right to use weapons available, drones or others. What about International Law and UN's

Charter of Human Rights. United Nation's Special rapporteur on counter terrorism and human rights Ben Emmerson has
already expressed his views and declared that drone attacks are of dubious legality, despite United State's assertions to the contrary. "I'm not aware of any state in the world that currently shares the United State’s expansive legal perspective that it is engaged in a global war -- that is to say a non-international armed conflict with al Qaeda and any group associated with al Qaeda, wherever they are to be found, that would therefore lawfully entitle the United States to take action involving targeted killing wherever an individual is found," he declared. Obama’s love for law varies according to situations and
interests. Aafia Siddiqi a Pakistani

having a Ph.D in neuroscience from Brandeis University in 2001 was indicted in New York federal district court in September 2008 on charges of attempted murder and assault stemming from an incident in an interview with U.S. authorities in Ghazni, charges which Siddiqui denied. After 18 months in detention she was tried and convicted in early 2010 and sentenced to 86 years in prison for trying to kill. Obama refused to repatriate her to Pakistan to serve the sentence citing the sanctity of American Justice system. Is he aware that a Pakistani High Court has declared drone attacks illegal, inhumane and a violation of UN’s Charter on human rights. It has decided that these strikes be declared a war crime as they killed innocent place. It ordered Pakistan Government to ensure that no drone attacks take place in the future. Pakistan security forces were authorized to shoot down the drones, the verdict declared. Courts are Courts Mr. Obama and their judgments have sanctity and must be accepted in letter and spirit just like in case of Aafia Siddiqi. Come on Mr. Obama and decide once for all whether you want to go by laws or by interests.

No comments: