Quantcast
Connect with us

Dissecting Obama’s standard on drone strike deaths

Published

on

In a lengthy front-page story last week exploring President Obama’s use of drone strikes in countries including Pakistan and Yemen, the New York Times reported that the president had “embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in.”

Citing “several administration officials,” the Times reported that this method “in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants … unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.” The Times reported that this standard allowed counterterrorism adviser John Brennan to claim in June 2011 that for nearly a year “there hasn’t been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities that we’ve been able to develop.”

Human rights groups and others have expressed outrage at the reported counting method. And in the last few days alone, 27 “suspected militants” have been killed in three drone strikes in Pakistan, including the reported No. 2 of al Qaeda.

We wanted to lay out exactly what’s known (not much) about the apparent policy, what’s not (a lot), and what the White House is saying in response to the Times report.

Crucially, the White House has done nothing to knock the story down. I gave the White House a chance to respond, and it declined to comment on the record. But speaking on condition of anonymity, an administration official acknowledged that the administration does not always know the names or identities of everyone in a location marked for a drone strike.

ADVERTISEMENT

“As a general matter, it [the Times report] is not wrong that if a group of fighting age males are in a home where we know they are constructing explosives or plotting an attack, it’s assumed that all of them are in on that effort,” the official said. “We’re talking about some of the most remote places in the world, and some of the most paranoid organizations on the planet. If you’re there with them, they know you, they trust you, there’s a reason [you’re] there.”

When we asked a White House spokesperson about how the U.S. knows even the number of people killed in strikes, they told us to speak the CIA. The CIA did not immediately respond to our request.

Another thing that’s unclear is whether the controversial counting method is a new policy. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, told Fox News last week that he was not aware of any change in the policy of how corpses are counted, but that if there had been a change, his committee should be briefed.

ADVERTISEMENT

Several people in the human rights community told ProPublica that the metric for counting civilians described in the Times report represents a new and troubling standard.

“We have never before heard anything quite like the idea that if you have to be in a certain place and you happen to be of a certain age, that in and of itself can make you targetable,” said Gabor Rona, international legal director at Human Rights First and former legal adviser at the International Committee of the Red Cross.

It’s also not clear whether the policy applies to all covert drone strikes or just ones done by the CIA.

ADVERTISEMENT

Asked last week about the Times report, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters the president “goes to extraordinary measures” to avoid civilian casualties.

“We have at our disposal tools that make avoidance of civilian casualties much easier, and tools that make precision targeting possible in ways that have never existed in the past,” Carney argued.

But analysts point out strikes can go awry even if a missile hits its programmed target.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Any military official will tell you your precision is only as good as your intelligence sources and your intelligence analysis,” said Naureen Shah, associate director of the Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project at Columbia Law School. “How much do we really know about Somalia and Yemen and Pakistan? We have errors in targeting in Afghanistan and we’ve been there for a decade.”

Shah, who is working on a study on civilian harm from covert drone strikes, said she was not surprised by the Obama administration’s reported standard for counting civilians given the extremely low estimates of civilian casualties leaked by administration officials over the years.

The Times story last week, for example, quotes a “senior administration official” claiming that the number of civilians killed by drone strikes under Obama in Pakistan is in the “single digits.”

ADVERTISEMENT

That’s in stark contrast to outside estimates. Independent organizations analyzing news reports and other sources have put civilian deaths from drone strikes from the high double digits in Pakistan alone to the high triple digits including countries like Yemen and Somalia.

By Justin Elliott, ProPublica


Report typos and corrections to [email protected].

Send confidential news tips to [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

BUSTED: CNN’s panel of women defending Trump’s racism were literally the ‘Trumpettes’

Published

on

CNN aired a panel that featured “Republican women” defending President Trump’s racist tweets, but failed to mention that they were actually part of a pro-Trump group whose members the network had interviewed in the past.

This article originally appeared at Salon.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Ben Carson is Donald Trump’s faulty human shield against accusations of racism

Published

on

Ben Carson is back in the news — after another long absence — because Donald Trump has once again been accused of racism.

This article originally appeared at Salon.

The secretary of Housing and Urban Development is the only African-American member of the president’s Cabinet, and is often trotted out to clean up after Trump makes a mess too obviously problematic for the media to ignore. While Trump has tried to spin his recent racist attacks on four progressive freshman congresswomen as a strategic maneuver meant to manipulate Democratic infighting to his advantage, Carson's re-emergence from his stupor should be a clear indication that the president’s team recognizes the damage that can be caused by his unforced errors.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

An illegal trend could be emerging after Trump let Kellyanne Conway off the hook for breaking federal law

Published

on

Federal workplaces are supposed to be free of politics, but a Trump administration appointee used a government forum Wednesday to express support for the president’s reelection.

At a conference on religious freedom hosted by the State Department, an official told the crowd of several hundred people that “hopefully he will be reelected,” referring to President Donald Trump.

It’s illegal for federal employees to engage in political activities while they are on the job.

“It’s a violation of the Hatch Act for a federal official, to say in her official capacity, to hope that the president will be reelected,” said Kathleen Clark, an expert on legal ethics at the Washington University in St. Louis.

Continue Reading
 
 
 

Copyright © 2019 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections or concerns, please email [email protected]

Join Me. Try Raw Story Investigates for $1. Invest in Journalism. Escape Ads.
close-image