Ex-US attorney general terms drone strikes ‘criminal’
Former Attorney General of United States of America Ramsey Clark on Monday urged the Pakistani media to be more forthright in preaching “the criminality of US drones”.
Speaking as chief guest at an award ceremony of the Pakistan American Democratic Forum, Clark stated that the US should cease using this ‘vicious’ technology, adding that the use of drones is primarily a US innovation in warfare and their use is a violation of all international laws.
The former US attorney general went on to say that there will be no peace on earth with the looming threat of drone attacks from one country to another.
‘Free Afia Siddiqui’
Earlier, Ramsey Clark said that he came to Pakistan after 20 years with a singular purpose of raising his voice over the injustice meted to Dr Afia Siddiqui.
“She was kidnapped from your country. It should not have happened, should not be allowed to happen, she lost her youngest child in the kidnapping bid, and was tried and convicted for no fault” he said.
Ramsey Clark categorized Afia Siddiqui’s case as “tragic” and “outrageous”, and stressed the importance of her release and return to Pakistan.
The former US Attorney General cut short a meeting with the Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Choudhry at the Karachi Registry of the Supreme Court of Pakistan to attend this award ceremony at Karachi Press Club.
Dr Fouzia Siddiqui of the Dr Afia Movement in her brief address thanked Karachi-based journalists for their support in the movement for the release of Dr Afia Siddiqui. She attributed the release of Dr Afia’s daughter and son from US captivity to the efforts made by the journalists of Karachi who, she said, duly highlighted the plight of Dr Afia’s family.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 28th, 2012.
COMMENTS (15)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1734651970-0/super-man-(1)1734651970-0-405x300.webp "article")
1734646196-0/Nick-(1)1734646196-0-165x106.webp "article")
1731295009-0/Untitled-design-(38)1731295009-0-165x106.webp "article")
1734511806-0/Untitled-design-(5)1734511806-0-270x192.webp "saim ayub breaks brian lara s odi record")
1734587529-0/Express-Tribune-(1)1734587529-0-270x192.webp "pakistan to host another icc event")
1734468458-0/Copy-of-Untitled-(50)1734468458-0-270x192.webp "salman agha shares man of the match award with saim ayub in touching gesture")
@Solomon2: Dear Solomon2, We could argue forever about legalities, and who is allowed to do what in South Asia. However, America invaded Afghanistan on very shady grounds, and we could also argue forever about who the terrorists are in Afghanistan. Arguably, the Taliban Government was not creating problems for anybody until US/NATO thugs decided to invade Afghanistan on the unproven childish or fairy tale pretext that the Taliban somehow encouraged about 18 Saudi men to bring down 3 buildings in New York and severely damage another one in Washington. You are quite incorrect on the technical legal points you quoted, but since when did countries such as America, UK and other Western countries worry about legal niceties. Additionally, in the real world America and its poodles are never punished at the Hague, UN or wherever. The only people who are punished by the Hague or the West are the little countries, those who lose wars, or with minor exceptions Eastern Europeans or non-whites. Solomon2, you have to get real. There is a power play going on on South Asia. I am not sure what the end game is, and I am reasonably certain that neither do you or most others. I am also quite sure the Taliban are not leaving. If the incompetents in Washington and the West generally wish to keep destroying lives and real-estate in Pakistan/Afghanistan well so be it, but they should take the loss without whining, stop blaming Pakistan and take responsibility for the debacle and destruction they have created in South Asia.
"Yeah sure the U.N security council resolution makes it binding for every country to eliminate terrorist-camps etc. but where does it allow any state to attack another state for this purpose, in the name of self-defense?? "
Are you saying that states are not allowed to go to war in self-defense, or only that they aren't allowed to attack terrorist-controlled areas? In the first case the U.N. Charter does not forbid (indeed, in reaffirms) the right of states to do so; the U.N. is not the sole source of international law. In the second, as UNSCR 1373 is one of the few Chapter VII U.N. Security Council Resolutions, a member state need not seek additional U.N. authority to act; however, some classified reports are shared through UNSCR 1373's intelligence-collection arm, the Counter-Terrorism Committee. Presumably if the U.S. was going hog-wild with attacks the other SC members would squawk; however, that hasn't happened so presumably Pakistan has NO support, not even from China.
@Solomon2 Yeah sure the U.N security council resolution makes it binding for every country to eliminate terrorist-camps etc. but where does it allow any state to attack another state for this purpose, in the name of self-defense?? Pakistan is herself fighting against terrorists and the U.S has no international right to decide which people are we going to attack and the U.S has no right to attack any other country.
How about Pakistan attacks the U.S or Israel or India, for there are people living in these countries which want to eliminate Pakistan.
Laws are not applicable in a lawless land.
we should not only stand against the drones but also stand against those who create and support these extremists factories in pakistan and afghanistan and any where in the world let the world live in peace
Sorry, but Mr. Clark left government service over forty years ago and has been on the "deep left" for most of that time. His politics long ago eclipsed his competence.
Still, to give him the benefit of doubt, Mr. Clark may not be aware that post-9/11 international law - U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373 - makes it a binding sovereign obligation for states to eliminate terrorists, terror havens, terror-training camps, and terror financing from their territory. No action - as in North Wazirstan - then no sovereignty: the territory is legally an open battlefield with regards to terrorists, and U.S. attacks can be justified in self-defense.
As for Ms. Siddiqui: I do not give Mr. Clark the benefit of doubt. He either knows better or is ignorant and taking a stand on the basis of his politics. But what should we expect from the man who desired to defend such notorious thugs as Charles Taylor, Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein? link
Atleast people are starting to find Dr Afia worthy of any helping comment, action.
Drones are the only way to kill rouges and terrorists. How can you allow people to bomb pakistan's military bases and threaten assasinations be allowed to live happily. It will give a wrong direction to youth of the country. The Youth of pakistan will realise that terrorism in not a good carrier.
Drone attacks are illegal and immoral. Its a travesty of justice. Obama should be tried as war criminal for these killings.
Drone attacks on criminals is fine as long as they don't kill innocent men, women and children.
Cat is coming out of the bag now. Pakistan should enhance the diplomatic efforts to convince other countries to voice against the Drones and put pressure on US. Continuous and sincere efforts are the key to achieve the objective here.
You are absolutely rightful on your this stance but unfortunately you are ex/retired attorney general and can't do any thing and only can give statement of such this type......
You are irrelevant Sir! Regardless of what you say, We need more drone attacks on the criminals who butcher our men, women, and children.