What's new

Obama changed definition of civilians in drone war; Authorized killings

Awesome

RETIRED MOD
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
22,023
Reaction score
5
This was a difficult Article to copy paste, please click on the link if you find something off.

World News - Report: Obama embraces disputed definition of 'civilian' in drone wars

By Chris Woods, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

LONDON -- Two U.S. reports published Tuesday provide significant insights into President Obama’s personal and controversial role in the escalating covert U.S. drone war in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

In a major extract from Daniel Klaidman’s forthcoming book Kill Or Capture, the author reveals extensive details of how secret U.S. drone strikes have evolved under Obama – and how the president knew of civilian casualties from his earliest days in office.

The New York Times has also published a key investigation exploring how the Obama Administration runs its secret 'Kill List' – the names of those chosen for execution by CIA and Pentagon drones outside the conventional battlefield.

The Times' report also reveals that President Obama personally authorised a broadening of the term "civilian", helping to limit any public controversy over "non-combatant" deaths.

As the Bureau's own data on Pakistan makes clear, the very first covert drone strikes of the Obama presidency, just three days after he took office, resulted in civilian deaths in Pakistan. As many as 19 civilians – including four children – died in two error-filled attacks.

Until now it had been thought that Obama was initially unaware of the civilian deaths. Bob Woodward has reported that the president was only told by CIA chief Michael Hayden that the strikes had missed their High Value Target but had killed "five al Qaeda militants."

Read more stories from The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Now Newsweek correspondent Daniel Klaidman reveals that Obama knew about the civilian deaths within hours. He reports an anonymous participant at a subsequent meeting with the president: "You could tell from his body language that he was not a happy man." Obama is described aggressively questioning the tactics used.

Yet despite the errors, the president ultimately chose to keep in place the CIA’s controversial policy of using "signature strikes" against unknown militants. That tactic has just been extended to Yemen.

'Covert' US drone operation is mapped on Twitter

On another notorious occasion, the article reveals that U.S. officials were aware at the earliest stage that civilians – including "dozens of women and children" – had died in Obama’s first ordered strike in Yemen in December 2009. The Bureau recently named all 44 civilians killed in that attack by cruise missiles.

'I'd have to go to confession'

No U.S. officials have ever spoken publicly about the strike, although secret diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks proved that the U.S. was responsible. Now Klaidman reveals that Jeh Johnson, one of the State Department’s senior lawyers, watched the strike take place with others on a video screen:

"Johnson returned to his Georgetown home around midnight that evening, drained and exhausted. Later there were reports from human-rights groups that dozens of women and children had been killed in the attacks, reports that a military source involved in the operation termed “persuasive.” Johnson would confide to others, “If I were Catholic, I’d have to go to confession.”

Klaidman describes a world in which the CIA and Pentagon constantly push for significant attacks on the U.S.’s enemies. In March 2009, for example, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen reportedly called for the bombing of an entire training camp in southern Somalia in order to kill one militant leader.

Pakistan official: US drone strike hits mosque; 10 killed

One dissenter at the meeting is said to have described the tactic as "carpet-bombing a country." The attack did not go ahead.

Obama is generally described as attempting to rein back both the CIA and the Pentagon. But in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki – "Obama’s Threat Number One" – different rules applied.

According to Klaidman, Obama let it be known that he would consider allowing civilian deaths if it meant killing the U.S.-Yemeni cleric. "Bring it to me and let me decide in the reality of the moment rather than in the abstract," an aide recalls him saying. No civilians died that day, as it turned out.

In its own major investigation, the New York Times examines the secret US 'Kill List' – the names of those chosen for death at the hands of US drones. The report is based on interviews with more than 36 key individuals with knowledge of the scheme.

'Whack-A-Mole approach'

The newspaper also accuses Obama of "presidential acquiescence in a formula for counting civilian deaths that some officials think is skewed to produce low numbers," and of having a "Whack-A-Mole approach to counter-terrorism," according to one former senior official.

