AFTER YEARS OF INTENSE SECRECY, the Obama administration on Monday announced that it will for the first time acknowledge the number of people it has killed in drone strikes outside of conventional war zones, including civilians. The report, administration officials said, will be released “in the coming weeks,” and will continue to be released annually. The news came as the Pentagon confirmed that it had carried out one of the largest airstrikes in the history of the war on terror.
Lisa Monaco, the president’s counterterrorism and homeland security adviser, described the plan in comments made during a talk at the Council on Foreign Relations. “We know that not only is greater transparency the right thing to do, it is the best way to maintain the legitimacy of our counterterrorism actions and the broad support of our allies,” Monaco said, adding that the operations described in the report would not cover areas of “active hostilities,” such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.
Human rights groups and legal organizations acknowledged the significance of the move but said more needs to be done. “This is an important step, but it should be part of a broader reconsideration of the secrecy surrounding the drone campaign,” the ACLU’s deputy legal director, Jameel Jaffer, said in a statement. On Friday, the U.S. government, as part of a long-running legal battle with the ACLU, said it would release a redacted version of the Presidential Policy Guidance, the rules and law it relies on for so-called targeted killing. Jaffer argued such documents must be released in order to have a full accounting of the administration’s drone program.
“The administration should also release the legal memos that supply the purported legal basis for drone strikes — particularly those carried out away from recognized battlefields,” Jaffer said. “The authority to use lethal force should be subject to more stringent oversight by the public, by Congress, and, at least in some contexts, by the courts.”
Amnesty International’s Naureen Shah echoed the call for more precise information on the administration’s legal standards. “Today’s announcement is a welcome and crucial step, but the upcoming disclosure must include information on the U.S. government’s definitions and legal standards for these strikes,” Shah said in a statement. “Only then will policymakers, the human rights community, and the general public have the information necessary to assess the administration’s numbers and the drone program’s impact.”
For years, U.S. policymakers and national security officials have alluded to varying numbers of casualties resulting from drone strikes. Dianne Feinstein, a member of Senate Intelligence Committee, and John Brennan, the director of the CIA, have both described civilian casualty totals in the “single digits.” Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham once put the overall death toll at 4,700. Last year, in The Drone Papers, The Intercept published a cache of classified military documents revealing the technological limitations of the Pentagon’s drone program outside of active war zones, its controversial reliance on electronic intelligence to trigger strikes, and, in the case of one campaign in Afghanistan, a tendency to kill large numbers of people in pursuit of a single target.
While the administration’s newly announced drone report would mark a turning point in acknowledging some of its most controversial counterterrorism operations, its full scope was not immediately clear. The Obama administration has overseen targeted killing operations in several countries, including Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. Both the military and the CIA carry out the strikes. The CIA’s drone strikes, however, are classified as covert, meaning they are not officially acknowledged by the administration.
The Intercept posed several questions to the White House regarding the administration’s upcoming drone strike reports, including whether the data will reflect covert operations and strikes in Pakistan and whether it will incorporate the years of data gathered by NGOs. Those questions were not answered. A senior administration official said in an email, “When deciding whether an operational area is an ‘area of active hostilities’ for purposes of the President’s [counterterrorism] policy guidance, we take into consideration, among other things, the scope and intensity of the fighting.”
“We consider, for example, Iraq and Syria to be ‘areas of active hostilities’ based on what we are seeing on the ground right now,” the official added. “This is not the same as a determination that an armed conflict is taking place in the country at issue. Regardless of that determination, we are committed to being precise and discriminating in our use of lethal force; to complying with all applicable law, including the law of armed conflict; and to taking extreme care to minimize the risk of civilian casualties in all of our actions.”
Last month, retired Gen. Michael Hayden, the former head of the CIA and the NSA, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times lavishing praise on drone warfare as “the most precise and effective application of firepower in the history of armed conflict.” Days later, the Stimson Center, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, published a report card evaluating the administration’s transparency on drone policy. The administration received a string of failing grades.
