Are the war in Afghanistan and the drone attacks in Pakistan legal?
Both the US-led war in Afghanistan and the CIA drone attacks in Pakistan violate international and national law and policy. The UN Charter provides that member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means and cannot use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. The requisites for self-defense, as defined in international law, must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." The United States did have other choice of means to redress harm after the 9/11 attack. The 9/11 attack was not an "armed" attack by the country of Afghanistan on the United States. It was a crime against humanity committed by individuals in an international terrorist network (fostered by the U.S. in the 1980s) who could be pursued, captured and tried in a court of justice.
The Security Council passed two resolutions after 9/11; neither authorized using military force in Afghanistan. Therefore, the resultant U.S.-led war on Afghanistan was not authorized by the Security Council nor did it meet the UN Charter's criteria of self-defense. Thus it violates the UN Charter and U.S. law of which the Charter is part under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
The CIA drone attacks in Pakistan violate the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter because they are targeted, political assassinations undertaken outside of any judicial framework. Further, the CIA drone program violates longstanding U.S. policy, namely, an executive order banning assassinations which was issued by President Gerald Ford and reaffirmed by all succeeding presidents except George W. Bush. (10)
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
