News

News

start date
end date
319 Results
sort by:

Published

November 3, 2012

Written by

Chris Woods
This page is archived from original Bureau of Investigative Journalism reporting on US military actions in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Predator drones increasingly a museum piece thanks to more lethal models (Justinpickard/ Flickr)

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) usually gets all the credit for the first US drone targeted killing beyond the conventional battlefield.

But it was the military which gave the final go-ahead to kill on November 3 2002.

Lt General Michael DeLong was at Centcom headquarters in Tampa, Florida when news came in that the CIA had found its target. The deputy commander made his way down to the UAV Room, showing live video feeds from a CIA Predator high above Marib province in Yemen.

The armed drone was tracking an SUV on the move. The six terrorist suspects inside were unaware that a decision had already been made to kill them.

Interviewed by PBS, DeLong later recalled speaking by phone with CIA Director George Tenet as he watched the video wall:

‘Tenet goes “You going to make the call?” And I said, “I’ll make the call.”  He says, “This SUV over here is the one that has Ali in it.”  I said, “OK, fine.” You know, “Shoot him.” They lined it up and shot it.’

Eight thousand miles away and moments later, six alleged terrorists were dead. Among them was a US citizen.

‘Orchestrator’ killedThe media carried detailed accounts of the ‘secret’ attack within days. Yemen’s government, which had co-operated on the strike, also released the names of the six men killed, including that of US citizen Kemal Darwish.

Concerns he had been deliberately targeted were dismissed, as it was reported the intended CIA target was Qa’id Salim Sinan al-Harithi, al Qaeda’s ‘orchestrator’ of the lethal attack on the USS Cole.

As the New York Times noted at the time, ‘Mr. Harethi was not on the FBI’s list of the 22-most-wanted terrorist fugitives in the world,’ and added that ‘although investigators wanted to question Mr. Harethi about the Cole bombing, the CIA did not consult law enforcement officials before the Yemeni operation.’

A secret US cable, dated a fortnight prior to the strike, also shows that Yemen’s government had already incarcerated more than a dozen men wanted in connection with the Cole bombing. At least one of them, Fahd al Quso, was killed in a subsequent US drone strike.

Although investigators wanted to question Mr. Harethi about the Cole bombing, the CIA did not consult law enforcement officials before the Yemeni operation’

New York Times, November 2002

six weeks beforehand

massive worldwide manhunt

Questions remain about how much the CIA and Centcom actually knew about the presence of a US citizen that day.

When assistant US defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz openly discussed the strike with CNN on November 5, he noted only that a ‘successful tactical operation [has] gotten rid of somebody dangerous.’ It would be many years before senior officials would again openly acknowledge the covert drones project.

No inevitabilityThe way had been cleared for the November 2002 killings months earlier, when President Bush lifted a 25-year ban on US assassinations just after 9/11.

He later wrote that ‘George [Tenet] proposed that I grant broader authority for covert actions, including permission for the CIA to kill or capture al Qaeda operatives without asking for my sign-off each time. I decided to grant the request.’

Since then, under both Bush and Obama, the US has carried out targeted killings (or extrajudicial executions according to UN experts) using  conventional aircraft and helicopter strikes; cruise missiles; and even naval bombardments.

Yet the drone remains the US’s preferred method of killing. The Bureau has identified a minimum of 2,800 (and as many as 4,100) killed in covert US drone strikes over the past ten years. What began as an occasional tactic has, over time, morphed into an industrialised killing process.

Every confirmed US drone strike in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia recorded 2002-2012.

There was no inevitability to this when the strikes began. Time magazine opined in 2002 that covert drone attacks were ‘unlikely to become a norm.’ And in the early years of the programme this was true. The next covert drone strike took place in Pakistan in June 2004, followed by a further strike 11 months later.

Yet slowly, surely, the United States has come to depend on its drone killing programme. By Obama’s presidency drone use against alleged militants was sometimes daily. Six times more covert strikes have hit Pakistan under Barack Obama than under George W Bush. And as the Bureau’s work shows, when known strikes in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan are added together, they reveal a growing dependence upon covert drone killings.

Recent reports show that the US is now formalising the drone killing project. Some insiders talk of a decade or more of killing to come, with Mitt Romney noting that he would continue the policy if elected.

In Washington at least, a decade of targeted killings of alleged terror suspects appears to have normalised the process.

Follow chrisjwoods on Twitter.

Published

November 1, 2012

Written by

Chris Woods
This page is archived from original Bureau of Investigative Journalism reporting on US military actions in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Washington Post: is it telling the whole story?

Alongside the Washington Post’s latest blockbuster reports on the Obama administration’s drone kill list is a new graphic, depicting US covert strikes since 2002.

Based on studies by monitoring organisations, the graphic lists hundreds of US drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, in what the paper says will be a regularly updated project. Also detailed are ‘the names of prominent militant leaders killed in individual strikes,’ the paper says.

But there the information stops.

All other casualty information has been stripped from the Washington Post’s data. There is no reference to the numbers reported killed in each strike. No names or numbers are put to the civilians killed.

In short, the paper has removed much of the information that is most valuable for assessing the effectiveness of the US drone campaign.

As a series of emails between the Washington Post and the Bureau reveals, the decision to strip out pertinent casualty data was an editorial one, and was part of broader ‘reservations and concerns’ at the paper concerning casualty counts.

An examination of the Post’s reporting indicates the paper frequently omits credible reports of civilian deaths in US covert drone strikes.

So concerned was the Bureau at the Washington Post’s intention to strip away casualty information that it has refused permission for the paper to use its work in such a significantly amended form.

‘No casualty counts’

The graphics editor of the Washington Post first approached the Bureau directly on September 18 asking to make use of the Bureau’s full dataset, having initially tried to obtain the information indirectly via the Guardian.

The Bureau allows full and free access to its data under a Creative Commons licence. In recent weeks, both the Guardian in the UK and Al Akhbar in Lebanon have used its data to map drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen.

In a series of emails with senior Bureau staff, the Washington Post graphics editor noted that ‘TBIJ indeed does have the most accurate and comprehensive public representation of drone strikes.’

Nevertheless the Post’s plan was to aggregate data from the Bureau, the New America Foundation and the Long War Journal ‘in a way that will not highlight casualty counts’.

In response the Bureau noted that while drone casualty counts are a challenge, ‘who dies, and in what numbers, are the most critical questions that the data can address’.

The Bureau went on to ask: ‘Are you aiming to name militant leaders killed, for example, or only to map the locations of each strike/ frequencies? If the former, there is surely also a necessity to name all civilians recorded killed. If you only map events, how does a user distinguish between a strike that kills no one and an event that kills 80?’

In response, the graphics editor wrote on September 24: ‘I’ve spoken to editors and reporters on our foreign desk on Friday. Due to the same reservations and concerns about the casualty counts that I mentioned previously, we will not be showing casualty counts.’

The Bureau’s managing editor Iain Overton expressed concern about the Washington Post using Bureau data in such an altered form. The Post’s published graphic only employs New America Foundation and Long War Journal material – and all casualty counts have been removed.

Wider problem

The Washington Post’s wider coverage of drone strikes shows a reluctance to address civilian deaths, with credible reports often omitted.

There are issues around the recording of casualties from US drone strikes – civilian or otherwise – given the reporting challenges they present. Critics argue there is too much incentive for individuals to exaggerate claims of civilian deaths for propaganda purposes.

That does not explain why reported civilian casualties continue to decline steeply in Pakistan and elsewhere. Nor does it explain why casualty counts by the Bureau and others appear close to the US government’s own overall estimates of the numbers killed.

Claims of civilian deaths in Pakistan are generally uncommon, and significant information is often known about the victims. Of 41 CIA drone strikes between January and October, civilian deaths were confidently reported on four occasions. There are indications of possible civilian deaths in a further nine strikes.

By stripping away the casualty data I’m not sure what’s left. They have also introduced their own bias into the recording, by selectively choosing which information to retain’

– Elizabeth Minor, Oxford Research Group

wife of militant Ahsan Aziz died

a 13-year-old boy

wife of schoolteacher Reshmeen Khan died

Only for an incident in May in which worshippers in a mosque were reported killed are there no biographical details in any of the reporting.

While the Washington Post frequently notes the deaths of senior militants, no mention of reported civilian casualties was made by the Post for three of the four 2012 cases cited above. Only for the October 24 event did the Post run an agency report stating that a woman had probably been killed.

The deaths of 11 civilians in an alleged US drone strike in Yemen on September 2 was also not reported by the paper, it seems.

In response to a recent complaint about its coverage of non-combatant deaths, the Washington Post insisted that it is ‘committed to documenting the deaths of civilians, as our coverage broadly shows.’

‘Dangerous editorial cut-off’

Just down the road from the Washington Post’s headquarters, experts gathered in the city on October 22 for the release of the largest-ever study into the recording of casualties in conflicts.

Funded by the Swiss government and the US Institute of Peace, the Oxford Research Group report examined casualty recording by more than 40 organisations (including the Bureau) across the world. It concluded that ‘useful documentation of deaths from conflict can be done even during intense conflict, and in repressive and dangerous environments.’

Elizabeth Minor, the report’s author, expressed surprise that the Washington Post would remove what she says is the most important information being collected, no matter how incomplete.

‘By stripping away the casualty data I’m not sure what’s left. They have also introduced their own bias into the recording, by selectively choosing which information to retain,’ Minor told the Bureau.

‘A better approach might be for the Post to publish all available information, transparently sourced, and so allow the reader to make up his or her mind as to its validity.’

