US says up to 116 civilians killed in counterterror strikes

[rooster59]

US says up to 116 civilians killed in counterterror strikes

DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press


WASHINGTON (AP) — Peeling back some of the secrecy of America's drone strikes on suspected terrorists, the Obama administration on Friday said it has killed up to 116 civilians in counterterror attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and other places where the U.S. is not engaged in active, on-the-ground warfare.

The first-ever public assessment is a response to mounting pressure for more information about lethal U.S. operations overseas. Human rights and other groups quickly complained that the administration undercounted civilian casualties and called on the White House to release far more information.

The report by National Intelligence Director James Clapper said the U.S. conducted 473 counterterror strikes, including those by unmanned drones, between January 2009 and December 2015. He did not mention where the strikes occurred, but the Defense Department and CIA have pursued targets in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya. The data didn't include strikes in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, which the U.S. considers areas of active hostilities.

The attacks killed an estimated 2,372 to 2,581 combatants in those seven years, the report said. Between 64 and 116 non-combatants were killed.

The administration noted the much higher estimates by non-governmental organizations, which go as high as 900 for the same timeframe. Senior U.S. officials cited several reasons for the discrepancy, including the government's access to sensitive intelligence that helps it more accurately identify the deceased. Groups that have been tracking U.S. drone operations for years weren't convinced.

"The numbers reported by the White House today simply don't add up, and we're disappointed by that," said Federico Borello, executive director of Center for Civilians in Conflict in Washington. "We're concerned that as more countries gain access to armed drone technology, it's more likely that drones will be used as a first response in conflicts and more likely civilians will pay the price."

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism said the administration's number is a fraction of the 380 to 801 civilian deaths it has tallied. It records such deaths on the basis local and international journalists' reports, advocacy organizations, leaked government documents, court papers and field investigations. The London-based group credited the administration's release as a welcome step toward greater transparency, but said more information on specific strikes was needed to reconcile different assessments.

Seeking to enhance safeguards for civilian protection for the rest of his presidency and beyond, Obama also signed an executive order Friday that details U.S. policies to limit non-combatant casualties. It makes protecting civilians a central element in U.S. military operations planning.

The order requires the government to publicize the number of strikes each year, and combatants and civilians killed. The 2016 report is due May 1, 2017.

But the directive isn't necessarily binding on the next president, who could change the policy with an executive order of his or her own.

Bill Roggio of the Long War Journal, which also tracks drone strikes, said the administration's report will "do little to quell the criticism" of those who want full disclosure of civilian casualties. This would include the names of those killed and dates, locations and other details on the strikes.

Roggio, who has estimated 207 civilian deaths over the same period in Pakistan and Yemen alone, said discrepancies would narrow if the U.S. and observers agreed on the details of several especially lethal strikes.

Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project, said Friday's release provided only scant information.

"The government continues to conceal the identities of people it has killed, the specific definitions it uses to decide who can legitimately be targeted and its investigations into credibly alleged wrongful killings," Shamsi said. "The American public can't be confident that the government is using lethal force legally and wisely."

Naureen Shah, Amnesty International's director of national security and human rights, said it was impossible to assess the accuracy of the data without more details. Her group's investigations, she said, "tell a different story."

Nevertheless, said hailed the precedent of announcing civilian deaths as a game-changer and said it would be hard for future administrations to step away from the commitment.

Jennifer Gibson, an attorney for Reprieve, a New York-based human rights organization, said it was time for an independent investigation of whom U.S. drones have killed and the legal framework for the program.

Gibson spoke of 14-year-old Faheem Qureshi, who she said was severely injured in Obama's first drone strike, and nine-year old Nabila Rehman, who traveled to the U.S. in 2013 to seek answers about an attack in Pakistan that killed her grandmother.

"The most glaring absence from this announcement are the names and faces of those civilians that have been killed," Gibson said.

-- (c) Associated Press 2016-07-02

[NovaBlue05]

What a crock of shlt....

[impulse]

Under the topic "How to create thousands more people who now hate us enough that they're willing to strap on bombs and come after us on our own streets".

Edited July 2, 2016 by impulse

[RuamRudy]

Under the topic "How to create thousands more people who hate us and are now willing to strap on bombs and come after us on our own streets".

Milo Minderbinder: We're gonna come out of this war rich!

Yossarian: You're gonna come out rich. We're gonna come out dead.

[gchurch259]

What part, the Government or the Watch Dog Group ? I hate the Civilian Loss, but a Dead Terrorist is now a good one !!

What a crock of shlt....

[impulse]

What part, the Government or the Watch Dog Group ? I hate the Civilian Loss, but a Dead Terrorist is now a good one !!

