Green Arrow
11-11-2013, 07:03 AM
Here's what we still don't know (http://www.propublica.org/article/6-months-after-obama-promised-to-divulge-more-on-drones-heres-what-we-still)
Nearly six months ago, President Obama promised more transparency and tighter policies around targeted killings. In a speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-president-national-defense-university), Obama vowed that the U.S. would only use force against a “continuing and imminent threat to the American people.” It would fire only when there was “near-certainty” civilians would not be killed or injured, and when capture was not feasible.
The number of drone strikes has dropped (http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php) this year, but they’ve continued to make headlines. On Friday, a U.S. drone killed the head of the Pakistani Taliban (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/01/us-pakistan-drone-hakimullah-idUSBRE9A00QY20131101). A few days earlier came the first drone strike in Somalia (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/world/africa/pentagon-says-shabab-bomb-specialist-is-killed-in-missile-strike-in-somalia.html?ref=world) in nearly two years (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/22/get-the-data-somalias-hidden-war/). How much has changed since the president’s speech?
We don’t know the U.S. count of civilian deaths
The administration says that it has a count of civilian deaths (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/10/22/ap_reporter_grills_state_dept_spokeswoman_on_civil ian_casualties_of_drone_strikes.html), and that there is a “wide gap (http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/22/21065224-white-house-admits-killing-civilians-with-drone-strikes-denies-breaking-law?lite)” between U.S. and independent figures. But the administration won’t release its own figures.
Outside (http://www.longwarjournal.org/) estimates (http://natsec.newamerica.net/drones/pakistan/analysis) of total civilian deaths (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/) since 2002 range (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115353/civilian-casualties-drone-strikes-why-we-know-so-little) from just over 200 to more than 1,000. The Pakistani government has given three different numbers (http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2013/10/30/how-many-pakistani-civilians-have-been-killed-by-cia-drones/): 400, 147, and 67.
McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/09/188062/obamas-drone-war-kills-others.html) and the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/top-pakistani-leaders-secretly-backed-cia-drone-campaign-secret-documents-show/2013/10/23/15e6b0d8-3beb-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story_2.html) obtained intelligence documents showing that for long stretches of time, the CIA estimated few or no civilian deaths. The documents also confirmed the use of signature strikes (http://www.propublica.org/article/drone-war-doctrine-we-know-nothing-about), in which the U.S. targets people without knowing their identity. The CIA categorized many of those killed as simply “other militants” or “foreign fighters.” The Post wrote that the agency sometimes designated “militants” with what seemed like circumstantial or vague evidence, such as “men who were ‘probably’ involved in cross-border attacks” in Afghanistan.
The administration reportedly curtailed (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/criticism-alters-us-drone-program-pakistan) signature strikes this year, though the new guidelines don’t necessarily preclude them. A White House factsheet released around Obama’s speech said (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/fact-sheet-us-policy-standards-and-procedures-use-force-counterterrorism#_ftnref1) that “it is not the case that all military-aged males in the vicinity of a target are deemed to be combatants.” It did not say that people must be identified. (In any case, the U.S. has not officially acknowledged the policy of signature strikes.)
Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/23/us/politics/23holder-drone-lettter.html) only that four Americans have been killed by drone strikes since 2009: Anwar al Awlaki (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/anwar_al_awlaki/index.html) and his sixteen-year-old son, Abdulrahman (http://www.thenation.com/article/173980/inside-americas-dirty-wars), Samir Khan (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/world/middleeast/samir-khan-killed-by-drone-spun-out-of-the-american-middle-class.html), and Jude Kenan Mohammed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/jude-kenan-mohammad-arrested-by-pakistan_n_3325869.html). Holder said that only the elder Awlaki was “specifically targeted,” but did not explain how the others came to be killed.
Although Obama said that this disclosure was intended to “facilitate transparency and debate (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/politics/transcript-of-obamas-speech-on-drone-policy.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all),” since then, the administration has not commented on specific allegations of civilian deaths (http://www.propublica.org/article/boys-death-in-drone-strike-tests-obamas-transparency-pledge).
We don’t know exactly who can be targeted
The list of groups that the military considers “associated forces” of Al Qaeda is classified (http://www.propublica.org/article/who-are-we-at-war-with-thats-classified). The administration has declared (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/14/letter-president-regarding-war-powers-resolution) that it targets members of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and “elements” of Al Shabaab, but there are still questions about how the U.S. determines that an individual belonging to those groups is in fact a “continuing and imminent threat.” (After the terror alarm that led to the closing of U.S. embassies this summer, officials told the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/world/embassies-open-but-yemen-stays-on-terror-watch.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp&pagewanted=all&) they had “expanded the scope of people [they] could go after” in Yemen.)