The decision by the Washington Post to strip away casualty figures from its data – and to downplay civilian deaths – appears at heart a political call. As the Bureau’s managing editor Iain Overton notes, ‘We would be very happy to work in collaboration with the paper on its coverage of drone warfare.

‘However, we believe that to give a full and comprehensive view of the current situation in Pakistan and beyond, it’s incumbent on journalists to include credible casualty reports. To ignore this area simply because the information is imperfect or awkward is a dangerous editorial cut-off.’

Follow chrisjwoods on Twitter.

Published

November 1, 2012

Written by

Alice Ross, Chris Woods and Jack Serle
This page is archived from original Bureau of Investigative Journalism reporting on US military actions in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

A new squadron of armed Reapers will soon be remotely operated from the UK (Photo: RAF)

Pakistan: Reported casualties from CIA drone strikes in Pakistan double this month compared with September. Agency targets include a North Waziristan madrassa, killing at least 16.

Yemen: Thirteen named militants are among those killed in Yemen, with US operations continuing below their May 2012 peak.

Somalia: No US drone strikes are again reported from Somalia, as an investigation reveals that armed US drones routinely deploy over the country.

Pakistan

October 2012 actions

Total CIA strikes in October: 4

Total killed in strikes in October: 24-41, of whom 1 was reportedly a civilian.

All actions 2004 – October 31 2012

Total Obama strikes: 298

Total US strikes since 2004: 350

Total reported killed: 2,593-3,378

Civilians reported killed: 475-885

Children reported killed: 176

Total reported injured: 1,252-1,401For the Bureau’s full Pakistan databases click here.

The CIA launched four strikes this month, one more than September. Drone attacks reportedly killed 24 to 41 people in October, at least double the tally of the previous month.

Between 16 and 26 people were killed in a single event, making it one of the deadliest strikes of the year. CIA drones hit a madrassa belonging to Maulvi Shakirullah, allegedly connected to the Haqqani Network.

This Bureau graph of minimum and maximum casualties from CIA drone strikes in Pakistan shows it is still difficult to pin down precise figures.

Some media reports located this strike in Orakzai province in northern FATA. If true it would be only the second strike recorded by the Bureau in that province. And it would be the first CIA strike outside North Waziristan since March 2012 (Ob264).

The fourth strike of the month on October 24 was widely reported to have killed the wife of a retired teacher in the village of Tappi, North Waziristan. According to reports Reshmeen Khan’s wife died and eight of her grandchildren, aged between 4 and 18, were critically burned. The drones also reportedly destroyed a house and car in the attack.

On October 15 a militant website announced the earlier death of Moezeddine Garsallaoui, said to be the Belgian-Tunisian (or Swiss-Tunisian) leader of Islamist group Jund al Khilafah. Few details of his death in an unspecified ‘strike’ were released and it is unclear if he was killed in a drone strike. Jund al Kilafah claimed responsibility for the Toulouse shootings in March 2012 that killed a rabbi and three children.

Also in October, former cricket captain turned politician Imran Khan led a column of peace activists through Pakistan towards the tribal areas. His convoy included American activists and international lawyers intent on drawing attention to the CIA’s drone campaign. The Pakistan government ultimately blocked them from entering South Waziristan.

Yemen

October 2012 actions

Confirmed US drone strikes: 0 Further reported/possible US strike events: 4 Total reported killed in US operations: 0-23Civilians reported killed in US strikes: 0

All actions 2002 – October 31 2012*

Total confirmed US operations: 53-63

Total confirmed US drone strikes: 42-52

Possible additional US operations: 122-142

Of which possible additional US drone strikes: 66-80

Total reported killed: 362-1,055

Total civilians killed: 60-163

Children killed: 24-34 Click here for the full Yemen data.

Thirteen named militants were reportedly killed in four possible drone strikes this month. Seven perished in an airstrike on October 18 (YEM117), as they were said to be preparing an attack on Jaar.

The strike continued through October at the significantly lower level recorded since their May 2012 peak. Although four possible strikes were noted, no senior US or Yemeni officials confirmed US involvement, the first time since November 2011 that officials have shown such reticence.

October also saw the first US strike in Saada since January 2010 (YEM006). A suspected drone killed at least three alleged militants from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). However the northern province is dominated by a group of Shia secessionists, the Houthi. In December 2011 AQAP’s Mufti labeled the Shia a ‘virus’ on the Sunni people, and the group declared war on the Houthi.

The highest value target recently reported killed in Yemen was Said al Shehri on September 10 (YEM114). But on October 4 a recording surfaced purportedly of al Shehri, AQAP’s second-in-command, denying reports that he died in a strike. Articles in Yemeni and UK media had already cast doubt on his death.

* All but one of these actions have taken place during Obama’s presidency. Reports of incidents in Yemen often conflate individual strikes. The range in the total strikes and total drone strikes we have recorded reflects this.

