Amnesty International Assails U.S. on Drone Strikes

• "Many attacks, which have killed more civilians than acknowledged, are illegal."

By KEN DILANIAN Tribune Washington Bureau

Star Tribune

 

WASHINGTON – U.S. air-strikes in Yemen and Pakistan have killed far more civilians than American officials acknowledge, and many of the attacks appear to have been illegal under international law, according to a pair of reports by human rights organizations based on interviews with survivors and witnesses.  
  
The reports by Amnesty International, which looked into nine strikes in Pakistan, and Human Rights Watch, which examined six attacks in Yemen, also assert that the United States has killed militants when capturing them was a feasible option. In Pakistan, Amnesty found that U.S. missiles have targeted rescuers and other groups of people in an indiscriminate manner that increased the likelihood of civilian deaths.  
 
The reports were released at a news conference Tuesday in Washington.    The CIA had no comment, and the White House declined to respond in detail, but it pointed out that President Obama in May announced tighter rules of engagement that he said would make it less likely civilians would be killed or injured in targeted strikes. Most of the attacks detailed in the two reports took place before Obama’s speech.  
  
“U.S. counterterrorism operations are precise, they are lawful and they are effective,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said, adding that before drone strikes are used, there must be “near-certainty” no civilians will be killed. In addition, there’s a wide gap between the U.S. assessment of civilian casualties and what groups such as Amnesty have determined, Carney said.  
  
Amnesty International said 29 noncombatants died in the Pakistan attacks it investigated, and Human Rights Watch counted 57 civilians dead in six incidents in Yemen, including 41 in a December 2009 cruise missile strike based on bad intelligence from the Yemeni government. Most of the strikes involved missiles fired from remotely piloted drone aircraft. 

Amnesty International’s Mustafa Qadri discussed the findings.
Photo Susan Walsh Associated Press

  
The authors of the reports acknowledged that in many cases it was difficult to say with certainty whether men killed in a particular strike were members of Al-Qaida or associated forces who had participated in or were planning attacks on U.S. interests. 
    
Relatives of the dead often insist that their loved ones had no connection to extremism. American intelligence officials and their congressional overseers say that in almost all cases, the strikes have hit legitimate targets.  
  
The Amnesty International report also criticizes the Pakistani government. Even as officials in Islamabad, the capital, publicly condemn drone attacks, “elements of the state” are suspected of colluding with those behind the attacks, the report says, an apparent reference to Pakistan’s military and spy agencies. This ambiguity tends to discourage Islamabad from investigating civilian attacks, helping drone strike victims or pressuring the U.S. for greater accountability, Amnesty said. 
    
“The problem is that the drone program started through a tacit agreement between the U.S. and Pakistani governments,” said Raza Rumi, an Islamabad-based political and security analyst. “However, due to the nature of the bilateral relationship, the drone program has become controversial.” 
    
Drones generate political resentment in Pakistan.    But some Pakistanis also blame the Taliban for taking cover among civilian populations, putting ordinary people in harm’s way.  
  
The Associated Press contributed to this report.  

 

OBAMA TO MEET WITH PAKISTANI PRIME MINISTER

Months of delicate diplomacy will be on display Wednesday when President Obama meets Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif at the White House. They have agreed to resume defense and security cooperation, which was suspended in 2011 after U.S. forces killed more than 20 Pakistani troops in a clash along the Afghan border.     

Sharif said Tuesday that reviving the economy, improving relations with India, helping to stabilize Afghanistan and working closely with the United States were all components of his government’s long-term strategy to combat terrorism and extremism, which he described as Pakistan’s greatest challenge.     

He said he was confident that Pakistan could work with the United States on those and other issues, expanding a relationship that’s “stood the test of time” despite “occasional hiccups.” He also said he welcomed American private investment in major projects to overhaul Pakistan’s energy and other sectors.   
 
In no uncertain terms, however, Sharif said the U.S. drone strikes not only violated Pakistan’s territorial integrity but also were detrimental to his country’s own efforts to combat terrorism

Washington Post Takes Govt's Lead on 'Kill List' Reporting

Government officials request redactions on how NSA assists CIA in drone assassination program

- Jon Queally, staff writer
Article from Common Dreams

 
According to documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the NSA can be added to the list of those agencies behind the controversial assassination program run by the CIA. (Photo: AFP/Getty) 

The Washington Post is reporting new revelations about how the National Security Agency uses its vast global surveillance capabilities to assist the CIA in its controversial worldwide drone assassination program.