This ties into the debate over civilian casualties: The government would seem to consider some people legitimate targets that others don’t (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115329/amnesty-international-human-rights-watch-drone-reports-are-flawed).
http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/MAD-Magazine-Drone-Ranger.jpg
Nearly six months ago, President Obama promised more transparency and tighter policies around targeted killings. In a speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-president-national-defense-university), Obama vowed that the U.S. would only use force against a “continuing and imminent threat to the American people.” It would fire only when there was “near-certainty” civilians would not be killed or injured, and when capture was not feasible.
The number of drone strikes has dropped (http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php) this year, but they’ve continued to make headlines. On Friday, a U.S. drone killed the head of the Pakistani Taliban (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/01/us-pakistan-drone-hakimullah-idUSBRE9A00QY20131101). A few days earlier came the first drone strike in Somalia (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/world/africa/pentagon-says-shabab-bomb-specialist-is-killed-in-missile-strike-in-somalia.html?ref=world) in nearly two years (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/22/get-the-data-somalias-hidden-war/). How much has changed since the president’s speech?
We don’t know the U.S. count of civilian deaths
The administration says that it has a count of civilian deaths (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/10/22/ap_reporter_grills_state_dept_spokeswoman_on_civil ian_casualties_of_drone_strikes.html), and that there is a “wide gap (http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/22/21065224-white-house-admits-killing-civilians-with-drone-strikes-denies-breaking-law?lite)” between U.S. and independent figures. But the administration won’t release its own figures.
Outside (http://www.longwarjournal.org/) estimates (http://natsec.newamerica.net/drones/pakistan/analysis) of total civilian deaths (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/) since 2002 range (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115353/civilian-casualties-drone-strikes-why-we-know-so-little) from just over 200 to more than 1,000. The Pakistani government has given three different numbers (http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2013/10/30/how-many-pakistani-civilians-have-been-killed-by-cia-drones/): 400, 147, and 67.
McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/09/188062/obamas-drone-war-kills-others.html) and the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/top-pakistani-leaders-secretly-backed-cia-drone-campaign-secret-documents-show/2013/10/23/15e6b0d8-3beb-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story_2.html) obtained intelligence documents showing that for long stretches of time, the CIA estimated few or no civilian deaths. The documents also confirmed the use of signature strikes (http://www.propublica.org/article/drone-war-doctrine-we-know-nothing-about), in which the U.S. targets people without knowing their identity. The CIA categorized many of those killed as simply “other militants” or “foreign fighters.” The Post wrote that the agency sometimes designated “militants” with what seemed like circumstantial or vague evidence, such as “men who were ‘probably’ involved in cross-border attacks” in Afghanistan.
The administration reportedly curtailed (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/criticism-alters-us-drone-program-pakistan) signature strikes this year, though the new guidelines don’t necessarily preclude them. A White House factsheet released around Obama’s speech said (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/fact-sheet-us-policy-standards-and-procedures-use-force-counterterrorism#_ftnref1) that “it is not the case that all military-aged males in the vicinity of a target are deemed to be combatants.” It did not say that people must be identified. (In any case, the U.S. has not officially acknowledged the policy of signature strikes.)
Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/23/us/politics/23holder-drone-lettter.html) only that four Americans have been killed by drone strikes since 2009: Anwar al Awlaki (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/anwar_al_awlaki/index.html) and his sixteen-year-old son, Abdulrahman (http://www.thenation.com/article/173980/inside-americas-dirty-wars), Samir Khan (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/world/middleeast/samir-khan-killed-by-drone-spun-out-of-the-american-middle-class.html), and Jude Kenan Mohammed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/jude-kenan-mohammad-arrested-by-pakistan_n_3325869.html). Holder said that only the elder Awlaki was “specifically targeted,” but did not explain how the others came to be killed.
Although Obama said that this disclosure was intended to “facilitate transparency and debate (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/politics/transcript-of-obamas-speech-on-drone-policy.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all),” since then, the administration has not commented on specific allegations of civilian deaths (http://www.propublica.org/article/boys-death-in-drone-strike-tests-obamas-transparency-pledge).
We don’t know exactly who can be targeted
The list of groups that the military considers “associated forces” of Al Qaeda is classified (http://www.propublica.org/article/who-are-we-at-war-with-thats-classified). The administration has declared (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/14/letter-president-regarding-war-powers-resolution) that it targets members of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and “elements” of Al Shabaab, but there are still questions about how the U.S. determines that an individual belonging to those groups is in fact a “continuing and imminent threat.” (After the terror alarm that led to the closing of U.S. embassies this summer, officials told the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/world/embassies-open-but-yemen-stays-on-terror-watch.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp&pagewanted=all&) they had “expanded the scope of people [they] could go after” in Yemen.)
This ties into the debate over civilian casualties: The government would seem to consider some people legitimate targets that others don’t (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115329/amnesty-international-human-rights-watch-drone-reports-are-flawed).
http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/MAD-Magazine-Drone-Ranger.jpg