The New York Times has a long piece (8/12/11) looking at the question of how many civilians in Pakistan are killed by CIA drones. The agency doesn’t even speak about the program on the record, except to make the far-fetched claim that no civilians have died in the past year or so.
The article, written by Scott Shane, includes some useful criticism of the CIA, and it’s hard not to conclude that the agency’s claims are not very credible.
But the real problem with the piece is that it gives much weight to the CIA’s defense at all, using their almost entirely anonymous claims as one side in a dispute:
The government’s assertion of zero collateral deaths meets with deep skepticism from many independent experts. And a new report from the British Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which conducted interviews in Pakistan’s tribal area, concluded that at least 45 civilians were killed in 10 strikes during the last year.
Shane writes that a “closer look at the competing claims… suggests reasons to doubt the precision and certainty of the agency’s civilian death count.” He adds, though, that “if there are doubts about the CIA claim, there are also questions about the reliability of critics’ reports of noncombatant deaths.”
Shane also reports that “American officials” do not trust Pakistani lawyer Mirza Shahzad Akbar, who has been a key player and is suing the CIA– which apparently discredits the British Bureau of Investigative Journalism study:
American officials said the Bureau of Investigative Journalism report was suspect because it relied in part on information supplied by Mr. Akbar, who publicly named the CIA’s undercover Pakistan station chief in December when announcing his legal campaign against the drones.
If you read some of the British press about this study (as I did, thanks to CommonDreams.org), you get a very different impression than the one you get from the New York Times. From the Telegraph:
168 Children Killed in Drone Strikes
in Pakistan Since Start of Campaign
New research to send shockwaves through Pakistan
by Rob Crilly, Islamabad
In an extensive analysis of open-source documents, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that 2,292 people had been killed by U.S. missiles, including as many as 775 civilians.
An opinion piece at the Guardian:
The Civilian Victims
of the CIA’s Drone War
A new study gives us the truest picture yet–in contrast to the CIA’s own account–of drones’ grim toll of ‘collateral damage’
In that piece, Smith writes:
This week, a new report from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism gives us the best picture yet of the impact of the CIA‘s drone war in Pakistan. The CIA claims that there has been not one “noncombatant” killed in the past year. This claim always seemed to be biased advocacy rather than honest fact. Indeed, the Guardian recently published some of the pictures we have obtained of the aftermath of drone strikes. There were photos of a child called Naeem Ullah killed in Datta Khel and two kids in Piranho, both within the timeframe of the CIA’s dubious declaration.
The BIJ reporting begins to fill in the actual numbers. It’s a bleak view: more people killed than previously thought, including an estimated 160 children overall. This study should help to create a greater sense of reality around what is going on in these remote regions of Pakistan. This is precisely what has been lacking in the one-sided reporting of the issue–and it doesn’t take an intelligence analyst to realize that vague and one-sided is just the way the CIA wants to keep it.
The Times account obeys normal journalistic “rules” about balance and giving official sources their say. Which, in this case, amounts to giving space to anonymous killers to defend their actions.
…giving space to anonymous killers to defend their actions.!! Absolutely right on!
Why don’t articles like this one of Mr Shane’s in the NYT contain at least some brief background on the history of the veracity of the sources?? Provide some brief examples of how the CIA was/wasn’t honest in previous claims, and do the same with Mr. Akbar. This would be entirely in-keeping with the MSM’s ‘he-said/she-said; two-sides-to-every-story’ approach to most stories (so reporters wouldn’t have to feel quite as concerned about their jobs), but would provide readers with some grounds to come to a rational conclusion, not just leave them as inconclusive as when they started reading the article.
I agree with the substance of the criticism here, but think you made a pretty bad stylistic choice. You describe CIA drone operators as killers. That may be technically true, but then you would also have to describe our soldiers as killers. These CIA agents are serving their country. The policy they are carrying out is a morally abhorant and counterproductive one, but that should not give them the desciption of “killers”
There is a MYTH out there about THE CARING KILLER whether its one man J F Kennedy, M l King, or ten thousands in Afghanistan, or a MILLION in Iraq, it is not about the numbers they don’t give two f@@ks. Its the PR, the image, the protocol & the appearances, its the business of the business of it.
There is no whip no leather, no body language, no book, sorry there maybe one holly one, it may show up toward the end. Given the right & I mean RIGHT mix SHOCK DOCTRINE, CAPITALISM-CANNIBALISM packed with the right INTELLIGENCE, THEY WOULD NUKE A PLACE OR TWO without blinking an eye.
The concept of EXCEPTIONAL-ISM was never too far away from the concept of Arian race or some connotation of we are the ones.
(((WE ARE HERE TO STOP YOU FROM BECOMING A KILLER TO ACHIEVE THAT WE MUST KILL YOU FIRST)))
No terror no torture just truth
@Jason Beets: The difference between CIA officers and soldiers is that killing by the CIA is always illegal under international law.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/drone-pilots-could-be-tried-for-war-crimes-law-prof-says/
You’re right, Jason Beets–it should be “murderers,” not “killers.”
Murder is a word that applies to an action directed upon another human. If we do not recognize others as human is it still murder? This is what the defense of Lieutenant Calley amounted to in his trial for the crimes at My Lai.
When I pull a weed from the lawn I do not usually announce that I have “murdered” weeds.
If one announces that he is terminating the metabolic processes of another organism, is this less shocking than use of the word murder or collateral damage?
We must carefully select the language we use so that descriptions of horrific actions do not convey their intrinsic horror.
Alternatively, perhaps these murders of no consequenceâ┚¬”Âexcept to the murderer and the murderedâ┚¬”Âshould be described as something other than war.
I notice that the CIA and Army estimates are taken as matter of fact lies ,distortions, and tampered upon facts,where as the un named sources and allegations are taken as the gospel truth.
Amish believe if you take a gun into your hand you take a gun into your heart.In this we are all complicit.The taxes we pay produce the “guns” that are allocated to our Army,that are handed to a soldier who pulls the trigger and destroys another human. Hopefully an enemy combatant but still a life.YOU who want the taxes, and pay the taxes,and grow the taxes are the beginning of the murderous chain.You who vote for the commander in chief that gives the order that ripples down the chain of command are responsible.How does it feel to be pointed out as a murderer.Complicit beyond dispute?So put away the sanctimonious hopes for yourself.Now that you know you are a part of this….how do we do better?
Every one of these accounts counts the killed, but ignores the injured. And this is always. Either is bad enough, but it is the injured who must spend a lifetime suffering and in today’s warfare the injuries are often awful and the public has no idea. Also, the numbers injured are appalling. We journalists have a creed. It states that our goal is to inform with the truth, the whole truth. Of course the media is careful not to publish any of such old stuff. If they were to do so it would the weekly reports would read like this: today WE DID very well in Afghanistan,only 10 injured. Two lost half their heads and/ or both legs. Of course, you have to understand that they’ll get expert care. Oh, the other 8? Four, were burnt, only partially, only half their bodies, unfortunately, one lost both eyes, Fire reaches toward what’s wet, you knowâ┚¬”Âbut with years of operations…also those badly injured are practically hiddenâ┚¬” like 30 years alone. I read that 55% of the voters asked if the soldiers should come home. Reports like the above could cure that.