What a crock of shlt....

But the math doesn't work out very well when you kill one terrorist and create 5 others by killing their innocent loved ones.

Not to mention the uncomplicated, abject evil of killing innocent people in places you haven't even declared a war.

Imagine, for example, the French bombed a high school football stadium in Midland, Texas because a couple of the spectators were suspected of ties to the Paris terrorists.

Yet, we're doing the same around the world. Or, more accurately, they're doing it in our name, using our treasure and our kids' blood.

[Morch]

What part, the Government or the Watch Dog Group ? I hate the Civilian Loss, but a Dead Terrorist is now a good one !!

What a crock of shlt....

But the math doesn't work out very well when you kill one terrorist and create 5 others by killing their innocent loved ones.

Not to mention the uncomplicated, abject evil of killing innocent people in places you haven't even declared a war.

Imagine, for example, the French bombed a high school football stadium in Midland, Texas because a couple of the spectators were suspected of ties to the Paris terrorists.

Yet, we're doing the same around the world. Or, more accurately, they're doing it in our name, using our treasure and our kids' blood.

If France had reason to believe there were suspects among a Texan crowd, it would seek recourse by asking the US to handle things.

Most of the areas/countries related to drone attacks do not have similar relationship, and can not (or would not) apply their own law enforcement in a similar manner.

The issues regarding such attacks creating further animosity and providing support for recruitment by hostiles are real enough. One relevant question would be if halting drone attacks would result in less threats. Guess there's a certain payoff between the two alternatives, not sure that the current policy delivers.

[impulse]

What part, the Government or the Watch Dog Group ? I hate the Civilian Loss, but a Dead Terrorist is now a good one !!

But the math doesn't work out very well when you kill one terrorist and create 5 others by killing their innocent loved ones.

Not to mention the uncomplicated, abject evil of killing innocent people in places you haven't even declared a war.

Imagine, for example, the French bombed a high school football stadium in Midland, Texas because a couple of the spectators were suspected of ties to the Paris terrorists.

Yet, we're doing the same around the world. Or, more accurately, they're doing it in our name, using our treasure and our kids' blood.

If France had reason to believe there were suspects among a Texan crowd, it would seek recourse by asking the US to handle things.

Most of the areas/countries related to drone attacks do not have similar relationship, and can not (or would not) apply their own law enforcement in a similar manner.

The issues regarding such attacks creating further animosity and providing support for recruitment by hostiles are real enough. One relevant question would be if halting drone attacks would result in less threats. Guess there's a certain payoff between the two alternatives, not sure that the current policy delivers.

Bottom line, we're no safer today after we've presided over the deaths of millions of innocents. There's more terrorists today than there were when we started.

Getting away from France, you figure any nation would have any luck getting US assistance in extraditing Cheney or Bush (or any military or political figures for that matter) for their war crimes and the tragedies they caused? They'd be just as justified bombing a Midland football stadium to get either of them as we are bombing an outdoor market in their country to get a wanted terrorist. (the reason I chose Midland as an example...)

We'd call their action "terrorism". What do you figure they call ours? I deplore either action, but the comparison is valid.

Edited July 2, 2016 by impulse

[Morch]

What part, the Government or the Watch Dog Group ? I hate the Civilian Loss, but a Dead Terrorist is now a good one !!

But the math doesn't work out very well when you kill one terrorist and create 5 others by killing their innocent loved ones.

Not to mention the uncomplicated, abject evil of killing innocent people in places you haven't even declared a war.

Imagine, for example, the French bombed a high school football stadium in Midland, Texas because a couple of the spectators were suspected of ties to the Paris terrorists.

Yet, we're doing the same around the world. Or, more accurately, they're doing it in our name, using our treasure and our kids' blood.

If France had reason to believe there were suspects among a Texan crowd, it would seek recourse by asking the US to handle things.

Most of the areas/countries related to drone attacks do not have similar relationship, and can not (or would not) apply their own law enforcement in a similar manner.

The issues regarding such attacks creating further animosity and providing support for recruitment by hostiles are real enough. One relevant question would be if halting drone attacks would result in less threats. Guess there's a certain payoff between the two alternatives, not sure that the current policy delivers.

Bottom line, we're no safer today after we've presided over the deaths of millions of innocents. There's more terrorists today than there were when we started.

Getting away from France, you figure any nation would have any luck getting US assistance in extraditing Cheney or Bush (or any military or political figures for that matter) for their war crimes and the tragedies they caused? They'd be just as justified bombing a Midland football stadium to get either of them as we are bombing an outdoor market in their country to get a wanted terrorist. (the reason I chose Midland as an example...)

