A police officer is free on bond after being arrested following a rash of road-sign thefts in southeast Alabama.  Brantley Police Chief Titus Averett says officer Jeremy Ray Walker of Glenwood is on paid leave following his arrest in Pike County.  The 30-year-old Walker is charged with receiving stolen property.  Lt. Troy Johnson of the Pike County Sheriff's Office says an investigation began after someone reported that Walker was selling road signs from Crenshaw County.  Investigators contacted the county engineer and learned signs had been reported stolen from several roads.

NPR Politics presents the Lunchbox List: our favorite campaign news and stories curated from NPR and around the Web in digestible bites (100 words or less!). Look for it every weekday afternoon from now until the conventions.

Convention Countdown

The Republican National Convention is in 4 days in Cleveland.

The Democratic National Convention is in 11 days in Philadelphia.

NASA has released the first picture of Jupiter taken since the Juno spacecraft went into orbit around the planet on July 4.

The picture was taken on July 10. Juno was 2.7 million miles from Jupiter at the time. The color image shows some of the atmospheric features of the planet, including the giant red spot. You can also see three of Jupiter's moons in the picture: Io, Europa and Ganymede.

The Senate is set to approve a bill intended to change the way police and health care workers treat people struggling with opioid addictions.

My husband and I once took great pleasure in preparing meals from scratch. We made pizza dough and sauce. We baked bread. We churned ice cream.

Then we became parents.

Now there are some weeks when pre-chopped veggies and a rotisserie chicken are the only things between us and five nights of Chipotle.

Parents are busy. For some of us, figuring out how to get dinner on the table is a daily struggle. So I reached out to food experts, parents and nutritionists for help. Here is some of their (and my) best advice for making weeknight meals happen.

"O Canada," the national anthem of our neighbors up north, comes in two official versions — English and French. They share a melody, but differ in meaning.

Let the record show: neither version of those lyrics contains the phrase "all lives matter."

But at the 2016 All-Star Game, the song got an unexpected edit.

At Petco Park in San Diego, one member of the Canadian singing group The Tenors — by himself, according to the other members of the group — revised the anthem.

School's out, and a lot of parents are getting through the long summer days with extra helpings of digital devices.

How should we feel about that?

Police in Baton Rouge say they have arrested three people who stole guns with the goal of killing police officers. They are still looking for a fourth suspect in the alleged plot, NPR's Greg Allen reports.

"Police say the thefts were at a Baton Rouge pawn shop early Saturday morning," Greg says. "One person was arrested at the scene. Since then, two others have been arrested and six of the eight stolen handguns have been recovered. Police are still looking for one other man."

A 13-year-old boy is among those arrested, Greg says.

Copyright 2016 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

After an international tribunal invalidated Beijing's claims to the South China Sea, Chinese authorities have declared in no uncertain terms that they will be ignoring the ruling.

The Philippines brought the case to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, objecting to China's claims to maritime rights in the disputed waters. The tribunal agreed that China had no legal authority to claim the waters and was infringing on the sovereign rights of the Philippines.

Pages

U.S. Drones Navigate Murky Legal Path In Pakistan

Oct 6, 2012
Originally published on October 6, 2012 8:15 pm

The U.S. has been carrying out drone strikes in Pakistan for some eight years, but it's done so under a policy that has emerged piecemeal over that time.

"It started in 2004, when drones were really an oddity," says Daniel Markey, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He was on the State Department's policy planning staff when it all started during the Bush administration.

"The first drone attack by the United States was not admitted to by the U.S. government," Markey says, "and the Pakistani government at the time, run by Gen. [Pervez] Musharraf, took responsibility for that attack and claimed that it was not a drone, but that in fact was a Pakistani strike."

Musharraf was Pakistan's president at the time. The ruse worked when drone strikes were few and far between. But then, Markey says, "this kind of charade started to unravel."

"And as that unraveling became more painful for the Pakistanis, they changed their tune," he says. "And instead of taking credit, they started to complain about them publicly — while privately endorsing them."

U.S. officials say that from 2009 until about six months ago, there was consent from the Pakistanis for what the Defense Department calls a "foreign internal defense mission." Christopher Swift, a fellow at the University of Virginia Law School, used to track terrorism financing for the Treasury Department.

"In international law, it is not illegal for a country to go into another country if they are invited," Swift says. "The best way to think about it is if you are having a fire in your house and the neighbor comes to help you put out the fire — that neighbor isn't trespassing if you've invited them."

In other words, the U.S. was helping Pakistan fight its fires: al-Qaida and its associated groups, individuals who threatened both the U.S. and Pakistan.

