Not even a week after Barack Obama declared that not too many civilians die in the CIA’s drone strikes in Pakistan, a new report from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism finds that “at least 50 civilians” have been killed in rescues attempts, 20 in strikes on funerals, with at least 282 total civilians killed since Obama took office.
That much you learn from the New York Times report by Scott Shane (2/6/12):
WASHINGTON – British and Pakistani journalists said Sunday that the CIA’s drone strikes on suspected militants in Pakistan have repeatedly targeted rescuers who responded to the scene of a strike, as well as mourners at subsequent funerals.
The report, by the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, found that at least 50 civilians had been killed in follow-up strikes after they rushed to help those hit by a drone-fired missile. The bureau counted more than 20 other civilians killed in strikes on funerals. The findings were published on the Bureau‘s website and in the Sunday Times of London.
For some reason the Times felt it necessary to get an anonymous U.S. official–again–to smear the people trying to count the dead:
A senior American counterterrorism official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, questioned the report’s’ findings, saying “targeting decisions are the product of intensive intelligence collection and observation.” The official added: “One must wonder why an effort that has so carefully gone after terrorists who plot to kill civilians has been subjected to so much misinformation. Let’s be under no illusions–there are a number of elements who would like nothing more than to malign these efforts and help Al-Qaeda succeed.”
For the record, the Times’ policy on the use of anonymous sources:
We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal or partisan attack. If pejorative opinions are worth reporting and cannot be specifically attributed, they may be paraphrased or described after thorough discussion between writer and editor. The vivid language of direct quotation confers an unfair advantage on a speaker or writer who hides behind the newspaper, and turns of phrase are valueless to a reader who cannot assess the source.
Very high-minded.
And low-followed.
Talk about “turns of phrase [that] are valueless to a reader” …
The threat of being smeared as pro-Al-Qaeda is something the corporate media takes very seriously.
Their fear can be deduced from the safe distance they maintain from this matter.
This is such a goddam disappointment. The new york times.
I think the number of deaths has been under counted.
http://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/us-drones-killed-957-pakistani-civilians-in-2010/
US drones killed 957 Pakistani civilians in 2010
Published: Apr. 14, 2011- The Irish Sun
A total of 957 Pakistani civilians were killed in American drone attacks in the country 2010, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan said in its annual report Thursday.
The report that focused on human rights violations in the country also laid an emphasis on terror attacks in 2010, according to Xinhua.
It said terrorist attacks in Pakistan left 2,542 people dead and 5,062 others injured in 2010.
â┚¬Ã‹Å“Target killings’ in the country’s port city of Karachi saw the death of 237 political activists while in the southwestern province of Balochistan, at least 118 people were killed, the report said.
At least 1,159 people, including 1,041 civilians, lost their lives in 67 suicide bomb attacks in the country.
During 2010, at least 12,580 people were killed in different incidents, including 791 honour killings. A total of 581 people were kidnapped for ransom.
The report, whose statistics were derived largely from media and other undisclosed sources, criticised the government for failing to protect the citizens, especially religious minorities.
It said the biggest terrorist incident took place in Lahore at a place of worship place of a religious minority. The attack left 99 members of the Ahmadi sect dead.
The commission officials, in the report, urged political parties to work together to improve the human rights situation in the country.
Source: http://story.irishsun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/769208/cs/1/
The minute I finished reading that anonymous quote, I wanted that person identified because I wanted that person gone.
Which leads me to wonder if it might not be good that the NYT published the quote; at least now we know there is “A senior American counterterrorism official” who either needs to be fired and/or forced to identify the “number of elements who would like nothing more than to malign these efforts and help Al-Qaeda succeed.”
Well the BOIJ that has posted the story is not really coming at this with an open mind.I think most of their stories should be listed under the category “What has America broken today”.Their input is interesting but i would not list them as the gold standard.Im absolutely sure innocents have died in theses attacks.The claim that we are targeting first responders is crap.
What is a “senior counterterrorism official?”
Is it a senior citizen that’s against vigilantes in Arizona?
