Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)47. Pakistani Ambassador to the U.S., Sherry Rehman denies your "secret" agrremnt.
"Operationally, it is counterproductive because it creates more potential terrorists on the ground instead of taking them out," she says, adding public perception in Pakistan turns the attacks into a recruiting tool for terrorist organizations. "We need to drain the swamp."
Rehman denies accusations that Pakistan outwardly condemns the strikes, but is privately complicit in their effectiveness.
"There is no question of quiet complicity. There is no question of 'wink and nod.' This is a parliamentary 'red line' that all our government institutions have internalized as policy," says Rehman, who has been in her current position since the end of 2011. "I also say this as not just a policy that we say. It is important to us."
She also states this:
"We see them as a direct violation of our sovereignty. We also see them as a violation of international law," the ambassador said at a meeting with reporters Tuesday. Rehman would not elaborate on the Pakistani reaction if the U.S. continues with its current actions.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/05/pakistani-ambassador-us-drone-strikes-cross-a-red-line
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
69 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I think if he would have surrendered peacefully, or at least released his hostage,
Sheldon Cooper
Feb 2013
#1
oh, good lord yes! This whole story gives me chlls of horror...I can only imagine
CTyankee
Feb 2013
#6
I think they had gone as far as they could go with him and had a strong inkling that he
CTyankee
Feb 2013
#12
I believe Pakistan furnished information about OBL's location. On the sly, as it were.
randome
Feb 2013
#44
Pakistani Ambassador to the U.S., Sherry Rehman denies your "secret" agrremnt.
Luminous Animal
Feb 2013
#47
So if this is true, why isn't the government of Pakistan saying it? Why an ambassador?
randome
Feb 2013
#51
Do you have any proof for that other than the fact that the government said so?
Recursion
Feb 2013
#27
No, but I also am at worst ambivalent about drone strikes against Americans in arms against the US
Recursion
Feb 2013
#39
At the point that they had to go in and rescued the child the man did not deserve a trial
madokie
Feb 2013
#11
People like Jimmy Lee Dykes are their own judge, jury, and executioner...
EastKYLiberal
Feb 2013
#21
Dykes was a true "imminent" threat. Al-Awaki's teenage kid, not so much.
Comrade Grumpy
Feb 2013
#30
Because he really did pose an imminent threat to the child as well as to the police.
JDPriestly
Feb 2013
#59