Somalia

October 2012 actions

Total reported US operations: 0

All actions 2007 – October 31 2012

Total US operations: 10-23

Total US drone strikes: 3-9Total reported killed: 58-170Civilians reported killed: 11-57

Children reported killed: 1-3

Click here for the Bureau’s full data on Somalia.

 

Once again no US drone strikes were reported from Somalia this month. However an extensive investigation by the Washington Post revealed that armed drones routinely deploy over Somalia from the US base at Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti.

The paper also revealed that drones can be over Somalia within minutes and are coordinated from Lemonnier by a 300-strong contingent of US Special Operations commandos.

US operations in Somalia remain secret, and there are still no trustworthy reports of strikes or casualties. Only Iranian broadcaster Press TV consistently reports alleged US strikes. But while the Bureau continues to monitor Press TV’s coverage we do not consider these reports reliable, and do not count them in our data.

Reporting accurately from Somalia remains an extremely dangerous job. This year seventeen journalists have been ‘killed with complete impunity in Somalia’, according to monitoring group Reporters Without Borders.

Other notable news for OctoberThe UN is to set up a special unit to investigate reports of civilian deaths in US covert drone strikes. Announcing the Geneva-based unit, Ben Emmerson QC said the Bureau’s reports of deliberate strikes on funerals and on rescuers could be considered ‘war crimes’.

In the UK a series of developments hinted at growing concern over covert drone strikes. Politicians from across the main parties launched a parliamentary focus group on drones, led by high-profile MPs Tom Watson and Zac Goldsmith, to examine military and civilian uses of drones. This coincided with the RAF inaugurating its new Reaper squadron, which will pilot the drones from the UK for the first time.

British courts also saw their first major legal challenge to the CIA’s drone campaign as Noor Khan, whose father died in a drone strike, applied for a judicial review. Khan is calling for an end to a reported policy of British spies sharing information with the CIA that leads to drone strikes. No decision has yet been reached on whether a review will proceed.

And relatives of Rashid Rauf, a British citizen killed in a drone strike, announced plans to sue the UK government for providing the CIA with information that helped them kill him.

Internationally, academics at Columbia Law School examined the Bureau’s data on drone deaths alongside that of the New America Foundation and the Long War Journal, and the available reporting of drone strikes in 2011. The study concluded that the Bureau’s data was the most reliable public count of civilian casualties, but called on the US government to release its own figures.

The Columbia report follows a similar study from Stanford and New York universities in September which also deemed the Bureau’s data the most accurate publicly available.

Follow Chris Woods, Alice Ross and Jack Serle on Twitter.

To sign up for monthly updates from the Bureau’s Covert War project click here.

Published

October 25, 2012

Written by

Alice Ross
This page is archived from original Bureau of Investigative Journalism reporting on US military actions in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In the loop? Officers at GCHQ have reportedly shared Taliban commanders’ locations with the CIA

(Photo: Ministry of Defence

UK intelligence officers may be assisting in murder or war crimes by sharing information with the CIA that leads to deaths in Pakistan drone strikes, a London court heard this week.

Pakistani tribesman Noor Khan, whose father was killed by a drone strike last year, has launched an application for a judicial review examining the UK’s alleged complicity in the CIA’s drone campaign. If Khan’s case is successful, judges will examine whether GCHQ officers can legally share information on the location of individuals if they believe this may be used to target them with drone strikes.

An ornate, book-lined courtroom at the Royal Courts of Justice was crowded with activists and government lawyers on October 23 and 24 as the first British legal challenge to the drone campaign got underway. Khan’s case against foreign secretary William Hague is backed by Reprieve and Islamabad-based lawyer Shahzad Akbar, and is funded by UK legal aid.

Related story – Evidence in British court contradicts CIA drone claims

The British government has hired a trio of highly respected barristers to fight its corner, including first Treasury counsel James Eadie QC, international law expert Professor Malcolm Shaw QC, and criminal law specialist Andrew Edis QC.

Press reports indicate the UK government shares intelligence, including the location of suspected militant commanders, with the CIA. In 2010 the Sunday Times quoted ‘insiders’ claiming that GCHQ has better interception networks than the CIA in south Asia, and had shared information about the locations of al Qaeda and Taliban commanders in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. GCHQ told the Sunday Times all intelligence sharing was in ‘strict accordance’ with the law.

But the government has never officially confirmed or denied sharing intelligence for drone attacks.

‘There’s a well known, well acknowledged drone programme, there’s a list of people the CIA wants to target as part of that drone programme. A GCHQ officer comes into information about the location of a person and passes it to the CIA officer, we say there’s a very real chance of a crime being committed,’ Khan’s barrister Martin Chamberlain said.

Lord Justice Moses, one of two judges who will decide whether to order a judicial review, commented that if individual officers could be held culpable, then so potentially could the foreign secretary, since the decision to share intelligence rests with him.