The way it used to work is that the U.S. would send target sets to Islamabad and the Pakistanis would respond, sometimes offering more information. It was collaborative.

But that started to change after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Now, when U.S. officials send targeting information, the Pakistanis merely acknowledge it, without the back and forth.

"The conclusion now seems to be that it is still possible to construe what Pakistan is doing as providing tacit consent," says Ashley Deeks, a former State Department lawyer. Now she's an associate professor at University of Virginia Law School.

"But you can imagine Pakistan taking one of a number of steps from here on that unwinds that tacit consent even further," she says.

For example, it could raise a diplomatic objection, like a formal complaint at the United Nations. Or it could stop clearing air space, something it does now. It could also just shoot down the drone — drones are slow.

But Pakistan hasn't done any of those things. And even if Pakistan objected more formally, it probably wouldn't end the drone attacks because there is another legal theory at work.

"The second legal justification — the underlying legal justification for using force against the groups it's using force against — is the self-defense theory," Deeks says.

This theory basically says that because the U.S. is targeting groups in Pakistan linked to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. claims the right to target them. Even without consent.

The argument leaves Pakistan without much say in the matter.

Copyright 2015 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

Transcript

SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

Now, we turn to some of the legal issues surrounding the controversial drone program. One big question, whether the U.S. can legitimately conduct deadly strikes in a sovereign country with which it is not at war. Also under consideration is whether Pakistan has actually agreed to the drone program, despite its public opposition. NPR's Dina Temple-Raston has our report.

DINA TEMPLE-RASTON, BYLINE: The important thing to understand about the U.S. drone policy in Pakistan is that it wasn't developed all at once. It emerged piecemeal over time.

DANIEL MARKEY: It started in 2004, when drones were really an oddity.

TEMPLE-RASTON: That's Daniel Markey, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He was on the State Department's policy planning staff when it all started during the Bush administration.

MARKEY: The first drone attack by the United States was not admitted to by the U.S. government and the Pakistani government at the time, run by Gen. Musharraf, took responsibility for that attack and claimed that it was not a drone, but that in fact was a Pakistani strike.

TEMPLE-RASTON: General Pervez Musharraf was Pakistan's president at the time. The ruse worked when drone strikes were few and far between. But then...

MARKEY: This kind of charade started to unravel. And as that unraveling became more painful for the Pakistanis, they changed their tune. And instead of taking credit, they started to complain about them publicly, while privately endorsing them.

TEMPLE-RASTON: U.S. officials say that from 2009 until about six months ago, there was consent from the Pakistanis for what the Defense Department calls a foreign internal defense mission.

CHRISTOPHER SWIFT: In international law, it is not illegal for a country to go into another country if they are invited.

TEMPLE-RASTON: Christopher Swift is a fellow at the University of Virginia Law School and used to track terrorism financing for the Treasury Department.

SWIFT: The best way to think about it is if you are having a fire in your house, and the neighbor comes to help you put out the fire, that neighbor isn't trespassing if you've invited them.

TEMPLE-RASTON: In other words, the U.S. was helping Pakistan fight its fires, al-Qaida and its associated groups - individuals who threatened both the U.S. and Pakistan. The way it used to work is that the U.S. would send target sets to Islamabad, and the Pakistanis would respond, sometimes offering more information. It was collaborative.

But that started to change after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Now, when U.S. officials send targeting information, the Pakistanis merely acknowledge it, without the back and forth.

ASHLEY DEEKS: The conclusion now seems to be that it is still possible to construe what Pakistan is doing as providing tacit consent.

TEMPLE-RASTON: That's Ashley Deeks. She used to be a lawyer at the State Department. Now she's an associate professor at University of Virginia Law School.

DEEKS: But you can imagine Pakistan taking one of a number of steps from here on that unwinds that tacit consent even further.

TEMPLE-RASTON: For example: It could raise a diplomatic objection, like a formal complaint at the U.N., or it could stop clearing air space, something it does now. Or it could just shoot down the drone. Drones are slow. But Pakistan hasn't done any of those things. And even if Pakistan objected more formally, it probably wouldn't end the drone attacks. That's because there is another legal theory at work. Ashley Deeks of the University of Virginia explains it this way.

DEEKS: The second legal justification, the underlying legal justification for using force against the groups it's using force against, is the self defense theory.

TEMPLE-RASTON: And that theory basically says this: Because the U.S. is targeting groups in Pakistan linked to the 9/11 attacks and the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. claims the right to target them, even without consent, which leaves Pakistan without much say in the matter.

Dina Temple-Raston, NPR News. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.