Reader, link: "Finally, proof that the United States
has lied in the drone wars."
|
(Thanks, N. :) Reader N. sends us the link to an article at ForeignPolicy.com which begins: ===== An Inconvenient Truth Finally, proof that the United States has lied in the drone wars. It turns out that the Obama administration has not been honest about who the CIA has been targeting with drones in Pakistan. Jonathan Landay, national security reporter at McClatchy Newspapers, has provided the first analysis of drone-strike victims that is based upon internal, top-secret U.S. intelligence reports. It is the most important reporting on U.S. drone strikes to date because Landay, using U.S. government assessments, plainly demonstrates that the claim repeatedly made by President Obama and his senior aides -- that targeted killings are limited only to officials, members, and affiliates of al Qaeda who pose an imminent threat of attack on the U.S. homeland -- is false. [big snip to end] Full article:
An Inconvenient Truth
Finally,
proof that the United States has lied in the drone wars.
BY MICAH ZENKO | APRIL 10, 2013
It turns
out that the Obama administration has not been honest about who the CIA has
been targeting with drones in Pakistan. Jonathan
Landay, national security reporter at McClatchy Newspapers, has provided the first analysis of drone-strike victims that
is based upon internal, top-secret U.S. intelligence reports. It is the most
important reporting on U.S. drone strikes to date because Landay, using U.S.
government assessments, plainly demonstrates that the claim repeatedly made
by President Obama and his senior aides -- that targeted killings are limited
only to officials, members, and affiliates of al Qaeda who pose an imminent
threat of attack on the U.S. homeland -- is false.
Senior officials and agencies have emphasized this
point over and over because it is essential to the legal foundations on which
the strikes are ultimately based: the 2001 Authorization to Use Military
Force and the U.N. Charter's right to self-defense. A Department
of Justice white paper said that the United States can target a
"senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force" who
"poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United
States." Attorney General Eric Holder said the administration targets
"specific senior operational leaders of al-Qaeda and associated
forces," and Harold Koh, the senior State Department legal adviser
dubbed them "high-level al-Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks."
Obama said during a Google+ Hangout in January 2012: "These strikes have
been in the FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas] and going after
al-Qaeda suspects." Finally, Obama claimed in September: "Our goal has been to focus on
al Qaeda and to focus narrowly on those who would pose an imminent threat to
the United States of America."
As the Obama administration unveils its promised and overdue targeted-killing reforms over the
next few months, citizens, policymakers, and the media should keep in mind
this disconnect between who the United States claimed it was killing and who
it was actually killing.
Landay's reporting primarily covers the most intensive
period of CIA drone strikes, from September 2010 to September 2011.
"[T]he documents reveal estimates of deaths and injuries; locations of
militant bases and compounds; the identities of some of those targeted or
killed; the movements of targets from village to village or compound to
compound; and, to a limited degree, the rationale for unleashing
missiles," he writes.
While he provides few direct quotes from the documents,
his most important finding is this:
At least 265 of up to 482 people who the U.S.
intelligence reports estimated the CIA killed during a 12-month period ending
in September 2011 were not senior al Qaida leaders but instead were
"assessed" as Afghan, Pakistani and unknown extremists. Drones
killed only six top al Qaida leaders in those months, according to news media
accounts. Forty-three of 95 drone strikes reviewed for that period hit groups other than al Qaida, including the Haqqani network, several Pakistani Taliban factions and the unidentified individuals described only as "foreign fighters" and "other militants."... At other times, the CIA killed people who only were suspected, associated with, or who probably belonged to militant groups.
This scope of targeting complicates the Obama
administration's claim that only those al Qaeda members who are an imminent
threat to the U.S. homeland can be killed. In reality, starting in the summer
of 2008, when President Bush first authorized signature strikes in Pakistan,
the vast majority of drone-strike victims were from groups focused on
establishing some form of Sharia law, attacking Pakistani security forces,
and destabilizing Afghanistan by supporting the Taliban and attacking U.S.
servicemembers. The United States essentially replicated the Vietnam War
strategy of bombing the Vietcong's safe haven in Cambodia. In addition, the
CIA was engaging in "side payment strikes" against the Pakistani
Taliban to eliminate threats on Islamabad's behalf. This was not a secret to
anyone following the CIA's drone program. As I wrote as early as March 2009:
The covert program that began as an effort to
kill high-value al-Qaeda and Taliban officials responsible for previous
international terror attacks (and who continue to provide strategic guidance
to the global jihadist movement) has since led to the CIA's serving, in
effect, as a counterinsurgency arm of the Pakistani air force.
Landay
also writes that "the reports estimated there was a single civilian
casualty, an individual killed in an April 22, 2011, strike in North
Waziristan." This should finally demolish John Brennan's claim
in June 2011 that "For the past 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." As I noted
previously, either Brennan did not receive the information in these
top-secret documents (an implausible notion given his central role in
managing the targeted killings program), or he was being dishonest.
It is important to note that the claim of a
single civilian casualty is based on the CIA's interpretation that any
military-age males who are behaving suspiciously can be lawfully targeted. No
U.S. government official has ever openly acknowledged the practice of such
"signature strikes" because it is so clearly at odds with the
bedrock principle of distinction required for using force within the laws of
armed conflict. According to the documents reviewed by Landay, even the U.S.
intelligence community does not necessarily know who it has killed; it is
forced to use fuzzy categories like "other militants" and
"foreign fighters."
Some of
the drone strikes that
Landay describes, such as a May 22, 2007 attack requested by Pakistan's
intelligence service to support Pakistani troops in combat, do not appear in
the databases maintained by the New America Foundation, the Bureau of
Investigative Journalism, or Long Wars Journal. This should strengthen
the concerns of many analysts about the accuracy of reporting from Pakistan's
tribal areas. It also suggests that there may be a few additional targeted
killing efforts of which we know nothing.
This
lack of understanding further reinforces the need for a comprehensive official
history of U.S. targeted killings in non-battlefield settings, comparable
in scope and transparency to the government reports about other controversial
counterterrorism policies. Some policymakers will question why we should care
about what the United States was doing two years ago, which in Washington is
considered ancient and irrelevant. Yet, for all of the historical accounts
and professed concerns over the CIA's detention and extraordinary rendition
program, which involved "136 known victims," it is time for an accounting of
the CIA's drone strikes, which have killed between 3,000 and 4,000 people in
Pakistan and Yemen.
Finally,
based on the Obama administration's patterns of behavior, the Department of Justice will
assuredly target Landay and his sources for leaking classified information.
While the DOJ has refrained from plugging the many selective leaks by anonymous administration officials
that praise the precision and efficacy of drone strikes, it has sought more criminal prosecutions of leaks in Obama's first term
than during all previous presidential administrations combined. Like almost
everything else we know about targeted killings, these latest revelations
come from an investigative
journalist who served the public interest by reporting new information on
a highly controversial policy -- a policy that the government absurdly
insists remain secret. Absolutely nothing in Landay's reporting reveals the
CIA's sources and methods for determining who had been killed.
The hypocrisy behind U.S. targeted killings
has long been apparent to casual news readers, and it is now confirmed by
internal intelligence documents. The Obama administration has a fundamental
choice to make if it is serious about reforming its targeted-killing program:
Either target who officials claim they are targeting, or change their
justifications to match the actual practice. If they are unable or unwilling
to do this, then other White House efforts toward drone-strike reform or
transparency will be met with skepticism. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/10/an_inconvenient_truth_drones?page=0,1 http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=273870 |
No comments:
Post a Comment