It is often been reported that President Obama has urged officials to avoid wherever possible the deaths of civilians in covert US actions in Pakistan and elsewhere. But reporters Jo Becker and Scott Shane reveal that Obama inserted a loophole.

"Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."

So concerned have some officials been by this "false accounting" that they have taken their concerns direct to the White House, according to the New York Times.

Photos document alleged US drone strike victims in Pakistan

The revelation helps explain the wide variation between credible reports of civilian deaths in Pakistan by the Bureau and others, and the CIA’s claims that it had killed no "non-combatants" between May 2010 and September 2011 – and possibly later.

The investigation also reveals that more than 100 U.S. officials take part in a weekly "death list" video conference run by the Pentagon, at which it is decided who will be added to the U.S. military’s kill/ capture lists. "A parallel, more cloistered selection process at the CIA focuses largely on Pakistan, where that agency conducts strikes," the paper reports.

But according to at least one former senior administration official, Obama’s obsession with targeted killings is "dangerously seductive." Retired admiral Dennis Blair, the former US Director of National Intelligence, told the paper that the campaign was:

"The politically advantageous thing to do — low cost, no US casualties, gives the appearance of toughness. It plays well domestically, and it is unpopular only in other countries. Any damage it does to the national interest only shows up over the long term."

It is pertinent to mention a revision done by MSNBC:

Clarification: An earlier version of this story said that President Obama "personally authorized the broadening of the term 'civilian'."
However, the original New York Times report cited said that Obama "embraced the broadening of the term 'civilian'."
 
.
Points to note are

1) Obama knew from the get go that the civilian deaths were high and he ignored them
2) If he knows about their deaths why doesn't the US government release any official figures on how many civilians died and how many children died?
3) He went to the extent to embrace the initiative of redefining who should be considered a civilian

THIS IS THE MOST DAMNING INDICTMENT OF OBAMA.

Sorry for the caps but I really wanted to put focus on this.

Obama said, anyone who gets killed, and is of the age to be in the military - should be declared as a militant in the press releases unless there is concrete proof to deny this posthumously, then you revise it.

This means kill as you want to kill and declare militants as per your own skewed definition.

What the hell, that means almost all people killed may have been civilians!!!

4) When warned in a particular strike that the deaths would be high, he said do it, I will tackle the issue after it becomes reality
 
.
This is just like the other news, where NATO banned use of cameras in battle zones, rather than stopping their soldiers posing with dead bodies.

Despicable.
 
.
Asim, this is a fairly good read and came out in NY Times just yesterday. The article is 8 pages long and I didn't have a way to copy paste it here - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

The gist is on how Obama takes a personal interest on filtering and authorizing the "kill-list". The reporter of course paints a picture of him taking a personal interest and personal responsibility for all the actions. Ironically, Bush was more restrained and responsible in his use of drones, and as far as the Afghan war was concerned, you can't really blame him for anything. Yet his image in the Muslim world is worse than that of Obama.
 
.
Pakistan talks about stopping drone strikes without looking at its own conduct on terrorist safe heavens.
Every country has international obligation to not shelter terrorist that attacks other countries. However Pakistan has not been able to eliminate the safe heaves for terrorist even after being asked to do so for decades.

This means that other countries are at risk of getting negatively impacted because Pakistan has not eliminated safe heaves for terrorist. In the light of Pakistan's inability to stop terror attacks originating from its soil on other countries. Other countries have right to act for its safety. Drone attacks are done for the same. As posted earlier by speaker, care is taken to not have civilian casualty, however one cannot be 100% perfect and their would be some collateral damage.

Hence the responsibility of Drone attacks completely lies on Pakistan, since it is unable to guarantee its neighbor that terrorist attacking them.

In real life if you have a home where there are some criminals living and attacking others, first opportunity will be given to you to get it fixed, but if you tell the world that you do not have means to deal with them (As Pakistan has said about it helplessness in starting NW operation). Others have to act for their safety.
 
