More Than 2,400 Dead as Obama’s Drone Campaign Marks Five Years

[G_j]

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/01/23-0

Published on Thursday, January 23, 2014 by Bureau of Investigative Journalism

More Than 2,400 Dead as Obama’s Drone Campaign Marks Five Years
by Jack Serle


Five years ago, on January 23 2009, a CIA drone flattened a house in Pakistan’s tribal regions. It was the third day of Barack Obama’s presidency, and this was the new commander-in-chief’s first covert drone strike.

Initial reports said up to ten militants were killed, including foreign fighters and possibly a ‘high-value target’ – a successful first hit for the fledgling administration.

But reports of civilian casualties began to emerge. As later reports revealed, the strike was far from a success. At least nine civilians died, most of them from one family. There was one survivor, 14-year-old Fahim Qureshi, but with horrific injuries including shrapnel wounds in his stomach, a fractured skull and a lost eye, he was as much a victim as his dead relatives.

Later that day, the CIA attacked again – and levelled another house. It proved another mistake, this time one that killed between five and ten people, all civilians.

Obama was briefed on the civilian casualties almost immediately and was ‘understandably disturbed’, Newsweek reporter Daniel Klaidman later wrote. Three days earlier, in his inauguration address, Obama had told the world ‘that America is a friend of each nation, and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity.’

The Pakistani government also knew civilians had been killed in the strikes. A record of the strikes made by the local political administration and published by the Bureau last year listed nine civilians among the dead. But the government said nothing about this loss of life.

Yet despite this disastrous start the Obama administration markedly stepped up the use of drones. Since Obama’s inauguration in 2009, the CIA has launched 330 strikes on Pakistan – his predecessor, President George Bush, conducted 51 strikes in four years. And in Yemen, Obama has opened a new front in the secret drone war.

..more..

[ForgoTheConsequence]

1. They hate us for our freedom.

....

[SamKnause]

2. President Obama

covered for the war crimes committed by the Bush administration.

Whoever is elected to the presidency in 2016 will cover for the war crimes committed by the Obama administration.

See how that works ?

[JJChambers]

36. I am not sure what all the fuss is about

I don't have an aversion to drones or drone strikes. It matters not to me whether our government uses manned or unmanned aircraft to deliver a lethal strike. I'm not sure why the presence or absence of a pilot matters one whit to anyone.

We need to focus on (further) reducing civilian casualties with the ultimate goal being to eliminate them completely; this should hold true for manned and unmanned missions. Unfortunately, terrorists, insurgents and enemy combatants regularly shield themselves from strikes by surrounding their positions with civilians -- making absolute elimination of civilian casualties unlikely.

[PowerToThePeople]

38. Enjoy your stay.

And welcome to DU.

[JJChambers]

39. Thank you

Posts similar to yours seem to pop up whenever a new poster presents an opinion that an established poster disagrees with. I wonder what the post threshold is in order for such a prolific poster as yourself to deign to type a substantive response?

Have a nice day.

[warrant46]

58. I've seen that too

Especially 2 years ago when I joined some of those people were very rude to me. Luckily we have an ignore FEATURE which eliminates the hassle. These people are extemely ignorant and stubborn.

Especially some of the ones chosen on juries who let "It all Hang Out' some of the most disgusting things I've seen are remarks delivered by someone on a Jury--Its like a Free Pass to be a Jerk.

[Demeter]

63. Which incarnation are you on now, JJChambers?

Sounds like you've come back from the dead a time or two.

[SamKnause]

40. Fuss

Allowing the Bush administration to get away with crimes against humanity, torture, and an illegal invasion.

Obama administration droning US citizens in foreign countries; no charges, no access to an attorney, no trial, no proof.

We need to focus on getting the fuck out of countries and stirring up shit all over the world.

I never got to vote on my tax dollars being used to police the world.

I am sick of the farce, the dog and pony show, the charade and the LIES !!!!!

[JJChambers]

43. Oh don't get me wrong

I understand the concern and outrage over unnecessary civilian casualties. That's not what I was referring to. My question is why are people (seemingly) more concerned over the fact that the civilian casualties were created by an unmanned flight? The concern should be the casualties themselves, not the delivery method for the missile or bomb.

If those civilians are killed with a piloted bomber, are they less dead? Is their death less abhorrent? I think not.

[G_j]

47. unmanned or manned

makes little difference to the dead. I presume it's the killing that people are concerned about.

[TheKentuckian]

77. Ease and low cost of proliferation. Too easy to keep hushed up.

Too few souls in the mix, meaning few opportunities for objections.

No deployments which translates to a state of convenience for acts of war.

No cost of consequence so no impetus to stop or avoid warfare.