To be more accurate, however, the Post is only releasing information deemed non-threatening to what it describes as "ongoing operations" and "national security," based on the guidance of the U.S. government itself.

The newspaper admits that it is "withholding many details [...] at the request of U.S. intelligence officials" and that the documents discussed in their redacted coverage may, in fact, "bolster the agency’s case that its resources are focused on fighting terrorism and supporting U.S. operations overseas."

It has long been suspected that the NSA has played a key role in the CIA's overseas drone operations and President Obama's so-called "kill list" program, but the documents reviewed by the Post are the first to confirm that role with internal documents.

The NSA files, provided to the Post by whistleblower Edward Snowden, explain how the NSA leveraged its large budget and technical capabilities to help the CIA pinpoint a man, Hassan Ghul, they claimed to be a major figure within al-Qaeda believed to be in the tribal areas of western Pakistan in 2012.

According to the report:

The documents do not explain how the Ghul e-mail was obtained or whether it was intercepted using legal authorities that have emerged as a source of controversy in recent months and enable the NSA to compel technology giants including Microsoft and Google to turn over information about their users. Nor is there a reference to another NSA program facing scrutiny after Snowden’s leaks, its metadata collection of numbers dialed by nearly every person in the United States.

To the contrary, the records indicate that the agency depends heavily on highly targeted network penetrations to gather information that wouldn’t otherwise be trapped in surveillance nets that it has set at key Internet gateways.

The new documents are self-congratulatory in tone, drafted to tout the NSA’s counterterrorism capabilities. One is titled “CT MAC Hassan Gul Success.” The files make no mention of other agencies’ roles in a drone program that escalated dramatically in 2009 and 2010 before tapering off in recent years.

Even so, former CIA officials said the files are an accurate reflection of the NSA’s contribution to finding targets in a campaign that has killed more than 3,000 people, including thousands of alleged militants and hundreds of civilians, in Pakistan, according to independent surveys. The officials said the agency has assigned senior analysts to the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, and deployed others to work alongside CIA counterparts at almost every major U.S. embassy or military base overseas.

According to the Bureau of Investigation Journalism's most recent estimate, between 407 and 926 innocent people have been killed by U.S. drones in Pakistan since 2004, with as many 200 children among the dead.

Borderless US Drone War an Affront to Intl Law: UN Expert

UN special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism Ben Emmerson's statements add to chorus of international concern

- Common Dreams staff October 18, 2013

 
File image of an armed MQ-9 Reaper drone (Photo: General Atomics Aeronautical)

 Missile attacks carried out by U.S. drones—that have killed countless civilians and remain hidden behind an 'unacceptable' veil of secrecy—may be in violation of international law, UN special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism Ben Emmerson declared in a damning 24-page report released Friday.

Emmerson's statements add to a chorus of international voices expressing concern about the rising use of weaponized drones, including a report released Thursday by Christof Heyns, the UN's special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, citing far-reaching harm to civilians with no accountability.

Emmerson's report offers a chilling account of drone strikes in Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan and Gaza, documenting numerous incidents of civilian deaths at the hands of U.S. attacks and other world powers.

Having just returned from Islamabad, Pakistan, he explains that the Pakistan ministry of foreign affairs has documented over 330 drone strikes since 2002 that have killed 2,200 people, 400 of them civilians.

Emmerson also cites the "steady recorded rise" of drones used in Afghanistan by U.S. and UK forces, as well as civilians in Yemen believed to have been killed by U.S. drones.

Emmerson states that because the U.S. has essentially declared the 'war against terror' a transnational conflict without borders, it is difficult to make concrete pronouncements about the application and interpretation of international law. As Emmerson explains in one key section of his report (emphasis added):

Yet critics charge that the United States does not have the right to unilaterally re-define international law, and that its covert drone wars are simply illegal.