It would be amazing if the American government was sanguine about an English court saying it’s guilty of murder,’– James Eadie QC 

While soldiers who kill as part of an international armed conflict are protected from prosecution by combatant immunity, it’s unclear whether the turmoil in Pakistan’s volatile tribal belt constitutes a war, Chamberlain said. This could make the killings unlawful, and British officials who shared intelligence leading to those killings would be guilty of accessory to murder.

Even if this is held to be a war, the drone strikes could break international humanitarian law by exceeding what is ‘proportionate and necessary’ – leaving officers who share intelligence at risk of assisting crimes against humanity or war crimes, he added.

National interests

But holding a judicial review would mean delving into issues of national security, defence and diplomacy and could harm Britain’s national interests, Hague’s lead barrister James Eadie QC told the court. In particular, it could affect relations with the US, ‘our closest ally, whose importance to our national security I assume needs no stating in front of this court,’ he said.

Effectively English courts would be forced to rule on the legality – or otherwise – of the CIA’s drone campaign. ‘It would be amazing if the American government was sanguine about an English court saying it’s guilty of murder,’ he said.

Examining the legality of drone strikes would also mean exploring whether the Pakistani government gave its consent, which ‘may be controversial in Pakistan’: this too could have serious diplomatic and international consequences, he explained.

A judicial review would be ‘about as controversial and as potentially damaging as it’s possible to conceive,’ Eadie said.

A review would also mean revealing top-secret intelligence policies to the court – and since judicial review proceedings can’t include closed court materials, this would present severe practical problems, Eadie said. Intelligence policies and practices are scrutinised by parliament through the Intelligence and Security Committee, he added: a judicial review would see the courts ‘trespassing’ on parliament’s territory.

There are ‘jolly good reasons’ for not publishing policies relating to the intelligence services, he concluded, handing over to Andrew Edis.

Working from just a few A4 pages where the other barristers had had the judges leafing through enormous binders of case law, Edis scrutinised the chapter and verse of the criminal laws cited in Khan’s application.

‘Notionally, if someone’s to be accessory to a murder, it must be an illegal act in [the murderer’s] own country,’ Edis told the court. In this case, killing alleged militants is not illegal in the US, so therefore there is no ‘murder’ to which UK intelligence officers could be accessory, he argued.

Challenged by Lord Justice Moses as to whether it would be considered murder in Pakistan, Edis replied that the drone pilots are in Nevada, not Pakistan.

It is not the job of the English court to ‘consider whether a foreigner who commits an act of killing abroad is or isn’t guilty of murder’ – and this would in turn prevent the court from deciding whether a British citizen was an accessory to that murder, he said. ‘Nothing in the English law gives this court the power to decide what’s a murder in Waziristan or America.’

The application hearing is expected to conclude on October 25, and the judges are expected to return their decision in the coming weeks.

Published

October 25, 2012

Written by

The Bureau
This page is archived from original Bureau of Investigative Journalism reporting on US military actions in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

London-based UN expert says Geneva unit will investigate civilian drone deaths

The United Nations plans to set up a special investigation unit examining claims of civilian deaths in individual US covert drone strikes.

UN investigators have been critical of US ‘extrajudicial executions’ since they began in 2002. The new Geneva-based unit will also look at the legality of the programme.

The latest announcement, by UN special rapporteur Ben Emmerson QC, was made in a speech on October 25 at Harvard law school. Emmerson, who monitors counter-terrorism for the UN, previously called in August for the US to hand over video of each covert drone attack.

The London-based lawyer became the second senior UN official in recent months to label the tactic of deliberately targeting rescuers and funeral-goers with drones ‘a war crime’.  That practice was first exposed by the Bureau for the Sunday Times in February 2012.

‘The Bureau has alleged that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. Christof Heyns … has described such attacks, if they prove to have happened, as war crimes. I would endorse that view,’ said Emmerson.

‘Last resort’

Both Heyns and Emmerson have become increasingly vocal in recent months, even as the United States attempts to put its targeted killings scheme on a more formal footing.

‘If the relevant states are not willing to establish effective independent monitoring mechanisms… then it may in the last resort be necessary for the UN to act. Together with my colleague Christof Heyns, [the UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial killings], I will be launching an investigation unit within the special procedures of the [UN] Human Rights Council to inquire into individual drone attacks,’ Emmerson said in his speech.

The unit will also look at ‘other forms of targeted killing conducted in counter-terrorism operations, in which it is alleged that civilian casualties have been inflicted, and to seek explanations from the states using this technology and the states on whose territory it is used. [It] will begin its work early next year and will be based in Geneva.

‘The [global] war paradigm was always based on the flimsiest of reasoning, and was not supported even by close allies of the US,’ he added. ‘The first-term Obama administration initially retreated from this approach, but over the past 18 months it has begun to rear its head once again, in briefings by administration officials seeking to provide a legal justification for the drone programme of targeted killing in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.’

