On Aug. 31, 2012, a top-secret U.S. intelligence report noted that “possible bystanders” had been killed alongside militants from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in a drone strike in eastern Yemen two days earlier. The source of the intelligence, a Yemeni official described in the cable as “reliable,” identified two of the dead as Waleed bin Ali Jaber and Salim bin Ali Jaber, “an imam of a mosque who had reportedly preached a sermon that had insulted AQAP.”
The source believed that Salim and Waleed “had been lured to the car by the two AQAP militants when the airstrike hit.”
Salim and Waleed’s deaths sparked protests in their village, and the incident was later well-documented by international media and human rights groups. Their family representative, Faisal bin Ali Jaber, has met with Yemeni and U.S. national security officials and members of Congress. But the United States still has not formally acknowledged or apologized for the incident.
The previously unreported intelligence report, viewed by The Intercept, indicates that the U.S. government knew soon after the strike that it had killed two civilians. It could add fire to a lawsuit that Faisal bin Ali Jaber has launched in Germany, as further evidence that U.S. strikes put innocent Yemenis at risk.
Jaber will testify next month in front of a German court, alleging that Germany is violating a constitutionally enshrined duty to protect the right to life by allowing the United States to use Ramstein Air Base as part of its lethal drone operations.
It is the first time a victim of a U.S. drone strike will air his grievances in court, lawyers for the case told The Intercept. The lawsuit could put Germany in the awkward position of having to publicly defend its role in the U.S. drone program.
As The Intercept reported today, the U.S. military sees Ramstein as an essential node in the technical infrastructure for its armed and unarmed drone operations. A budget request for the Ramstein station stated that without the facility, “weapon strikes cannot be supported.”
The administrative court in Cologne where Jaber’s suit is filed recently granted him the chance to present evidence, a sign that it will allow the case to move forward. At that hearing, scheduled for May 27, Jaber will describe the 2012 incident and argue that he and his family are still in danger from drone strikes.
“We’re asking the German government to take measures to stop the U.S. from using German soil in their illegal and immoral drone war,” said Kat Craig, legal director for Reprieve, an international rights group that is representing Jaber along with the Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights.
Extending the constitutional right to life to a non-German citizen outside of Germany is untested legal ground. That Jaber will be allowed to testify is “quite remarkable,” said Craig, and shows “the court is taking it seriously.”
The German government has tried to get the suit tossed, arguing in a court filing that Ramstein’s role in the U.S. drone program is unproven, and that Jaber can’t tie Germany to his specific case.
The lawsuit, the government argues in the filing, is asking Germany to act as a “‘global public prosecutor’ towards other sovereign states” — namely, the United States and Yemen.
The German government also wrote that the U.S. has provided assurances that no drones are commanded or controlled from Germany, echoing what a Pentagon spokesperson told The Intercept: that the United States does not “directly fly or control any manned or remotely piloted aircraft” from Ramstein. As The Intercept explained, that language carefully evades the important technical role played by the base.
Any victory in Jaber’s case will likely be symbolic, said Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “It’s almost unimaginable that lethal counterterrorism operations would rupture a relationship with an ally like Germany. Ramstein is used for so many other things and is so important to the bilateral relationship,” Zenko said.
But it could have political ramifications in Germany, where drones are a particularly controversial issue. Zenko noted a recent survey that found 67 percent of Germans were opposed to U.S. drone strikes. Previous allegations of Ramstein’s role in the drone program led to parliamentary inquiries.
In its response, the German government “appears to be trying to avoid a situation where they have to justify their cooperation with the Americans,” said Craig. “That is why they won’t simply deal with the facts of the case.”
U.S. drone operations in Yemen have slowed in the months since Jaber filed his case, as the country has disintegrated into war. U.S.-backed President Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi fled into exile in February as the Houthi rebel group took over the capital and large swaths of the country. Saudi Arabia is now bombing the Houthis (with U.S. support) while AQAP has taken advantage of the vacuum to expand its territory.
Nonetheless, strikes continue. Just this week a U.S. drone strike killed a leader of AQAP who was once held in Guantánamo. Jaber’s lawyers plan to argue that the drone campaign will now be less precise due to the war limiting U.S. intelligence on the ground.
Reprieve acknowledges that the German case is a roundabout way of getting at the issue. “It’s very difficult to challenge U.S. drone activities in U.S. courts, so Reprieve targets the soft underbelly of Europe and U.S. allies there to fill the void of accountability,” said Craig.