Is it a person who’s been on a job for a long time, and a job that had something to do with security?
Is it the oldest crossing guard at the big intersection? Someone from KBR? The U.S Chamber of Commerce? Who..? Too vague to be useful. Wikileaks was better, and the NYT used that stuff too. Go for the detailed in depth stuff, NYT!
I didn’t think the story suggested that drones were deliberately targeting first responders, as one of the commenters (Michael e.) thought it did. What I got was that it was simply saying that a lot of them were being killed. It also made clear that a great many different groups of people were targeted, that it was not always clear why the targets were chosen, and the numbers and identities of those killed were usually difficult to establish.
The main point I got from the story was that drones are clumsy weapons which cannot identify their targets as easily as soldiers or journalists on the ground can. You notice the author is not suggesting that we should put soldiers back on the ground in large numbers, or withdraw from the war in Pakistan, but he is pointing out a possible problem with our new drone strategy that might very well backfire on our efforts to reduce the influence of Al Qaeda. It seems to me that is worthwhile information for the general public and also military strategists to know. And attacking the messenger’s character and patriotism, without evidence and without disputing the message itself, is an appeal to the very lowest common denominator. Why couldn’t the strategist just say “We can’t yet tell how many civilians are being killed, but we are trying to find out and are working on ways to improve targeting.” Everyone would have respected that answer.
ABO
Why bother having a policy you are not going to follow (although we could say the same thing about our nation and the rule of law).
When a police officer uses deadly force and kills a perp he better be damn sure he can explain why six woman and two kids were killed by his weapon along with his intended target.In the military when it happens with lets say a drone -not so much.If you can explain that bit of rational to me you are better man than I am.
It’s sad to see that even the educated, level-headed, and compassionate left (I assume everyone here) accepts the basic premise of US government actions in South Asia and the so-called Middle East. Using drones to assassinate “terrorists” is extra-judicial execution, sort of like what hanging a black man was in the South without a trial. It is against the 900 year tradition of Magna Carta. It’s against international law and the 20th century conventions of war. The US attacked Afghanistan against international law and is occupying it against international law. Throughout history tyrannical occupying empires have labeled all their enemies “terrorist” and declared open season on them. Even the assassination of Osama Bin Laden was against the law. He should have been tried like all other suspected murderers such as Charles Manson.
michael e says “The claim that we are targeting first responders is crap.”
And you know this how? Here’s what their guys had to say on Dem Now:
I think, obviously, that is a disgraceful comment from an unnamed U.S. official. We’ve presented our findings in good faith. It’s all available on TBIJ’s website. Our data is transparent. We have linked to all of our sources. Our field investigators have put up their findings. We have eyewitness testimonies. We have a supported interview with the national security correspondent of the Washington Post confirming that his U.S. intelligence sources confirmed to him that CIA drones willingly and predictably carried out an attack on a funeral in Pakistan deliberately targeting people there. If the CIA’s responseâ┚¬”Âor rather, unnamed security official’s responseâ┚¬”Âto that is simply to accuse us of aiding al-Qaeda, then something is going significantly wrong at the CIA and in the wider U.S. intelligence community.
Exactly right, Darius. The President’s Blue Team cheerleaders, having condemned Red Team’s captain Bush for some of the exact same crimes, now celebrates Blue Team’s accomplishments in “The War On Terror.” Bin Laden was a criminal, and should have been treated as such. Same goes for the rest of them. He was executed, as was Anwar al Awlaki (an American citizen!), his son, and countless others. No charges, no trial, no lawyer, no nothing. The administration declares all these events to be Top Secret, so they can’t be discussed, yet we all know that these things have happened, and are happening. For the record, though, many of the folks here don’t accept these things–I sure don’t, but many Democrats who would be howling in disgust if President McCain were doing these things are calmly ignoring them under this President (or outright praising and vigorously defending these criminal acts).
The world “researchers” is only mentioned in the title of the article . . . no where else not even in the comments.
Should the word in the title have been “Rescuers” . . . the article does say that it is the rescuers helping in an earlier attack that are being attacked and killed.