Emmerson singled out both President Obama and the Republican challenger Mitt Romney for criticism. ‘It is perhaps surprising that the position of the two candidates on this issue has not even featured during their presidential elections campaigns, and got no mention at all in Monday night’s foreign policy debate. We now know that the two candidates are in agreement on the use of drones.’

The UN expert made clear in his speech that pressure for action is now coming from member states – including two permanent members of the Security Council: ‘During the last session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in June many states, including Russia and China called for an investigation into the use of drone strikes as a means of targeted killing.  One of the States that made that call was Pakistan,’ he noted.

Published

October 18, 2012

Written by

Alice Ross
This page is archived from original Bureau of Investigative Journalism reporting on US military actions in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Under scrutiny: The Watchkeeper surveillance drone, on its maiden UK flight. (Photo: Defence Images)

Members of parliament Tom Watson and Zac Goldsmith are to lead a new parliamentary group set up to scrutinise the rapid spread of drones both on the battlefield and in civilian life.

The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drones launched yesterday, with Labour MP Watson appointed as president and Conservative Zac Goldsmith as a vice president.

Clive Stafford Smith, director of legal charity Reprieve, told the politicians the US’s current use of drones in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia amounts to ‘death penalty without trial’. He added: ‘We sleepwalked into a nuclear age, now we are sleepwalking into a drone age.’

He pointed to significant questions over the legal framework for such campaigns – as well as the secrecy over who is killed and whether they inspire extremism.

The UK currently flies five models of armed drone and has carried out 319 strikes in Afghanistan since 2008

And while reporting on drones tends to focus on the US’s covert campaigns, Chris Coles of Drone Wars UK highlighted research showing that 76 countries currently possess some form of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), however rudimentary – including Botswana, Panama and Lithuania.

Related story – Where’s all the money gone? How the UK spent £2bn on drones

The UK currently flies five types of drone, although only one model, the Reaper, is armed. It has carried out 319 strikes in Afghanistan since 2008, Coles added, with British pilots flying from the US drone base at Creech, Nevada. And in the final day of the last parliamentary session, the government quietly admitted it had also flown drone missions in Libya, despite previously insisting it had only flown drones in Afghanistan.

Drones are set to become increasingly prominent beyond the battlefield – but the legal framework for using them in civilian airspace remains problematic, politicians heard. At present it’s perfectly legal to fly your own drone, such as the £300 iPad-controlled Parrot, to within 150ft of your friends and neighbours.

Related story – Details of 99 UK drone strikes in Afghanistan revealed

Neither the Civil Aviation Authority or Astraea, the industry-led programme that aims to establish guidelines for civil use of drones, has shown much appetite for grappling with the privacy implications of this, Coles added. And new laws are expected to open up the UK’s skies for commercial drones in the next decade.

Watson told the Bureau the new group will meet an important need. ‘Drones herald a new era in military technology, and they require parliamentarians to consider all the policy implications, both internationally and domestically,’ he said.

Published

October 1, 2012

Written by

Chris Woods and Jack Serle
This page is archived from original Bureau of Investigative Journalism reporting on US military actions in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

A US Reaper drone on the tarmac at Creech, Nevada – achesonblog/Flickr

Pakistan: CIA drone strikes pause for a short period as Muslims protest around the world against a US-made video. A senior al Qaeda leader is killed in resumed strikes.

Yemen: Eleven named civilians die in a strike in central Yemen, the worst civilian tally since May. The US declines to say if its drones are responsible.

Somalia: As Kenyan and Somali forces attack Kismayo, al Shabaab’s last stronghold, the Bureau is told that foreign armies ‘have a licence to ignore international law’ in Somalia,

Pakistan

September 2012 actions

Total CIA strikes in September: 3

Total killed in strikes in September: 12-18, of whom 0-3 were reportedly civilians

All actions 2004 – September 30 2012

Total Obama strikes: 294

Total US strikes since 2004: 346

Total reported killed: 2,570-3,337

Civilians reported killed: 474-884

Children reported killed: 176

Total reported injured: 1,232-1,366For the Bureau’s full Pakistan databases click here.

After seven strikes in August – the most in a single month since October 2011 – September saw a pause in the bombing which lasted 20 days. The respite coincided with many and sometimes violent anti-US protests around the world. Muslims were inflamed by a blasphemous film, produced in the US and posted online. Up to 17 people died in riots across Pakistan as public outrage at drone strikes reportedly added to the violence.

On September 24 two named al Qaeda militants were killed by the CIA. Saleh al Turki ‘was not on the FBI’s bounty list, but was a mid level AQ guy’. However Abu Kahsha al Iraqi was described as ‘a liaison between al Qaeda and the Taliban’ and ‘long a target of Western counterterrorism agencies.’