As if to underscore how engrained the administration’s approach to warfare has become, while Monaco spoke Monday, reports began to surface of a massive U.S. counterterrorism strike in Somalia. The Pentagon reported that more than 150 suspected members of al Shabaab had been killed roughly 120 miles north of the nation’s capital of Mogadishu, making it one of the largest instances of U.S. airpower in recent memory, with a death toll that exceeded every U.S. counterterrorism mission in Somalia over the past nine years combined.
“We know they were going to be departing the camp and they posed an imminent threat to U.S. and [African Union] forces,” said Captain Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesperson. “Initial assessments are that more than 150 terrorist fighters were eliminated.” Early reports attributed to the attack to a drone strike. The Pentagon later corrected itself, and the Associated Press reported that the strikes included multiple drones and manned aircraft launching missiles at the camp. The Pentagon spokesperson said he was confident the strikes would “degrade al Shabaab’s ability.”
Related:
But we do know they were al Shahab recruits.
They released a press statement. As they always do.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35753866
And okay, Mr. Ethical, what do you want to do with militants that have pledge allegiance to al-Qaeda that describes itself as waging jihad against “enemies of Islam”.
Those enemies are most often Kenyan and Somali civilians, as well as other foreign targets.
I’m sorry, did you want US forces on the ground to arrest a large number of militants and create a special international tribunal? It’s not like we can take them to Guantánamo.
And what do you think African Union troops would have done with them?
I guess if you want to be known and not anonymously killed, you shouldn’t be hanging out with al-Qaeda with an organization that has conducts dozens of terrorist attacks on civilians every single year, particularly in the countries they operate in, Kenya and Somalia.
We all get it. So what is the purpose of making an issue out of something everyone already knows without offering a solution?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35753866
Do they still count civilian men old enough to serve as militants?
And one of their criteria for deciding to kill with drones is “must pose imminent danger to the good ‘ol USA” (or something very similar). Apparently Americans can’t speak English very well, because their interpretation of the word “imminent” is somehow magically not “in the near future”.
i read the report as al jazeera reported it by saying al shabab stuck their tongues out and said, “nannner nanner na na, you missed us” and that they were invincible as long as they had women and children to hide behind.
…..another good article from The Intercept….
….so, who will be doing the counting?….cannot help but remember the “body count” given to we war observers of Vietnam…..will it be the military, CIA, administration?…..and who will determine the “good guys” from the “bad guys”?….
…..support rrheard approach to the issue…..
Somebody remind me why all these folks want to kill us? Something about “Freedom”?
Well depending on how the administration legally defines “legitimate targets”, “suspected”, “terrorists”, “imminence”, “threat” and “civilians” I think will make all the difference in the world whether the numbers produced will be reliable or meaningful in any way.
If American history is any indicator, these sorts of “releases” of data should usually be taken with a very large grain of salt. These sorts of releases, particularly in VietNam and after with regard to the “identity”, “threat value” and/or moral or legal legitimacy of the human beings the US government decides to kill is a very malleable and often propagandistic matter.
I don’t have much faith these releases will be any different. When you see the rest of the world as a nail to be feared, you too often over-rely on the hammer to constructively solve (or in the US’s case) or create problems for yourself.
You are right to state that based on history any data released should be taken with a pinch of salt. and to bring up the Vietnam war as an example .The brilliantly researched book Kill anything that moves by Nick Turse documents the daily war crimes committed by the US Military in the war, and explains how civilians were massacred and executed daily and then called in as Vietcom enemy body count kills. Numerous war crimes were investigated, and were covered up, or never saw the light of day.Targets for killing were set and incentivised and the book even details the horrific and shocking massacres of children and rapes committed. The public perception of the Vietnam war was that there were just one or two infamous war crimes committed but in reality Vietnamese civilians were being slaughtered daily and then counted as killed enemy combatants.
You offer several reasons why a pinch of salt will clearly never do.
Body count data provided by the drone-murder perpetraitors requires backing up a dump truck.
@ Mister & nfjtakfa
Wholeheartedly agree with both your sentiments.
I actually think nfijtakfa has under estimated – a convoy of dumper trucks would be required. lol
Body count is a metric for these sociopaths. It is how they define and justify the ‘success’ of the drone mission.
100 % agree.
Gee, if “US forces” weren’t practically everywhere in the world, do you suppose they wouldn’t constantly be under imminent threat?