The CIA actively obstructs access to information about drone strikes, Emmerson charges, creating an "insurmountable obstacle to transparency." Emmerson writes:

The United States has to date failed to reveal its own data on the level of civilian casualties inflicted through the use of remotely piloted aircraft in classified operations conducted in Pakistan and elsewhere, or any information on its methodology for evaluating this. The Special Rapporteur does not accept that considerations of national security justify withholding statistical and basic methodological data of this kind...

Emmerson concludes by demanding that the U.S. "release its own data on the level of civilian casualties inflicted through the use of remotely piloted aircraft, together with information on the evaluation methodology used."

The report was published in advance of a UN General Assembly debate over the use of drones to take place in New York next Friday.

Drones, the Media and Malala's Message

Fair Blog October 15, 2013
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

By Peter Hart

Pakistani teenager Malala Yousafzai's visit to the United States was widely covered in the media, including interviews with ABC's Diane Sawyer (10/11/13), CNN's Christiane Amanpour (10/14/13) and Jon Stewart of the Daily Show (10/8/13). She was selected as ABC's "Person of the Week" on October 11, and was considered a serious contender for the Nobel Peace Prize.

And for good reason; just one year ago, Malala was attacked by the Taliban for her outspoken advocacy on behalf of educational equality, surviving a an attack where she was shot in the head.
But one part of her message didn't seem to penetrate the corporate media.
During her October 11 visit to the White House, Yousafzai told Barack Obama that his administration's drone strikes were fueling terrorism. As McClatchy's Lesley Clark (10/11/13) reported:

In a statement released after the meeting, Malala said she was honored to meet with Obama, but that she told him she's worried about the effect of US drone strikes. (The White House statement didn't mention that part.)
"I thanked President Obama for the United States' work in supporting education in Pakistan and Afghanistan and for Syrian refugees," she said in the statement. "I also expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people. If we refocus efforts on education, it will make a big impact."

This exchange, for some reason, didn't register in a corporate media that followed Malala's visit, and her story, very closely.

This is in keeping with other media patterns we've seen. Earlier this year, Farea al-Muslimi, a Yemeni writer and activist, came to Washington to deliver moving testimony  to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the effect of drone strikes on his country: "What the violent militants had previously failed to achieve, one drone strike accomplished in an instant. There is now an intense anger against America." His words received scant coverage in the US media (FAIR Blog, 4/24/13).

If Americans wish to understand how US wars are experienced by those on the other side of the military attacks, it is important to hear these voices. But will US media allow these voices to be heard?

Renouncing the Right to Bear Drones

by Ken Butigan

 

The riveting attention paid to chemical weapons in Syria over the past few weeks is not a new phenomenon. Our revulsion has its roots in World War I’s searing plumes of mustard gas that decimated thousands of troops and that still swirl through the trenches of our collective mind. But it is also grounded in our conscious or unconscious memory of every pivotal moment in the history of war when one combatant’s edge widened incrementally or dramatically over another with the latest innovation in killing. 

The ability of new weaponry to mechanize and geometrically multiply casualties with every turn of the technological wheel has proven chillingly advantageous to systems of domination. But this superiority has not only been numerical. Its power often has laid in its capability to deface and ultimately obliterate the facticity and stubbornly human presence of the other — whether it be with the meat grinding Gatling gun of the Civil War or the vaporous immensity of the atomic bomb. Virtually every new weapon over the past 5,000 years has not only been designed to defeat the opponent with greater firepower but to reduce, ruin and extinguish her or his body, presence, physical integrity — the qualities that makes us irreducibly human.

We are now in the midst of the drones revolution, the next leap in technologized lethality. The quantitative horror that drones have ushered into the world is deeply troubling. For example, U.S. drones have killed an estimated 3,149 people in Pakistan since 2004, as Out of Sight, Out of Mind vividly documents. At the same time a qualitative horror rumbles through our collective consciousness rooted in the growing capacities of drones, including their radical particularity, universal comprehensiveness, and increasing automation.

The precision of drones has dramatically refashioned the concept of most battlefield weapons, which steadily have increased the ability to kill large numbers of people. A military drone, on the contrary, is hyper-personal, designed and tailored to kill a particular person. While the United States regularly carries out what it terms signature strikes — aimed at classes of people that are presumed to be terrorists because they match a certain demographic profile (young men, for example) — the stark reality of drones is that they are designed to track and eliminate specific individuals.