The Bureau’s work on drone activity in Pakistan was praised by a report produced by Stanford and New York University law schools. The 165-page study found that  the Bureau’s Covert War project provided the ‘best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes’.

Academics from Stanford and New York universities interviewed over 130 survivors, witnesses and experts, which led them to conclude that the ‘dominant narrative’ in the US – that the surgical precision of drones means they are operated in Pakistan with ‘minimal downsides or collateral impacts’ – is ‘false’. Testimony from a number of eyewitnesses also corroborated the Bureau’s own findings – that the CIA deliberately targets rescuers.

Another report by Columbia University focused on policymakers in Washington, raising concerns about transparency and accountability in the decade-old programme of US targeted killings by drone.

Yemen

September 2012 actions

Confirmed US drone strikes: 0 Further reported/possible US strike events: 4-5 Total reported killed in US operations: 0-40Civilians reported killed in US strikes: 0-12

All actions 2002 – September 30 2012*

Total confirmed US operations: 52-62

Total confirmed US drone strikes: 40-50

Possible additional US operations: 117-133

Of which possible additional US drone strikes: 61-71

Total reported killed: 357-1,026

Total civilians killed: 60-163

Children killed: 24-34Click here for the full Yemen data.

US and Yemeni officials were unusually reticent in September in attributing air strikes to United States air assets, including drones. That may have been due to the deaths of eleven named civilians in a botched airstrike in Radaa in central Yemen, the worst loss of civilian life since at least 12 civilians were killed in May. Victims of the strike were buried 18 days later in Dhamar with police pallbearers.

Abdulraouf al Dahab was the supposed target of the strike. But it missed the alleged militant leader’s car and hit civilian vehicles. A ten-year-old girl Daolah Nasser was killed with her parents. Two boys – Mabrook Mouqbal Al Qadari (13) and AbedalGhani Mohammed Mabkhout (12) – were also among those killed.

Some reports said US drones carried out the strike. The Yemen Air Force publicly claimed responsibility for the attack but it lacks the technical capability to strike a moving target.

That fact was confirmed by President Hadi on a visit to Washington, where he also claimed to approve every US strike carried out in Yemen, and downplayed civilian deaths.

Minimum confirmed and possible strike events in Yemen, January to September 30 2012.

A suspected US drone killed at least six people, eight days after the Radaa strike. Said al Shehri was initially reported among the dead. But subsequent reports say the former Guantanamo inmate and al Qaeda’s number two in Yemen survived the attack.

* All but one of these actions have taken place during Obama’s presidency. Reports of incidents in Yemen often conflate individual strikes. The range in the total strikes and total drone strikes we have recorded reflects this.

Somalia

September 2012 actions

Total reported US operations: 0

All actions 2007 – September 30 2012

Total US operations: 10-23

Total US drone strikes: 3-9Total reported killed: 58-170Civilians reported killed: 11-57

Children reported killed: 1-3

Click here for the Bureau’s full data on Somalia.

 

Once again no US combat operations were reported for September, although a former UN official told the Bureau that as much as 50% of secret actions by various forces operating in Somalia go unreported. Two previously unrecorded operations have been added to the Bureau’s data. These relate to possible US strikes on al Shabaab bases in Puntland in August, and in Kismayo in October 2011.

Kenyan Defence Force (KDF) troops finally struck al Shabaab’s last stronghold, Kismayo, in Operations Sledge Hammer alongside soldiers of the Somalia National Army. The KDF is fighting in Somalia as a part of the Amisom peacekeeping force and attacked Kismayo from the land and sea before dawn on September 28. Initial reports said they met with some resistance from al Shabaab but had taken control of the city’s port. It is possible that US forces assisted the operation.

A Somali diplomat told the Bureau that the outgoing Transitional Federal Government opened its doors to the US and others to fight al Shabaab, and in doing so allowed them ‘a licence to completely ignore any local or international law.’ US Special Forces and CIA are operating across Somalia. And the US is supporting proxy forces with training and weapons.

Follow Chris Woods and Jack Serle on Twitter.

To sign up for monthly updates from the Bureau’s Covert War project click here.

Published

September 30, 2012

Written by

Alice Ross
This page is archived from original Bureau of Investigative Journalism reporting on US military actions in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Obama ‘in thrall to the technological potential of drones’ says Columbia Law School author

(Photo: spirit of America/Shutterstock).

President Obama’s personal involvement in selecting the targets of covert drone strikes means he risks effectively handing a ‘loaded gun’ to Mitt Romney come November, says the co-author of a new report aimed at US policymakers.

‘If Obama leaves, he’s leaving a loaded gun: he’s set up a programme where the greatest constraint is his personal prerogative. There’s no legal oversight, no courtroom that can make [the drone programme] stop. A President Romney could vastly accelerate it,’ said Naureen Shah, associate director of the Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project at the Columbia Law School.