The United States rarely acknowledges specific drone strikes — usually only when a high-level target is killed — and almost never responds to specific allegations of civilian harm. Attempts to bring cases in U.S. courts have gained little traction. The family of U.S. citizen Anwar al Awlaki and his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, has tried for years to bring suit for their deaths in U.S. drone strikes in 2011. In June, a federal judge dismissed their case, deferring to executive branch authority over military targeting decisions.
National Security Council spokesman Ned Price declined to comment on the contents of the intelligence report on the August 2012 strike that killed Salim and Waleed bin Ali Jaber. He said generally that the U.S. government “takes seriously all credible reports of non-combatant deaths and injuries,” conducts after-action reviews, and in some cases, offers compensation.
The family did receive roughly $100,000 last year, in bags of crisp U.S. dollars delivered by Yemeni officials. Jaber told Yahoo News last October that he was told the money came from the United States. But he was still not satisfied. “‘One thinks the U.S. believes it can silence the families of the victims with money’ rather than ‘an apology and an explanation,’” Yahoo reported.
Letta Tayler, a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch who conducted an in-depth investigation into U.S. drones strikes in Yemen, questioned the underlying policy that allows for so many civilian deaths. “It’s as if the hundreds of Yemenis and thousands of Pakistanis killed in drone strikes simply do not exist,” she said.
Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty
quote“It’s as if the hundreds of Yemenis and thousands of Pakistanis killed in drone strikes simply do not exist,” she said.”unquote
Of course they don’t exist. They were incinerated by psychopaths in the US Government.
By now the complaints about drones seem almost quaint. After all, they were supposed to be well targeted at leaders against us, of the organization Al Qaida that has repeatedly attacked us. Some might even complain that we let Al Qaida hang out for 14 years, holding territory, doing much of what they wanted. A critic might say we should have had real soldiers with real military honor in charge who would actually care whether they were attacking “militants” who were military or just letting a glorified spam filter pick out some civilians to give the planes something to do, but that’s water under the bridge now.
By contrast, once the Houthis got involved we kicked Athena to the curb and turned to bloodstained Mars to lead us. I mean, see http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-04-16/no-power-no-fuel-no-water-no-food-thats-yemen-right-now – the U.S. is not assuring it will let food through a naval blockade even if its ships are directly involved, and by that report it’s definitely not getting through now. Indeed, I read the Saudis have blown up the key warehouses and transit points to distribute even what food reserves Yemen had. The country was 90% dependent on food imports. So this sounds like old school. I just don’t get what the Houthis did to us that makes them so more immediate of a problem than Al Qaida. The world might dote on Fahd’s every whim, but I would have thought the lust revenge after 9/11 counted for something.
Time has come to equip the drones with nukes. All the people that remain in the target areas are the bad terrorists. All the good, innocent people have been either killed or have converted to bad terrorists. Nukes are the answer to what needs to be done. A few need to be dropped on Pyongyang and Mt Paektu in North Korea just to demonstrate lack of bias in choosing targets. I was initially inclined to drop a few on Riyadh also, but then we need those Saudis to keep creating terrorists on whom we can then perform target practice.
And karma would have one land on your house.
You took the words out of my mouth.
I am pretty sure that is snark.
Good call, Bob, I like to visualize a combination of Generals Buck Turgidson and Jack D. Ripper from Dr. Stranglove.
Apologies to the long deceased Mr. Kubrick for dropping that keystroke in “Strangelove.”
Someone needs to read up on Poe’s Law.
We are droning those folks without really caring who gets killed and who survives. If they manage to escape the drones, they get their heads chopped off by their own folks or some over-zealous western skunks. What those guys are witnessing is a painful process of dismemberment of their limbs, loss of their near and dear ones and finally an unpredictable style of a very predictable death. They have nothing called society, no entertainment except one that leads to more kids who would suffer as them, no occupation except dodging drones, bullets and knives. Don’t you think they would prefer a quick end to their lives? Or do you subscribe to making them suffer until their misery is put out? Therefore, I say, nuke them. Baghdadi is hiding somewhere. A good nuke strike will take him out and send him to his Alla Mohamad Hebdo to whom he has been very busy sending his own folks.
I think this investigation is a very good idea, deaths of innocent civilians should not go un-noticed and should be investigated. I also think the drone missions were probably not the most effective way of combating Al Qaeda in Yemen, however as the Yemeni people do not have a positive attitude to Americans or American troops, using un-manned drones was the only way that the USA could possibly attack Al Qaeda in Yemen.