Agreed, and where is the evidence that the people killed posed an imminent threat to US forces ? Nobody in the US media is even questioning the Obama administration’s authority to launch a military drone attack in a country which the USA is not at war with. In treating the World as it’s battleground for its imperialist agenda, and by committing summary executions by drones, which have often resulted in civilian deaths – the USA is acting like a terrorist rogue state.
Correction;The drone is the most effective assassination weapon in the history of political murder.
Armed conflict?Hahahaha.The last time US forces were involved in armed conflict,with an enemy capable of inflicting what the US deals out was mid ww2.This is called whack a mole.
I think planes loaded with fuel flying into buildings full of innocent men,women and children constitutes capability.Drones are better than boots on the ground or bonds,if we send troops the media will scream about that,if we do nothing and something happens at home the media will crucify the president for that.He screwed either way,so he picks the path most logical and I agree.
So then you’re clearly saying that the important thing to you is that the media doesn’t have something to “scream” about, and that the president doesn’t get crucified or screwed. Transparency about what is actually going on, and why and whom all is being killed by the president, the CIA and etc., is of no interest to you? You’re perfectly content to live your adult like that of a four year old who has no worries beyond where you left your latest favorite toys?
I think everyone understands that, even if you believe in capital punishment, the state should only be able to kill after due process, proof beyond reasonable doubt, and so forth. An actual battlefield might be an exception. But calling the whole world a “battlefield” and sending flying robots to do the killing obviously shouldn’t count. The state should not have the power to kill whoever it sees as a threat on the basis that it can define “battlefield” however it sees fit.
The drone program needs better marketing. If an extremist like Donald Trump is elected, I can imagine him reviewing the target’s ‘baseball card’ and instead of saying, “fire a missile at his house”, taking an extreme course of action by decreeing, “don’t give that man a visa”. Hopefully, it won’t come to that.
The question is whether this transparency initiative will sufficiently obscure the tremendous success of the drone program in creating new terrorists. When your stated goals and your actual goals are diametrically opposed, it is sometimes difficult manufacture consensus. However, that is why the US has the best schools of marketing in the world and, I know, will be up to the challenge.
Benito you let your puppet master do the talking on this one. Mussolini wasn’t that intellectual.
Mussolini’s answer could have read: “I will gladly be honest and transparent telling the public which evil terrorists we are killing in the name of keeping you all safe in my loving arms.”
He had no more of a problem lying that our wannabe protectors.
Trump could sell lottery tickets, to those supporters willing to participate, for a chance to be selected as “drone pilot” for a day. The lucky winner not only gets to symbolically fire upon preselected targets – but is also allowed to decide whether the target then gets delivered a greed card, sorry – green card, or gets blown to bits with any happenstance bystanders. It could even be later expanded to also double as his immigration reform plan.
The rollout of Trump Drones may be delayed. Mr. Trump’s insistence on six foot high letters reading “Trump” on the side of the drones, made from solid gold, seems to have affected their aerodynamics and they can no longer take off. For now, people will only be able to pay to admire them on the runway, alongside the F-35s that have similar issues.
However, when it arrives, the new Trump Droneworld theme park will be well worth the wait. Buy your tickets today!
With all the Clinton,Biden,Shrub and Cheney 6 ft.high letters already there,how would Trumps fit?
I forgot,they’ve all been squeezed by Obomba 8 ft high sign.The drone king.
“…outside of conventional war zones…”
“…operations described in the report would not cover areas of “active hostilities,” such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.”
“…outside of active war zones…”
Translation: The entire globe is a war zone; we’re running it; you’re working for us, the robots and the zombies that run them; and hey – remember the first two A Bomb drops? Just to send a little message… from your friends here in the criminal class that used to only run the country – but that wasn’t quite enough.
The level of “transparency” here – roughly equivalent to that of a terrorist organization that takes credit for its attacks as distinguished from the psychopath who attacks in secret – well, it’s not impressive.
An attack on this Shabaab training base may well have been justifiable, but it’s going to take a lot more radical transparency to do that. I mean come on, does the military really need to be this coy? We know they have robo-roaches and smart dust and a better than average chance of literally being a fly on the wall during a terrorist planning session. They might as well admit, to a very minor extent, their spying capabilities by showing footage of such planning sessions with audio, or drone footage of Shabaab attacks out in the field and then tracing the precise individuals back to the site that they bomb when it is hit. They could make a shit ton of good PR for themselves if they do this right, and forestall any possible criticism that they were striking at civilians or at random.
