Drone strikes: Rights groups berate US for not following its own rules

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch say the US is not providing the transparency on drone strikes promised by President Obama last May and may even be guilty of war crimes.

Courtesy via Reuters/Mike Theiler/Amnesty International/Reuters
Amnesty International's Pakistan Researcher Mustafa Qadri (2nd l.) makes remarks at a press briefing to announce Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch findings regarding civilian casualties of the US policy on drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, in Washington, October 22, 2013.

The US government has not been adhering to the drone-strike policy promised by President Obama in his closely-scrutinized speech at the National Defense University last May, in which he pledged that prior to any US attack “there must be a near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest standard we can set.”

That is the assessment of two investigations released Tuesday by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, who noted that it was a “significant” step for the two leading human rights groups to merge their efforts to produce the reports.

Since 2009, for example, the US government has carried out an estimated 80 drone strikes in Yemen, killing an estimated 473 people, according to the Human Rights Watch report.

In many cases, those killed were civilians whose deaths have gone unacknowledged, according to the two groups, who challenge the myth of the “antiseptic assault” and call the strikes violations of the laws of war that may amount to war crimes or even extra-judicial executions.

At the same time, the groups say they cannot definitively make these determinations because the US government has not acknowledged the killings or provided the accountability and transparency promised by Mr. Obama in his May foreign policy address.

What seems clear is that the United States “has acted like a hit-and-run driver, refusing to take responsibility” for the deaths of innocent civilians, argues Naureen Shah, a legal adviser to Amnesty International.

The White House has not replied to “numerous letters, e-mails, and telephone calls” from the organizations requesting data on the strikes, according to spokesmen who add that the two groups did each receive the same identical response from the Central Intelligence Agency, which referred their queries to the White House.

They pointed to specific instances of civilian deaths, including a drone strike in Pakistan in which 18 male laborers, including a teenage boy, were killed while eating their dinner after a day of work in the fields. For the families who later found the bodies, it was a “macabre scene” of “panic and terror.”

While it was difficult to conduct the investigations in the violent and largely ungoverned region of Pakistan’s North Waziristan, “the most challenging situation we had to face was the complete and utter secrecy of the US authorities,” said Mustafa Qadri, Amnesty International’s Pakistan researcher.

This was similarly true in Yemen, in which a recent drone strike killed 14 militants, but also 41 members of a Bedouin tribe asleep in their tents.

Another cruise missile strike with cluster munitions launched from a drone killed 12 Yemeni civilians in a passenger van, on their way home from the market. In the aftermath, the bodies later found by their families were “dusted in flour and sugar.”

“Disproportionate numbers of civilians are those who are not valid military targets under the laws of war,” says Letta Taylor, who researches terrorism and counterterrorism for Human Rights Watch and adds that “Obama’s policy guidelines unveiled last May were not followed in many of these strikes.”

The groups insist that they “are not here to call for an end to the drone program, nor are we saying drones are unlawful weapons.”

They add that they may indeed be a reasonable alternative to putting large numbers of troops in harm’s way in some cases.

That said, the US “hasn’t been clear about its perceived legal authority, nor has it been clear about its policy,” says Andrea Prasow, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch.

What’s more, while the Obama administration has cited the “War on terror” authorities given to the president by Congress in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, declaring that it is at war with Al Qaeda and “associated forces,” it has consistently refused to name these associated forces, the studies note.

This in turn amounts to “a secret war with a secret list of enemies,” Ms. Prasow says.

At the same time, the organizations warn that the United States is setting a dangerous precedent for international behavior as drone technology proliferates, noting that other countries or individual actors could wage similar killing campaigns against US citizens.

They are calling for the White House to provide the transparency promised by Obama in May, including information about “who has been killed, how many people have been killed, and what the legal and factual basis for these killings was.”

“We realize there are real threats out there, but at least as a first step acknowledge these strikes,” Ms. Taylor says. “Tell us what you are doing and why.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.