OOps it should have been “The word not The World”
The wall of separation between corporation (an their owners) an state have been breached some time ago. So of course many organs of those corporations will be in bed with those in political office. Our own military now can’t function without many corporations doing the job they use to do. Including military ops. So what has been found by FAIR an others is that the standard news source not Fox, will soft peddle or out right copy whatever the gov’t produces for answers to awkward questions. Once you learn that you will have a better understanding of what is going on here.
acomfort: The researchers we’re referring to are the ones who put together the Bureau of Investigative Journalism report.
Someone needs to start demanding statistics to justify any drone activity against “suspected terrorists” whatsoever. Where is evidence of their terrorist activity? How many media stories have we seen, heard, read, about terrorist attacks on Americans? Anywhere, and going how far back? When was the last time there was a story in the press about an attack on Americans?
Panetta, Clapper, Petraus, they all say openly that these terrorists are “actively” attacking Americans and her Allies, but I’m not reading anything beyond our drone attacks killing them.
This sounds like more of a preemptive National Security policy, like (the latter “tricky-dick”) Cheney’s 1% Doctrine, than one based on the rule of law or evidentiary procedure.
Oh yeah, I forgot…
I remember one of the first leaked videos, the one where an American helicopter first murdered a group of men who happened to include a reporter for a respected western news agency (was it Reuters?), and then when some random civilians came by and tried to take one of the victims to the hospital, the helicopter soldiers shot up their van, seriously injuring some children who happened to be in the van.
For those who accept the present use of drones for Long Range Kills of “suspects” ask them if they would approve of their use here using the same criteria. Then we shall see if they really believed in this extra judicial murder. For a “good cause” of course we are told.
I notice no one here has given a thought to drones being upgraded from the problems being listed in these blogs.We have a weapon system either faulty ,or being misused(According to most here).My guess is no one here wants the problem fixed.They want drones ended.And probably all smart munitions….As well as f-15s….tanks and most other weapon systems.Fair enough- but be realistic.So what is inherently wrong with drones?The weapon ,the men controlling it,or the president for his strategic plan in the use of them?Drones are a forward based weapons system.Built for deep penetration and target acquisition,without a human component controlling it on sight.They are very accurate,very lethal,and in a war(thats war night-gaunt) where the enemy hides among the population, prone to collateral damage.
Got all that, Night-Gaunt? Your observation and comparison is of course over-looked. Our troll could never imagine sauntering out of a Seven Eleven and suddenly being terminated because a three-time petty thief walked out into the lot just before him. Further hilarity would ensue when the brutes who whacked him (“collaterally”) not only wouldn’t re-imburse his family to bury all the parts they could find, but would say, simply, “Gee, we’re sorry, but it’s a dangerous world, but at least (we think) we got the right bad guy. So suck it up, and be realistic.”
Tim I did my time in a tough outfit, so Im no wilting lilly.But you are actually right, and i agree with you.There is never going to be an excuse that would ever suffice for the death of even one innocent person.Im only saying that improved drones, and improved training and use of them, are probably among the best systems now on line for taking out the bad guys- with a minimum of collateral damage.If there is something better I just may not know it.Look in the end the Amish have it right though.Take a gun into your hand and you take a gun in to your heart.No bullet can be called back.One of the reasons I think ANYBODY running for the job of president ,(and understanding these are the calls they must make )must be nuts.Propelled forward by some narcissistic wind.I have no argument for innocent deaths, even in a war with fanatical terrorist guerilla factions hiding among the population.And I have no training in strategic level military scenarios.In Germany 80 thousand died in one nights bombing against Dresden-Hamburg in the move to destroy war plants there and break the will of the Nazis.Near one hundred thousand in Tokyo fire bombing.I don’t know if anybody can choke out the words”it was worth the cost”.I think the American military planners today look to target acquisition and accuracy as paramount.It has cost us a kings ransom to develop these smart weapons.Was that worth the cost?Or do we blanch to such a degree that we kneel in front of enemies as we unilaterally disarm that care not one wit for human life?