[Maedhros]

81. All the "fuss" is about dead civlilians, many of them children, from missile strikes

that were unnecessary.

[woo me with science]

87. +10000

Terrorism in our name.

[PowerToThePeople]

3. Murder. n/t

[theHandpuppet]

80. Doesn't take a thesis to get to the point

Just a word -- MURDER. You said it all.

[PowerToThePeople]

82. meme

[ProSense]

4. Evidently

Although drone strikes under Obama’s presidency have killed nearly six times as many people as were killed under Bush, the casualty rate – the number of people killed on average in each strike – has dropped from eight to six under Obama. The civilian casualty rate has fallen too. Strikes during the Bush years killed nearly more than three civilians in each strike on average. This has halved under Obama (1.43 civilians per strike on average). In fact reported civilian casualties in Pakistan have fallen sharply since 2010, with no confirmed reports of civilian casualties in 2013.

...most of them were terrorists as opposed to civilians.

[PowerToThePeople]

5. most of them were terrorists

Really? Were they convicted of terrorism in a court of law?

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

[ProSense]

6. OK

"most of them were terrorists"

...the piece identifies the segment that were "civilians." What's your word for the others?

[PowerToThePeople]

8. They were ALL civilians

None were found guilty of terrorism in a court of law and sentenced to death.

[ProSense]

9. Not according to the report.

Take it up with the author.

[G_j]

14. the headline says "More Than 2,400 Dead"

that is the point. Of course there are "Suspected terrorists" in that number.
That doesn't make it right.

[OnyxCollie]

55. Guilty until (posthumously) proven innocent.

HEADLINES JULY 24, 2012
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/24/headlines#7241

U.S. Drone Strike Kills 9 in Pakistan

At least nine people have been killed in a U.S. drone strike in northwest Pakistan. Pakistani officials say the victims were suspected militants, but the Obama administration’s policy is to deem all adult-male drone targets as militants unless exculpatory evidence emerges after their deaths.

[Agony]

74. Exactly, they are _always_ "suspected militants". Kill the innocent along with the suspects.

Guilty is the new normal. What a fracking mess. This is not civilized, it is savage barbarism.

[whatchamacallit]

10. Forgive the president's ardent supporters their cognitive dissonance

The possibility that they all aren't terrorists can't be reconciled in their minds.

[infoviro]

11. I was wondering how long it would take

before "that one" showed up to defend Obama's indefensible policies.

[ProSense]

13. You seem familar

Welcome to DU.

[ProSense]

12. LOL!

"Forgive the president's ardent supporters their cognitive dissonance"

..."cognitive dissonance" is the anti-Obama types who want to ignore the parts of the report that doesn't fit their narrative.

[G_j]

17. what narrative?

the point was the number of people killed, not if they were civilians or suspected terrorists.

[ProSense]

21. You are

"the point was the number of people killed, not if they were civilians or suspected terrorists."

...free to take away what you want to from the report, but you can't dismiss the facts.

Although drone strikes under Obama’s presidency have killed nearly six times as many people as were killed under Bush, the casualty rate – the number of people killed on average in each strike – has dropped from eight to six under Obama. The civilian casualty rate has fallen too. Strikes during the Bush years killed nearly more than three civilians in each strike on average. This has halved under Obama (1.43 civilians per strike on average). In fact reported civilian casualties in Pakistan have fallen sharply since 2010, with no confirmed reports of civilian casualties in 2013.

I made a point, which stands, and is supported by the facts.

[G_j]

24. I'm not dismissing any facts

I would have posted the entire article if allowed.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that it's only objectionable when "civilians" are killed.
Not everyone operates under that assumption. None of these people have been found guilty by a court of any kind.

[ProSense]

28. Ah, the

I'm not dismissing any facts

I would have posted the entire article if allowed.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that it's only objectionable when "civilians" are killed.
Not everyone operates under that assumption. None of these people have been found guilty by a court of any kind.

...old bin Laden should have been tried logic. Seriously, this issue has been debated ad nauseum, and those who still make this assertion indeed ignoring the facts.

[G_j]

29. 2,400 Bin Ladens

who would have guessed?

[hughee99]

49. Could a "suspected militant" be considered a civilian?

I seem to recall the US admitted to killing many "suspected militants" with drone strikes in Pakistan in 2013.

[zeemike]

69. "In fact reported civilian casualties in Pakistan have fallen "

What that means is that fewer women and children were killed, because if they are male age 14 to 60 they are suspected terrorist and fair game.

It boggles my mind that we can violate every principle of law and justice and still find people who defend it...but the history of Germany shows it can happen.