We'd call their action "terrorism". What do you figure they call ours? I deplore either action, but the comparison is valid.

The asserted "bottom line" is not necessarily correct. How things would have turned out sans drone strikes is guesswork and hindsight. Same goes for "more terrorists" - leaving things unchecked could have led to worse scenarios. And with reference to the scope of the OP, I do not believe that "millions" were killed. That figure is more in line when including Western interventions as a whole.

Moving the goal posts much? No, a country would not get US assistance in extraditing former or incumbent leaders of state. The same is generally true with regard to US wishes on that front. Countries do not normally extradite such people, and they are not usually targeted by counter-terrorism operations. Hence your (new) comparison is invalid as well.

What antagonists call each others actions is not necessarily a good yardstick.

[impulse]

What antagonists call each others actions is not necessarily a good yardstick.

It's a good yardstick in that it drives the actions of the people who would blow up airplanes and airports and shoot up bars and bomb hospitals and drone strike open air markets.

Whether we agree with it or not isn't the point. They're driven by their yardsticks, not by ours. As long as we keep killing their innocents, they're going to keep recruiting martyrs.

Looking at the 116 acknowledged deaths in the absence of the whole context of millions of deaths is a little too compartmentalized for me.

[Morch]

What antagonists call each others actions is not necessarily a good yardstick.

It's a good yardstick in that it drives the actions of the people who would blow up airplanes and airports and shoot up bars and bomb hospitals and drone strike open air markets.

Whether we agree with it or not isn't the point. They're driven by their yardsticks, not by ours. As long as we keep killing their innocents, they're going to keep recruiting martyrs.

Looking at the 116 acknowledged deaths in the absence of the whole context of millions of deaths is a little too compartmentalized for me.

That would imply two alternate yardsticks....so not something which actions could be objectively measured against.

I do not contest the adverse effects (beyond the obvious one of innocent casualties) of such attacks and operations. My take is that drawing the lines between the benefits (in the operational sense) and the drawbacks is tricky. IMO, extreme positions on this are off mark.

Well aware that such attacks and operations are perceived and presented differently on involved sides. That's pretty much a universal truth relating to any conflict. Similarly to the above, I do not see wholly subscribing to either set of positions as a must.

It might be too compartmentalized, but then again, going your way would necessitate adopting a point of view some find over-reaching and out of context. Broadening the scope of the discussion, especially on forums such as this, leads to muddying of the water.

[impulse]

It's a good yardstick in that it drives the actions of the people who would blow up airplanes and airports and shoot up bars and bomb hospitals and drone strike open air markets.

Whether we agree with it or not isn't the point. They're driven by their yardsticks, not by ours. As long as we keep killing their innocents, they're going to keep recruiting martyrs.

Looking at the 116 acknowledged deaths in the absence of the whole context of millions of deaths is a little too compartmentalized for me.

That would imply two alternate yardsticks....so not something which actions could be objectively measured against.

I do not contest the adverse effects (beyond the obvious one of innocent casualties) of such attacks and operations. My take is that drawing the lines between the benefits (in the operational sense) and the drawbacks is tricky. IMO, extreme positions on this are off mark.

Well aware that such attacks and operations are perceived and presented differently on involved sides. That's pretty much a universal truth relating to any conflict. Similarly to the above, I do not see wholly subscribing to either set of positions as a must.

It might be too compartmentalized, but then again, going your way would necessitate adopting a point of view some find over-reaching and out of context. Broadening the scope of the discussion, especially on forums such as this, leads to muddying of the water.

How 'bout those Cubs? Think they'll take it all the way this year?

[HappyinNE]

I am not going to argue how many have been killed as I believe it is all immoral.

To me this is an example of Extrajdicial Killing. Neither the present President or the prior one has gone to the United Nations Security Council for approval. In addition they have not gone to Congress and gotten a quasi Declaration of War against people in a given country.

For your information Wikipedia's definition is : An extrajudicial killing is the killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process. Extrajudicial punishments are mostly seen by humanity to be unethical, since they bypass the due process of the legal jurisdiction in which they occur.

I am a US Citizen but do not know how to stop it except in the ballot box.

[manutfarang]

They are missing at least one zero there.

[LawrenceChee]

This types of military inclusions that are not sanctioned or monitored risks rogue individuals making bad and wrong decisions. However in following the commander's orders, little the military serviceman can do even if they don't agree with the orders

The USA has a good heart, it needs to stop interfering in other countries matters without any long term plans ; t

The middle east is a complex region and no regions can understand this better than the ME people themselves ; hence the USA have been caught pants downs in my scenarios that is now panning out with no long term solutions as the military exercises are all piece meal ones.

[watcharacters]

Drones..