Manufacture and reliability…
The drones are perhaps not as reliable or as good at targeting as their manufacturers have espoused, or perhaps the fault lies with the ones who are operating them. However it must be remembered that the vast majority of Yemeni people do not want Al Qaeda in their country either, and in this sense the USA were helping to further the objectives of Yemen.
Main Question…
Is there any way that any strikes can be done to remove all risk to civilians? And if not, then alternatives to aggressive action should be perused in the fight against terrorism.
I would like to add as a note, that currently Saudi Arabia, in their mission to ‘help Yemeni people’ are actually killing thousands more innocent civilians in Yemen than the USA ever have, and although the perusal of this investigation is very important, the intervention by Saudi is currently overshadowing it completely.
Why should this goose-stepping by the USA! USA! USA! be going on AT ALL???
http://www.alternet.org/world/us-helping-commit-atrocities-yemen-and-pretends-its-irans-fault
What world does John Kerry live in?
A wealthy one.
The one where your sewage drains into.
America military on trail in Germany, we have come a long way since Nuremberg. While we have not yet achieved the glory and goals of the Third Reich fascist police state we have many powerful Enablers driving us swiftly in that direction. We badly need a set of brakes.
“It’s as if the hundreds of Yemenis and thousands of Pakistanis killed in drone strikes simply do not exist,” she said.
As our(if you’re a citizen of the USA) government continues doing whatever it will wherever it wants with no accountability all the while vomiting forth the absurd notion that we do so for humanitarian, or defensive reasons, I see NO HOPE in this insane direction we have taken. How many wars being waged at one time does it take to get people’s attention? Although we don’t hear about Afghanistan in the news, we are still there, in harm’s way, and we’re prosecuting Iraq III for all intents and purposes, drones in Pakistan and Yemen, and these are only the ones we’re told about. My country’s war mongering sickens me, so if that means i’ve been radicalized, it’s my own government that’s done it. Speak up people. Kudos to The Intercept for keeping these issues alive, especially since the “trusted” news sources have and are failing miserably. I wish I had the skill to imbue my words with the anger I feel toward these militaristic psychopaths who are doing these things in mine and all of our names. Time to wake up people, if we can.
I am opposed to war – period. I assume the drone targets are targeted because they are leaders of or associated with groups that kill. If the drone attacks were ended would the targets end their killing because the drones have been stopped? Articles like this are common but, I cannot remember any of them addressing what happens afterward if there is success in ending the action, in this case drone attacks. I am always left wondering.
You write, “I assume the drone targets are targeted because they are leaders of or associated with groups that kill.”
That’s a hell of an assumption.
Do you also assume that US policymakers are genuinely interested in the well-being of “the country” and serious when they swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the US from all enemies foreign and domestic?
Have a few more assumptions: 1. plutocrats and the corporate-government control US policymakers. You and I work for them, too. 2. All 3 branches of the seemingly defunct government have participated in the dismantling of the US Constitution. 3. It’s going to get a lot worse around here.
Please read:
Dick Cheney’s Song of America
http://archive.harpers.org/2002/10/pdf/HarpersMagazine-2002-10-0079354.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJXATU3VRJAAA66RA&Expires=1429314530&Signature=gOxuswuqrdfsyVs8Jok9AHB2d4w%3D
And find a copy of Frank Furedi’s “New Ideology of Imperialism” (1994)
Link doesn’t work, unless of course you intended this:
–
AccessDeniedRequest has expired2015-04-17T23:48:50Z2015-04-18T05:05:45ZDE5944B0D436129AxH1U8abWgYbudUsdZqRUMZlPi39MqECNkjZNAz2k5M0crjbnwua75JjSCsZhW1q/It could be my browser. Check it out, please. I really wanted to read Dick Cheney’s song.
hit the “Download PDF” button here:
http://harpers.org/archive/2002/10/dick-cheneys-song-of-america/
Exactly.
Just look at the history of the Vietnam (American) War for some insight. Once US forces and influence departed, the killing stopped. I have wondered the same thing, though. Bring home all US troops from all the thousand bases and out posts around the world and “give peace a chance.” We certainly know what happens otherwise!
Why is it your business?
Can the authors also discuss and challenge the unquestioned orthodoxy that foreign policy is the exclusive prerogative of the Executive Branch?
How can Americans strip the WH of its self-proclaimed and clearly illegitimate authority?
see this clip of Wayne Morse from the film adaptation of Norman Solomon’s book, War Made Easy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiLV-Xeh8bA