[polly7]

70. "Go to Sleep or I Will Call the Planes"

—By Adam Serwer| Wed Apr. 24, 2013 6:01 AM PDT

A week ago, activist Farea al-Muslimi was live-tweeting the aftermath of a drone attack on his childhood village of Wessab in Yemen. Monday, he was testifying before a Senate subcommittee on the legality and impact of the Obama administration's targeted killing program. It was the first time Congress has heard from a witness with anything close to first-hand experience with being on the receiving end of a drone strike.

"Women used to say go to sleep or I will call your father," Muslimi said. "Now they say go to sleep, or I will call the planes."

Last week's strike killed Hameed al-Radmi, described by the US government as an Al Qaeda leader, and four suspected militants. But Muslimi told the Senate that Radmi had recently met with Yemeni government officials, and could easily have been captured, rather than killed in a strike that alienated everyone in the village.

"ll they have is the psychological fear and terror that now occupies their souls," Muslimi said of the residents of Wessab. "They fear that their home or a neighbor's home could be bombed at any time by a U.S. drone." President Obama received some backup from an unlikely source—Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has spent the last week criticizing the Obama administration for handling the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings in civilian court. Graham said although he would prefer to capture terror suspects, Yemeni officials couldn't be trusted to apprehend them. "The world we live in is where if you share this closely held information you're going to end up tipping off somebody," Graham told Muslimi.


Full Article: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/yemen-drone-strikes-senate-hearing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4248671

[Phlem]

71. The facts are written by the winners of war. Not the losers.

[Adrahil]

19. So you're suggesting that that we can't actually pursue and kill known terrorists

... without a trial? That's a lovely thought, but a bit naive I think. Don't get me wrong, I think we can be a bit trigger happy, but....

[PowerToThePeople]

23. No, we can not. Not while maintaining the values we claim to have.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atop

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

[G_j]

59. that's what I learned in school, and

that is what my parents taught me. Apparently, it's just a fairy tale.

[sabrina 1]

32. What were these terrorists' names, what were they accused of, or do, that warranted the DP along

whoever happened to be around that day? The world wants to know how this Great Democracy justifies killing innocent people, far too many of them children and elderly innocents without even naming them. Why is it all so 'secret' and why, as Feinstein says are we in MORE Danger after spying on the world and killing all these terrorists for over 12 years now?

I would like to see the names of all these 'terrorists'.

The word has lost its meaning, had done so way back when Bush launched his first drone strike and we were told he killed 'terrorists' also.

[ProSense]

35. The

"What were these terrorists' names, what were they accused of, or do, that warranted the DP along"

...organization actually has a naming project (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/naming-dead/), which is likely part of the basis for its reporting.

[sabrina 1]

41. Yes, that is a good thing but their findings, which they state clearly, are based on 'media reports'

regarding classifying them as 'militants'. That is not evidence of anything, merely an outside organization trying go gather information on dead people who up to now, have merely been reported as 'dead' or 'militant'.

Where is the evidence that any of these people are 'militants'. We have learned that all males over the age of 14 are to be viewed as militants, eg.

If we are going to order the DP surely some evidence presented in some kind of legal fashion is required. If we are certain we are killing 'militants' I don't the problem with presenting the evidence. But I do see a problem with 'all males over 14 are militants'.

[ProSense]

44. Are you

"Yes, that is a good thing but their findings, which they state clearly, are based on 'media reports'"

...disputing "their findings"? I mean, it seems to have caused some consternation that I made a point citing the OP report.

[OnyxCollie]

60. We're living in a neo-democracy now.

The judicial process is optional.

Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at Northwestern University School of Law
Chicago ~ Monday, March 5, 2012
http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2012/ag-speech-1203051.html

Some have argued that the President is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.

[sabrina 1]

72. Wow, and I thought Gonzales was the king of obfuscation and tearing apart the principles of law we

claim to abide by. I must be stupid, but I am not following him on his due process doesn't equal judicial process. That sounds stupid to me, because if are a proponent of Due Process, it generally includes Judicial process. The Orwellian language of the Bush years lives on.

[grahamhgreen]

50. 97 innocent childrens blood is on your hands. That would give me nightmares.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/namingthedead/the-dead/?sorted-by=newest-to-oldest&gender=child&location=any&reported_status=civilian&lang=en

[rug]

78. This has halved under Obama to 1.43 civilians killed per drone strike on average.

Helluva defense there.

The other .57 was probably missing limbs.

[progressoid]

85. Terra! Terra! Terra!

We'll bomb the badness out of them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. And, despite Obama's brilliant escalation of the war and, now the drones, we still lost.

When is the "Peace with Honor" speech scheduled?

[Progressive dog]

15. Who did we lose to if they're all civilians? nt

[PowerToThePeople]

16. Injustice n/t

[Progressive dog]

18. So we can't declare victory

[PowerToThePeople]

20. No, we can never claim victory over injustice

All we can do is try our best to fight it and reign it in.

In my opinion, the actions of our Nation since 9/11 (possibly prior) have done nothing but support the cause of injustice around the world.

[Progressive dog]

22. I disagree, our nation, like any other, has

a duty to protect it's citizens from attack. We did not fire the first shot.

[PowerToThePeople]

25. I am not even going to give this a response...

other than to say I read it.

[sabrina 1]

33. I thought we did that when we went to the wrong country after 9/11 and killed all the terrorists,

more than a million human beings. Why are we always in danger of being annihilated? When will we have killed enough human beings to feel 'safe'?

It's been 12 years of killing and Diane Feinstein says we are in 'more danger than ever'. Doesn't that suggest that our government is not protecting us at all with these policies? Isn't it their job to try to figure out why they have failed so miserably?

I don't want anyone killing innocent people to 'keep me safe' especially when it makes me less safe.

[Progressive dog]

48. Why do you think that the US has to be worried about

annihilation before it can act to protect US citizens? We seem to be under different laws of nations in your mind.
If it makes you feel less safe, the problem is your feelings. The actions of the present President have resulted in fewer terror attacks by Al Qaeda. He has done this by ending military action in Iraq and concentrating on Afghanistan.
Many of the Taliban and Al Qaeda fled to Pakistan. He has continued drone attacks and even used incursions into Pakistan to catch or kill them. Bin Laden lived right among civilians for years. Not one turned him.
Do you really expect the President of the USA to allow Bin Laden or his supporters to continue living free and plotting more attacks just because there is a danger of harming the civilians who shelter them?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

83. If you lived in W Bush's neighborhood, I guess you'd be ok

...with a foreign country bombing the fuck out of your house. Don't worry about Progressive dog and his family. They were just collateral damage. Right?

[bvar22]

46. We have always been at WAR with EastAsia,

and ChocoRations will be increased to 25 grams!!!

[Progressive dog]

51. Of course we have

and the government is watching you through your TV, which you are not allowed to turn off.

[PowerToThePeople]

52. NSA has captured your IP address for this post. n/t

[Progressive dog]

53. Are you sure I have an IP address? nt

[PowerToThePeople]

54. YES.

[Progressive dog]

56. Then I'll just have to use a different one.

That's me with my new IP, waving to the folks from NSA, but they can't see me.

[PowerToThePeople]

61. So, you do 100% of your web activities

through an offshore proxy? Certainly not the norm by any means.

[Progressive dog]

64. I can't reveal that

but the NSA hangs around all the oversea cables.

[PowerToThePeople]

65. ;-)

feels good to lighten the thread up a bit...

[Progressive dog]

66. Yes it does

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. The ones we failed to kill. See Vietnam and Iraq for precedents.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

26. A stain on this administration --

and this country. We are engaging in a form of terrorism with these strikes. Shame on us.

[polichick]

30. Wish our "leaders" would consider the karma they are creating.

[xchrom]

27. du rec.

[pokerfan]

31. We terrorize them over there

so they won't terrorize us over here.

Drones: the west's new terror campaign (Guardian, 2012)

[sabrina 1]

34. As the great orator George W. Bush once said 'but we have to kill them to stop the killing'.

Who could argue with that?

[PowerToThePeople]

37. I do not see this as sarcasm. It is truth. n/t

[pokerfan]

75. so it's working?

I guess all those children won't grow up to bomb us over here so... huzzah!

[polly7]

45. So many 'mistakes'!

Which is complete bullshit. You don't keep on doing something horrendous that snuffs out the lives of innocents year after year if you truly give a f* about those children and their families and get to call them 'mistakes'.

[OnyxCollie]

57. When mistakes become predictable, search for another explanatory variable.

Like the NSA "unintentionally" collecting citizens' info, over and over again.

[aikoaiko]

62. Better than all out war.

[whatchamacallit]

68. Yes, and beating your wife is better than beating your entire family

[Phlem]

67. your just another hater.

Don't you love the smell of Obama as President when you get up in the mornings!?

-p

[Solly Mack]

73. K&R

[G_j]

88. thanks

[RAM49]

76. DOUBLE TAPS

CIA technique to fire on funeral procession of those who were killed
initially,24 hours earlier...putting those in misery... out of theirs\/\/?

R.I.P. michael!

[TheDebbieDee]

79. There's never been a war fought that didn't include the death of innocents.....

If President Obama gave up our military advantage (drone technology) to reduce collateral damage and deaths among the enemy, then he would NOT be a Commander-in-Chief worth dying for.

Everybody is seeking to duplicate the drone technology that we have. Do you think other nations would give up that advantage?

[KoKo]

84. K&R! And, thanks for this post to hold to Principles!

[countryjake]

86. K&R!