WhatFinger


The numbers are troubling, but take them with a big grain of salt...

Reports: Obama administration grossly under reporting civilian deaths in drone strikes



The Obama administration goes to great lengths to assure the American public that overseas drone strikes are the best way forward in the war against international terrorism. If the administration is to be believed, they are fast, effective, and - most importantly - possessed of accuracy unattainable in traditional warfare. The White House has repeatedly argued that, while they are regrettable, drone strikes that cause civilian, non-combatant, deaths are extremely rare.
Unfortunately, they tend to clam up when asked for specific numbers and their reticence has led to a lot of speculation. How accurate are drone strikes, really? Are they as "pin point" as advertised? An article in today's Washington Post suggests that they're not nearly as squeaky clean as the President and Pentagon would like you to believe. Their numbers are troubling, but you should take them with a grain of salt. According to the WaPo:

Support Canada Free Press


Two influential human rights groups say they have freshly documented dozens of civilian deaths in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, contradicting assertions by the Obama administration that such casualties are rare. In Yemen, Human Rights Watch investigated six selected airstrikes since 2009 and concluded that at least 57 of the 82 people killed were civilians, including a pregnant woman and three children who perished in a September 2012 attack. In Pakistan, Amnesty International investigated nine suspected U.S. drone strikes that occurred between May 2012 and July 2013 in the territory of North Waziristan. The group said it found strong evidence that more than 30 civilians were killed in four of the attacks.
These two reports come on the heels of an ugly United Nations report released Friday. In it, Human Rights investigators claimed that 2,200 people had been killed US drone strikes in Paksitan over the last ten years.
Of those casualties, at least 400 were civilians and 200 others were “probable noncombatants,” according to the U.N. official, Ben Emmerson. He said the statistics were provided by Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry.
Politicians - on both sides of the aisle - have argued that if you don't want to be collateral damage in a drone strike, you shouldn't be hanging around with terrorists. Sorry, but that's always been a frighteningly flawed argument. If these numbers are correct, more than one in four drone victims may have simply been "wrong place wrong time" casualties. That's incredibly damning, particularly if the selling point for drone strikes is their staggering precision. I've long argued that our drone program is cause for concern. First of all, many of its targets represent violations of executive orders 11905 and 12036 which placed restrictions on our intelligence community regarding assassination. We can debate whether or not those orders should have been implemented but, as long as they're in place, they are the law. If the CIA (which is deeply involved in strikes throughout Pakistan and Yemen) is ignoring them and running roughshod over their restraints, the problem is self-evident. Second, the federal overuse of drones poses severe 4th and 6th Amendment constitutional questions domestically. Let's assume that the worst is true, and that the feds are just as indiscriminate as they're being portrayed. If that's the case, are we really supposed to believe they'll respect search and seizure or fair trial restraints at home when they've proven themselves unwilling to abide by the law overseas? This brings us to the aforementioned "grain of salt." Basically, the "if" in "if these numbers are correct" is pretty huge - and that's the core of the problem. Most of the data seems to come from the Pakistani government, which has a long history of duplicitous behavior. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are organizations with an almost unflinching desire to side against the United States at every opportunity. In addition, we're all aware of the bizarro track record the United Nations has in regards to human rights, and their recent decision to appoint Iran as "Special Rapporteur of the weapons disarmament committee" squandered whatever tiny shred of credibility the organization had left. Even though conservatives and libertarians may not be overly fond of President Obama's ongoing love affair with Drones; they’d be foolish to try and hang these reports around his neck without further investigation. The accusations may be troubling, but those on the right need to consider the source. For now, we should give the government the benefit of the doubt, while continuing to push for more information. If the most transparent administration in history has nothing to hide, it would be wise to release data addressing these concerns before they gain any more traction. In the meantime, Obama's trademark stoicism isn't doing him any favors.


View Comments

Robert Laurie -- Bio and Archives

Robert Laurie’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain.com

Be sure to “like” Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You’ll be glad you did.


Sponsored