Suspected U.S. strike kills up to 20 in Pakistan

The answer to Cirroc's first question is "no," and the probable answer to his second question is "yes."

Even if one assumes that Pakistan is not doing an effective job of preventing Al Qaeda and the Taliban from conducting raids in Afghanistan from within Pakistan, unilateral action consisting of attacking those entities within Pakistani territory without the approval of the Pakistani government violates international law.

Reasonable people may differ regarding whether the circumstances warrant violating the law. In that regard, it should be noted that the US has not yet used other means, such as putting diplomatic and, more importantly, economic pressure on Pakistan to get Pakistan's government to take a more proactive approach to dealing with the cross-border raids being staged from within Pakistan. On the other hand, the Pakistani government may not be capable to dealing with the Taliban and Al Qaeda on its own, in which event the US has only the option of conducting raids within Pakistan or allowing cross-border incursions to continue.

The US has killed more civilians then terrorist in these Pakistani bombing operations.

I guess that I might not be so opposed to this kind of operation if we hadn't killed so many innocent lives. So many children and women.

I'll just say that we're bombing outside our area of involvement and it's at the Pentagon's direction.

Look what we just did in Syria. Murdered a bunch of innocents at the Pentagon's direction.

This is the Pentagon's effort to get McCain elected and they screwed up this attempt. < :-)

Sarge,

Why would Obama not approve of it?

CavemanLawyer,

I think the answer to your question is, "no". However, I also agree with SuperLib that the situation is not analogous.

For what it's worth, I don't think it's justified for the US to conduct this kind of strike either. However--at least at the current moment in history--Pakistan has been equivocal about whether it will stand for this kind of action. Until Pakistan makes a clear statement, I think drone attacks and perhaps others will continue.

Given the goal that the US has set itself here--the pacification (or eradication) of the Taliban--the US needs Pakistan's assistance. And Pakistan--if it is going to satisfy the demands of the US and Kabul--needs some kind of assistance, either from the US, its own military or the tribes.

I think the big question is whether or not we have undertaken an achievable goal. We've been at this for 7 years now and if the goal is not achievable we need to choose a goal that is. That's probably why the Pentagon recently seemed to back off from the original goals it had set itself.

Sez - Why would McCain put a stop to going after terrorists?

And McCain will put a stop to it, right?

Of course Barack Obama approves of this, right?

Would Pakistan be justified in bombing a house in America if they thought an al-Quaida operative were there?

Surely you have something more compelling than analogies that don't even come close to representing the entire situation as a whole. Or, maybe you don't, I don't know...

Bush Docrine in a nutshell: International borders are US borders. International law is what the US says it is. POTUS is the decider.

Would Pakistan be justified in bombing a house in America if they thought an al-Quaida operative were there?

The U.S. gov seems to have lost all respect for the rule of law, and even America's own allies. Its like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

Are the Republicans just trying to make a mess to give to Obama as an inauguration gift? --Cirroc