Your use of the word coy is funny given that they are totally not trying to be coy.
Freedom costs $1.05 brother. I daresay most Americans are not like you or I so they will never be as transparent as we would like them to be. They do not need to be that transparent to keep things moving forward.
Hey guys, let’s get things straight here !- everyone that the US Government murders by drone attacks, missiles, or bombs is either a terrorist, or a person who would have gone on to commit a future act of terrorism. Even if they were just civilians gathered together at a wedding, or funeral they could still have posed an imminent threat to the United States.!They may even have had weapons of mass destruction !Besides, their deaths are valuable, since they can be labelled by the US propaganda media as terrorists, to help justify, self perpetuate and even escalate the war on terror. Expanding the killing fields, and creating more people who wish to seek revenge for the murder of their innocent family members, including women and children is great for business. Killing civilians is also better than risking the possibility of them becoming future war refugees and migrants, as this would drain precious US and it’s allies in Europe’s resources which could otherwise be used for future spending on military contractors, and the arms industry. The US Government has assured everyone of its commitment to be precise in its targeting, so this should be all the assurance and comfort needed for civilians of the World everywhere, and if one day a relative or friend is accidentally killed then you should accept that they must have been a secret terrorist or you should just forgive and forget the loss as it was obviously unintentional “collateral damage”. Why should the US Government have to provide names of its drone kill victims or any further information to the public, or Human Rights groups ,as such transparency would lead to the threat of being held accountable, and even, God forbid, a risk of war crime accusations arising – right ??????
I wish your well written satire had something at the end to alert us pre-coffee readers that you are not a troll. Perhaps, “/s”?
I thought this would have been Benito Mussolini’s answer.
Let call it for what it is, A Massacre. No proof is provided for any of the person killed of him being involved in any sort of terrorist activity. “Terrorist Training Camp”? What does it mean? How does it different from any other “Camp”? How is different from a Shooting range? Do you see people practice blowing each other up once you enter in one of these “Camps”? Once in a while you see one of these “Terrorist Training Camp” videos shown on TV. All I see men running around doing Gymnastics and some holding guns firing at targets. Most of these videos are actually very old ones from Afghanistan. When CIA was running these “Terrorist Training Camps” to train Mujahideen to fight the Russians. There is also talk of “Terrorist Manuals”! Last time I saw on youtube it actually said “CIA Press” in the back. I asked the same question for example lets say you want to be a “Terroist” which mean you mean to kill some civilian, and you do not know how to use a gun. Now Question is when would you choose to go to a “Terrorist Training Camp” as oppose to a regular Gun Range? See when you start thinking about things it is not as simple any more. Most of time people fill in information about the unknown by ideas they got from TV and Media. That is like complementing ignorance with more ignorance.
So again, Let call it a Massacre. Nobody cares because it was just some brown people with funny sounding names and religion we did not like so who cares. If these were USA soldier 150 of them whom were killed like this, somewhere around the world people would have to look away because of blinding light of the mushroom cloud.
Karma is a bitch, and I fear for that day.
Yep, and the Pentagon and the CIA always tell the truth.
Some history of secret (covert) bombings:
http://doonesbury.washingtonpost.com/strip/archive/1973/11/10
Whenever the democrats and republicans begin telling us
what they are going to do, it is wise to add the following words
to their stated plans,
“….. only we’re not.”
Of course the victims will all be classified as terrorists using the impeccable Harvard Law logic that anyone targeted by the Infallible Universal Genius and Liberal Messiah Obama, and carried out by infallible military, CIA and private contractor personnel, must be guilty. This would include victims of the “double tap” strikes because anyone rushing to the aid of others in distress must be a terrorist.
It’s amazing how many people join terrorist groups the moment they hear a drone coming. ISIS, Al Shabaab, Al Qaeda, even women and children and people who were planning to attend a wedding or funeral just suddenly join up.
Never underestimate the recruiting power of a US drone strike…