.
In real life if you have a home where there are some criminals living and attacking others, first opportunity will be given to you to get it fixed, but if you tell the world that you do not have means to deal with them (As Pakistan has said about it helplessness in starting NW operation). Others have to act for their safety.
That is an invalid argument, which has been debunked several times - while Pakistan has argued a lack of resources for not launching an operation in NW (a legitimate argument, since the costs of such an operation would not be limited to the deployment of tens of thousands of more troops and associated equipment and logistical costs, but also the associated costs from increased militant and terrorist attacks against targets across Pakistan, as well as the costs to relocate, house and later resettle hundreds of thousands of refugees), Pakistan has also, at the minimum, proposed alternatives to unilateral US Drone Strikes like joint drone strikes, Pakistan operated drone strikes and PAF strikes, based on shared US-Pak intel.
 
.
That is an invalid argument, which has been debunked several times - while Pakistan has argued a lack of resources for not launching an operation in NW (a legitimate argument, since the costs of such an operation would not be limited to the deployment of tens of thousands of more troops and associated equipment and logistical costs, but also the associated costs from increased militant and terrorist attacks against targets across Pakistan, as well as the costs to relocate, house and later resettle hundreds of thousands of refugees), Pakistan has also, at the minimum, proposed alternatives to unilateral US Drone Strikes like joint drone strikes, Pakistan operated drone strikes and PAF strikes, based on shared US-Pak intel.

In short you are accepting your inability of controlling the militants due to lack of resources. Which means that you failed in your international responsibility.

Number two if you are asking for others help in getting rid of militants on your own soil, it is their prerogative to share or not to share the technology know how, they are happy to get the intelligence, but your demand that drones should be gifted to you or you get to have first hand experience to that technology is not valid.

Sorry you have not debunked anything.
 
.
In short you are accepting your inability of controlling the militants due to lack of resources. Which means that you failed in your international responsibility.

Number two if you are asking for others help in getting rid of militants on your own soil, it is their prerogative to share or not to share the technology know how, they are happy to get the intelligence, but your demand that drones should be gifted to you or you get to have first hand experience to that technology is not valid.

Sorry you have not debunked anything.


And in saying what you are saying, you are also saying by the way u are saying, what you are saying, and how u are saying is that it is ok if the civilians get killed. Cause its not the americans who should worry abt it at all. Then what your masters need to do is to stop lecturing the whole world on the human rights, and stop punishing others if they dont follow the humanistic rules of your masters.
 
.
This is damn sick of killing many civilians. Drones should kill many black people in Africa where militants are moving there, Obama is working hard to win the elections.
 
.
In short you are accepting your inability of controlling the militants due to lack of resources. Which means that you failed in your international responsibility.
Pakistan has failed no more than the combined military and economic might of NATO has in Afghanistan. The fact that Pakistan needs all these resources to fight militancy is a direct result of the US invasion of Afghanistan, which acted as a catalyst for the terrorism and insurgency in Pakistan.
Number two if you are asking for others help in getting rid of militants on your own soil, it is their prerogative to share or not to share the technology know how, they are happy to get the intelligence, but your demand that drones should be gifted to you or you get to have first hand experience to that technology is not valid.
It is a completely valid demand, given that the spike in terrorism and militancy in Pakistan is a direct result of the US invasion of Afghanistan, and therefore those who authorized and carried out the invasion have a responsibility to assist Pakistan in a mutually agreed upon manner.

Second, even if we ignore US paranoia over 'jointly operated drone strikes' and accept it as a legitimate reason, the option of PAF air strikes on the basis of shared US-Pakistan intelligence, as replacement for unauthorized and illegal drone strikes, is still a valid one.

Finally, if the international community really believes that Pakistan has 'failed in some binding international responsibility', then the international community should have UNSC Resolutions authorizing such strikes passed - in the absence of any such UNSC Resolutions, US military strikes and the flawed legal justifications trotted out in defence of them are in violation of the UN Charter and international law.