The president ‘personally approves every military target’ in Yemen and Somalia and around a third of targets in Pakistan, the report says. The remainder of strikes in Pakistan are decided by the CIA, so are even further from formal decision-making processes and public scrutiny.

‘We are asking President Obama to put something in writing, to disclose more, because he needs to set up the limitations of the programme before someone else takes control,’ Shah told the Bureau.

In The Civilian Impact of Drones: Unexamined Costs, Unanswered Questions, experts from Columbia Law School and the Center for Civilians in Conflict examine the impact of the US ‘war on terror’ on the lives of civilian Pakistanis, Yemenis and Somalis caught in the crossfire. The report’s publication marks the anniversary of the assassination of US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki by a US drone in Yemen.

We are asking President Obama to put something in writing, to disclose more, because he needs to set up the limitations of the programme before someone else takes control.’

Naureen Shah, Columbia Law School

The report, which Shah said is ‘aimed squarely at policymakers’, calls on the Obama administration to justify its drone campaigns and their targets under international law. It also calls for a task force to examine what measures are in place to protect civilians.

‘The perception is that civilian casualties are not a problem. If you say otherwise, you’re accused of being naïve and being a pawn of al Qaeda… There’s an instinctual dismissal of reporting that shows there’s a casualty problem,’ said Shah.

Deep impact

The report examines how drone strikes have prompted retaliatory attacks from militants on those they believe are US spies, and stirred anti-US sentiment and violence among civilians in Pakistan and Yemen.

In the Waziristan region of Pakistan, the near-constant presence of drones exerts a terrible psychological toll on the civilian population, while the destruction of homes and other property is often catastrophic for Pakistani and Yemeni families.

In Somalia, many have been ‘forced to flee’ their homes in areas where al Qaeda-linked militants al Shabaab have their strongholds, to avoid drone and other air attacks.

The perception is that civilian casualties are not a problem. If you say otherwise, you’re accused of being naïve and being a pawn of al Qaeda, and not having your facts straight.

Naureen Shah

And while the US claims only tiny numbers of civilians are killed by drones, establishing the truth of these claims is difficult. The report compares the Bureau’s estimates of drone deaths in Pakistan to similar projects by the Long War Journal, the New America Foundation and the Pakistan Institute of Peace Studies, noting that they ‘consistently point to significantly higher civilian casualties than those suggested by the US government’s statements’.

But deciding who is a militant and who is a civilian is fraught with difficulty – the very terms ‘civilian’ and ‘militant’ are ‘ambiguous, controversial, and susceptible to manipulation,’ the report says.

The US’s criteria for who is a civilian are ‘deeply problematic’, it adds. In May, a New York Times investigation revealed that all ‘military-aged males’ are held to be militants.

Spy agency turned covert military force

The CIA decides on the targets of Pakistan strikes – but next to nothing is known about its procedures for monitoring whether strikes kill civilians. To this day, the CIA has never officially acknowledged its campaign.

‘We know the US military has set up procedures for tracking and responding to civilian deaths because there’s so much public scrutiny… The CIA has no institutional history of complying with international law or setting up procedures for civilian deaths,’ said Shah. ‘It was a covert spy agency; it wasn’t set up for this. We don’t know how prepared they are to monitor civilian deaths or how concerned they are.’

The CIA is supposed to be accountable to Congress – but lawmakers are failing to scrutinise the impact of the CIA’s drone campaign on civilians, Shah said. Its watchdog role is compromised by the fact that the CIA has been ‘really careful to get political buy-in’, having come under intense criticism from Congress over allegations of torture under President Bush.

‘The strange thing about Congress is they think they are very well informed through briefings from the CIA… The CIA has got them to buy into the drone programme, so there’s no incentive for them to criticise it. If they were to admit there was a problem, Congress would be on the hook as well,’ she continued.

The CIA has no institutional history of complying with international law or setting up procedures for civilian deaths. It was a covert spy agency; it wasn’t set up for this.

Naureen Shah

Lawmakers should look beyond government sources for information on the impact of drone strikes, and scrutinise whether the CIA’s processes for protecting civilians and investigating the aftermath of strikes are up to the task, the report says.

The Obama administration is so in thrall to drones’ technological potential that alternatives are barely considered, Shah said.

‘For policymakers there’s a false sense of limited options: [there’s] a drones-only approach in the situation room… drones are becoming the only game in town and the other tools are being taken off the table. And there’s no thought that a non-lethal approach might have less impact on the community,’ she explained.

‘The focus is so much on the extent to which drones protect American lives that the impact on Pakistani or Somali lives is displaced. There’s so much trust placed in the technology that policymakers especially are failing to consider whether drone strikes are wreaking havoc on these communities.’

Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute will publish an additional detailed study of reporting of drone strikes – including an evaluation of the Bureau’s drone data in comparison to similar studies – in the next few weeks.