Paradoxically, this very particularity makes the potential reach of drones universal. One by one, we are all hypothetically at risk. Any one of us could find ourselves on a “kill list” if we are deemed by “deemers” to fit the system’s criteria at any given moment. As the NSA revelations of Edward Snowden and others have underscored, the capacity increasingly exists for the U.S. government and other entities to amass profiles on every human being on the planet. Perhaps all seven billion of us are on a master list whereby the “deemer-in-chief” can toggle us from the “non-kill list” to the “kill list” when national security demands it. Whether this is the case or not, the growing capacity of drones to roam the planet to track and eliminate targets drawn from a comprehensive super-database is a prospect with which we must grapple going forward.

Even more than this, there is the possibility that such a comprehensive system will become virtually automated. Not only might there be a universal list, it could be activated and maintained by a set of algorithms, freeing those glued to the monitors and working the joysticks at places like Creech Air Force Base in Nevada — as well as their bosses who now compile and sign off on the lists — from the sometimes PTSD-inducing task of deciding who will live and who will die.

All these facets of drones — customizable killing, planet-wide surveillance and targeting, and the potential for them to be the lynchpin of a self-regulating, ubiquitous and permanent military regime — increase lethality but also degrade, destroy and erase the inviolable human presence.

The drones revolution is on, and every effort is being made to get us to enlist. Over the past few years this has included an unrelenting touting that drones are a foregone conclusion. Virtually every day there are new revelations in the press — for example, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency recently announced that it was working on underwater drones, and there seems to be a thriving “do-it-yourself” drones cottage industry — while U.S. drone warfare continues apace in the Middle East and the Horn of Africa. (Although most analysts downplay the role drones might play in Syria if the United States goes in, this spring a news account detailed how the CIA has plans to carry out drone attacks against extremists in the Syrian opposition.) This is a new form of subtle and not-so-subtle conscription, designed not so much to fill the ranks of the armed services as to gradually get us to assume that a drone-run world is normal, good and just another part of the future.

But there is resistance to this “cultural draft,” including the international movement that, for the past few years, has been growing and broadening. (In reflecting on this movement, I recently explored the idea of promulgating an international treaty banning drones, inspired by the international treaty banning land mines.) Code Pink, which has provided powerful leadership for this movement, is sponsoring a drones summit November 16-17 in Washington, D.C. “Drones Around the Globe: Proliferation and Resistance” will feature among other presenters Cornel West, international law expert Mary Ellen O’Connell, and activists from Yemen and Pakistan.

"Beale 5" outside Beale Airforce Base, CA (WNV/Occupy)

Anti-drone protests have been staged recently in Yemen and Britain. And this week, the “Beale 5” were sentenced in a Sacramento, Calif., courtroom for a nonviolent civil disobedience action they engaged in October 30, 2012 at Beale Air Force Base in Northern California, which provides surveillance drones that scout locations for killer drones. Last month they were convicted of trespassing at the base after a day-long bench trial, where they faced a maximum sentence of six months in federal prison and a $5,000 fine. Judge Carolyn Delaney sentenced the five — Janie Kesselman, Sharon Delgado, Shirley Osgood, Jan Hartsough and David Hartsough — to 10 hours of community service after the defendants told her that they would rather go to jail rather than accept fines or probation.

In her statement before the judge, Jan Hartsough, who was a Peace Corps volunteer in Pakistan in the mid-1960s, said:

After living and working there for two years, Pakistan is a part of me. I have followed with great pain and sadness the drone attacks on Pakistanis. I have learned from Pakistani victims of drone strikes that they are experiencing psychological trauma — never knowing when a drone might strike again. Kids are afraid to go to school; adults are afraid to gather for a funeral or a wedding celebration for fear of becoming a “target.” … So what have we accomplished with our drone attacks? When will we wake up and see that there are much better ways to win the respect of the world’s people? As a mother and grandmother I seek to find ways to help create a more peaceful world for future generations. Ending drone warfare is a concrete step we can and must take.

After the statements of Hartsough and the others, the judge declared that prison would serve “no purpose.” A second anti-drone trial is scheduled later this year for another group of five people arrested at Beale this past April 30.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Article found on Common Dreams.org

Ken Butigan is director of Pace e Bene, a nonprofit organization fostering nonviolent change through education, community and action. He also teaches peace studies at DePaul University and Loyola University in Chicago.

How Buck McKeon created a global drone enterprise

A lawmaker helped create the drone industry - and has reaped the benefits.

By Tara McKelvey BBC News Magazine

Congressman Howard "Buck" McKeon is described as "affable and well-respected" - and as a fierce
champion of the drone manufacturers in his California constituency

 A drone reportedly flew over North Dakota last year, taking pictures of a meth lab. The drone's flight log was released in July in response to a lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil-liberties organisation.

The flight log sheds light on the way drones are being used - routinely and to an extent not previously known to the public. The release of the flight log and other documents caused a furore, and civil libertarians expressed dismay over the widespread use of drones.

However surprising the news about the drones may have been to activists, the surveillance of the meth lab is part of a global trend. Officials in Northern Ireland used drones to keep dignitaries safe at the G8 summit in June. Drones have flown over train tracks in Germany to look for graffiti artists.

Drones were on display at the Paris Air Show earlier this summer

Many countries, including China and Israel, make drones. Yet the US is the world's leader in creating technology for drones and in promoting their use - for both military and civilian purposes. The interest in drones in the US crosses political lines, with both Democrats and Republicans investing in the aircraft.

President Barack Obama, a Democrat and a liberal, has been more aggressive than his predecessor. US forces have launched about 360 drone strikes against al-Qaeda commanders and other militants since 2009, according to the New America Foundation. That is more than six times the number of strikes that President George W Bush authorised during his two terms.

The increase in the use of drones came partly because technology improved over the years, making the strikes more efficient, and also because Obama adopted a more focused campaign against al-Qaeda commanders and other militants in Pakistan.

The US-directed strikes, which are deeply unpopular in Pakistan, are frequently in the news - an attack reportedly killed six in Pakistan earlier this week. US Secretary of State John Kerry said recently the US would end the drone strikes, however, "as we have eliminated most of the threat".
Less well known, however, is the fact that drones are used in the civilian airspace over the US, UK and Europe.

It is a growing, if under-reported, trend. Many of the drones used in Pakistan, along with those sent to Afghanistan, now have a permanent home in the US. These drones are turned over to civilians who work for the federal Customs and Border Protection agency, police departments, and other government offices. 

The story of how drones became a robust niche in domestic law enforcement - and part of the commercial world as well - is rooted in Washington DC. Indeed, the rise of the drone can be traced in part to one man, Howard "Buck" McKeon.

McKeon, a California Republican, is chairman of the House armed services committee and co-chairman of a legislative group he founded, the Congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus, which supports expansion of the industry.

A Euro Hawk, parked in the Mojave Desert, is one of the newer models

Military officers on Capitol Hill and executives in the aerospace industry have welcomed McKeon's support.

Of the dozens of members on the Congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus in the House of Representatives, McKeon has received the most "drone-related campaign contributions" - $833,650 (£551,689), according to a report by Hearst Newspapers and the Center for Responsive Politics.
McKeon is a case study in how a member of Congress can work within the system, operate within ethical boundaries created by Congress, and have an impact on policy - as well as increase profits for Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, all of which make drones in his district.
McKeon, who has not been accused of any crimes or charged with any ethical violations, refused repeated requests for interviews for this article.

 New Yorkers march against the use of drones

Years ago, Americans were shocked at the way lobbyist Jack Abramoff worked the system in Washington. But he was also convicted of bilking, or cheating, Indian tribes, and imprisoned for serious criminal offences.

After the scandal, members of Congress re-examined their ethical rules. Today, however, the system remains much the same.

Lobbyists promote clients, including the makers of drones, and contractors give money to members of Congress, who in turn work on legislation that regulates their industry. Within this world of money and politics, McKeon is one who stands out.

Not only is McKeon the recipient of contributions from drone manufacturers, but he is also one of Washington's most vocal supporters of the industry. He and members of his Capitol Hill office have close ties with lobbyists and contractors.

Small drones such as this French model help farmers take care of their crops

 

In a "Most Corrupt" report for 2012 compiled by researchers for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a progressive watchdog group, McKeon is one of several given a "dishonourable mention" over a mortgage he had received on preferential terms and his alleged improper use of official staff.

Another Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington report looks at the way members of Congress "use their positions to benefit themselves and their families". The report says McKeon's campaign paid his wife, the treasurer, a salary of about $118,000 (£77,956) in the 2010 campaign cycle.

McKeon once received a cut-rate loan from lender Countrywide Financial, as researchers for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington point out. He was included in a congressional report about Countrywide's attempt to influence members of Congress.

A member of the Mexican navy tries out a new drone

 

 McKeon has not been accused of wrongdoing. A spokesman for McKeon told a New York Times reporter that McKeon was "shocked and angry'' to hear his loan was mentioned in the investigation.
One morning in February, McKeon walked down a marbled hallway on his way to a hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building and made a bow toward uniformed men standing near a doorway. The cordial relations are hardly surprising. He is "the defense sector's top congressional ally", according to Defense News.

"Gentlemen, you have no stronger advocate than the members of this committee," McKeon said during a hearing on the federal budget.

Gordon Adams, a former director at the Office of Management and Budget in the Clinton administration, says drones will remain "a high priority" for the Pentagon.

"The applications of unmanned systems are virtually limitless," McKeon said in a press release.

Meanwhile, drones are flying around Washington in military exercises, another sign that drones are increasingly part of the landscape in the US.

Matt Scassero, executive director of the Mid-Atlantic Unmanned Aerial Systems Coalition and formerly vice-commander of the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, has watched one fly above the Patuxent River in Maryland.

"Quietly," he says.

Drones are restricted to specifically designated airspace such as the one in Maryland, where military personnel fly drones for training purposes. Police officers and border patrol agents can also fly them.

A university professor used a drone last year to photograph a Nebraska drought 

 

Drones cannot be used for commercial pursuits, though that is likely to change. At the behest of Congress, Federal Aviation Administration officials are looking at ways to introduce drones into the civilian airspace. Officials expect that 10,000 drones will be flying in the air by 2020.

The presence of drones above cities and towns has troubled lawmakers. Virginia was the first state to enact a drone ban. Idaho and Florida have since followed suit.

State legislatures in Tennessee and Montana have passed anti-drone legislation. Lawmakers are worried drones will spy on people, especially since their sensors "scoop up quite a lot of information", according to the Brookings Institution.

In addition, drones are plagued with flaws. One may have been hacked, according to media accounts. Another crashed recently near Panama City, Florida.

Article continues http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23024462 

5 Myths Used to Justify Death By Drone and America's Assassination Policy

Obama's drone war relies on propaganda to keep the American public from understanding the inhumanity of high-tech drone killings.

August 12, 2013

AlterNet / By Robert Greenwald

America’s never-ending war on terrorism is almost always depicted in the mainstream media as a military and intelligence agency fight on a global battlefield. But it is also a propaganda war where the public is fed inaccuracies from Washington, especially when it comes to overseas killings by U.S. military drones.

Here are five myths perpetuated by the military and its weapons makers that seek to make Americans feel good about drones and the White House’s policy of targeted assassinations. 

Myth #1: They Target High Level Terrorists

Only two percent of drone strikes have killed “high value targets,” former counter-terror advisor to David Patreus, David Kilcullen, notoriously remarked in a New York Times column early in the Obama presidency, where he said that 50 civilians were killed for every “high-value target” assassinated. That means that 98 percent of drone-caused deaths have been a mix of low-level militants, civilians, or another dubious Pentagon classification called “unknown militants.” 

This spring McClatchy and later  NBC reported that 25 percent of those killed in drone strikes in Pakistan have been classified as “unknown militants.”  So by its own admission, the CIA has no idea whom they are killing about a quarter of the time.  Keep in mind that if a military-aged male is killed in a strike they are automatically presumed to be militants. The implication being, there is a huge room for error, and many of these “unknown militants” are likely civilians.  In one case, the CIA classified 20-22 “unknown militants” killed. This strike actually killed around 40 civilians.     

Myth #2: Drones Are Accurate 

The Pentagon rhetoric touting “pin point” and “laser” accuracy of drones is baseless. Dr. Larry Lewis, a principal research scientist at the Center for Naval Analyses, a research group with close ties to the US military, studied the record in Afghanistan and found that drone strikes were no more accurate than traditional air power. So, after all this talk about the ability to discern enemies through surveillance, they are no more accurate traditional fly-bys.  This rhetoric has allowed us to kill innocent children.

Notably, this study was done in Afghanistan, where there is ample ground and human intelligence for selecting and assessing targets, as well as people who investigate the aftermath of the strikes. But that is not the case in Pakistan and Yemen, which means that the strikes have been more deadly for civilians. The implications from this reality are cynical and cavalier: Either the information on the ground is faulty, or drone operators are okay with certain levels of civilian casualties. Regardless, drones fall far short of the hyped rhetoric coming from the Obama administration.   

Myth #3: Drone Targets Imminently Threaten America

The mainstream media have played into the CIA/Administration’s selective leaks about drones, especially the concept of a “kill list.” This military branding conjures up a process of carefully selected enemies who pose imminent threats to the U.S. However, the reality of “signature strikes” undercuts this P.R. construction.  

Never officially acknowledged by the administration, signature strikes target unknown suspected militants who display “pattern of live” behavior associated with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. What the “patterns” consist of is officially a secret. What we do know is that as soon as signature strikes were implemented there was a spike in number of drone strikes and the number people killed in strikes.   

Furthermore, reporting has recently revealed that the original authorization for drone strikes in Pakistan came from now deposed President Musharraf. The only way he would approve of the strikes was if the CIA killed his enemies. These  "side-payments" became a characteristic of the CIA program. Instead of focusing on enemies of the U.S., the CIA played along with Pakistan’s intelligence agency, ISI, and its military to hit targets who posed no threat to the U.S. 

Myth #4 Drones Are Cheap

Setting aside the moral, legal, and efficacy arguments about drones, the mantra from the administration, lobbyists and their lackeys in Congress has been drone’s low per-unit cost of $4 million to $5 million.  According to Winslow Wheeler of the Project On Government Oversight, “This is quite incorrect.” He states, “The actual cost for a Reaper unit is $120.8 million in 2012 dollars.” This is far above the $27.2 million dollar F-16C or the $18.8 million A-10. Seemingly, this “aura of inevitability” about investing in this new revolutionizing weapon is the military-industrial-complex at its self-serving worst.    

Myth #5: Drones Are Making Americans Safer

They are not, in fact. Not only are drones effectible destabilizing a nuclear power, Pakistan, in one of the most conflict-ridden regions of the world, they are inciting waves of suicide bombers to attack Pakistan. They are also directly threatening the U.S. 

In a global age connectivity there is a new phenomenon of self- radicalization. People who identify with the Muslim Diaspora are seeing their kinsmen being murdered by America in a most brutal way. The Boston Marathon bombers are only the latest example of this phenomenon. The most notorious self-radicalized terrorist was Faisal Shahzad, who, in 2010, tried to blow up New York’s Times-Square. When asked about his motive, he  directly cited drones.  

These rebels with a cause will sadly become the norm as we push and provoke more of the world’s 1.3-1.4 billion Muslims into the political fringes where American violence begets more violence.   

                                                                                                        ***

Last fall I traveled to Pakistan where I witnessed first-hand the horror and challenges people of Pakistan face while living under drones. I went to Pakistan to investigate the civilian casualties caused by U.S. drone strikes and to speak with Pakistani people about how drone strikes impact their families, their communities, and their lives. During my travels I met many people including Rafiq ur Rehman, his son, and his two young daughters whose mother was killed in a drone strike. She was out in a field with no one else around except grazing cattle.

I met with others who had lost limbs and loved ones in the senseless strikes that cause anxiety and terror to everyone in the community.  During my visit, it became clear that I had to bring these stories back to the United States so that everyone could know the horror that occurs in our name.  This fall my organization, Brave New Foundation, will release a documentary on this experience in Pakistan.    
We’re working to break through the myths and expose the truth about drone strikes.  This fall we plan to bring victims of drone strikes in Pakistan to the United States to speak with Congress about the horrors that they face daily living under drones.  Will you help bring these victims here to help expose the truth?   Please donate today. Every dollar makes a difference. 

Robert Greenwald is a producer, director and political activist. He is the founder and president of Brave New Films, a new media company that uses moving images to educate and empower viewers to take action around issues that matter. He is a board member of the Independent Media Institute, AlterNet's parent organization.