Therefore this excuse/justification (of unilateral US Drone Strikes) remains debunked.
 
.
Pakistan has failed no more than the combined military and economic might of NATO has in Afghanistan. The fact that Pakistan needs all these resources to fight militancy is a direct result of the US invasion of Afghanistan, which acted as a catalyst for the terrorism and insurgency in Pakistan.

It is a completely valid demand, given that the spike in terrorism and militancy in Pakistan is a direct result of the US invasion of Afghanistan, and therefore those who authorized and carried out the invasion have a responsibility to assist Pakistan in a mutually agreed upon manner.

Second, even if we ignore US paranoia over 'jointly operated drone strikes' and accept it as a legitimate reason, the option of PAF air strikes on the basis of shared US-Pakistan intelligence, as replacement for unauthorized and illegal drone strikes, is still a valid one.

Finally, if the international community really believes that Pakistan has 'failed in some binding international responsibility', then the international community should have UNSC Resolutions authorizing such strikes passed - in the absence of any such UNSC Resolutions, US military strikes and the flawed legal justifications trotted out in defence of them are in violation of the UN Charter and international law.

Therefore this excuse/justification (of unilateral US Drone Strikes) remains debunked.

That war ended in 80's, are you telling me you could not control them in 30 years?

Did you ever tried? If you were struggling to control them did you asked for help from international community? No you did not do any of that, because you thought same template can be used against India.

Have the guts to own up.
 
.
In short you are accepting your inability of controlling the militants due to lack of resources. Which means that you failed in your international responsibility.

You seem to have selective memory loss.
I think you will find the problem is the inability of all of Nato and the great USA being unable to control the militants in Afghanistan that has partially created the issues we have in Pakistan.
I believe the goalposts,like on this instance, are constantly changing making Pakistan a scapegoat of so many inadequacies by the Americans. "If it screws up and goes wrong - Lets name the Pakistanis"
Our international responsibility and sacrifices for this WOT are clear for all to see. You cant constantly call Pakistan "our partner in this WOT" and when a retreat is forthcoming from Afghanistan start looking at Pakistan to disburse the blame.
They couldnt sort out a few men in pyjamas - yet you suggest "your inability of controlling the militants"? - Come come be sane.
 
.
You seem to have selective memory loss.
I think you will find the problem is the inability of all of Nato and the great USA being unable to control the militants in Afghanistan that has partially created the issues we have in Pakistan.
I believe the goalposts,like on this instance, are constantly changing making Pakistan a scapegoat of so many inadequacies by the Americans. "If it screws up and goes wrong - Lets name the Pakistanis"
Our international responsibility and sacrifices for this WOT are clear for all to see. You cant constantly call Pakistan "our partner in this WOT" and when a retreat is forthcoming from Afghanistan start looking at Pakistan to disburse the blame.
They couldnt sort out a few men in pyjamas - yet you suggest "your inability of controlling the militants"? - Come come be sane.

I think you forgot selectively that after war with USSR and 9/11 there were more than 15 years. And you know very well that you never tried.
 
.
I think you forgot selectively that after war with USSR and 9/11 there were more than 15 years. And you know very well that you never tried.

What are you on about?? Is their peace in Afghanistan? Is their no issues?
By repeating rubbish on numerous occasions - it doesn't make it true.
In fact i find it typical of an Indian - American telling me that "we never tried" - go to sleep as you are beginning to talk nonsense.
 
.
I think you forgot selectively that after war with USSR and 9/11 there were more than 15 years. And you know very well that you never tried.

Militants roam at will all over Afghanistan, Pakistan can only control from within it's own borders....on the contrary, Americans who never miss when an odd person fires into the air from a wedding party, some how become oblivious when up to 400 heads attack Pakistani posts with all guns blazing. It's easy to point fingers....for the same effort, over half a million Indian army has been trying to suppress allegedly few hundred freedom fighters.......do we sense a lack of dedication there. ??!!
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom