War Supplies Resume Through Pakistan | Drone Strikes kill 19

On Friday, one day after Pakistan resumed transit of NATO war supplies to Afghanistan, CIA drones killed 19 in the Dhattakel region of North Waziristan.

The shipment of war supplies through Pakistan were suspended in November following a US cross-border air strike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

One of the requirements to open the supply line was an apology. In return, Pakistan agreed to levy no extra fees from the $250 per truck, and appear to have abandoned their demand that the US stop drone strikes in their country.

Background post here.

Pew Global Attitudes Survey | Drone Strikes Widely Opposed

Every wonder how people around the world view the impact of US policy and drones?

On Wednesday the Pew Global Attitudes Project released their latest survey (see chart). They found public opinion in 18 of the 21 countries surveyed opposed drone strikes.

The findings of the latest survey are made clear in the title “Global Opinion of Obama Slips, International Policies Faulted”

Gibran Ashaf, writing for the Express Tribune, offers a perspective from Pakistan. A country that has seen more people killed than any other from the CIA drone attacks.

One theme? Drone strikes are opposed by women more than men.

“It is little secret that the controversial drone strike programme operated by the US has been strongly opposed by many countries. The latest PEW poll from 21 countries reinforced international opposition to the programme with 18 countries, including key allies, disapproving. Interestingly, a gender breakdown of the poll results showed women expressed greater disapproval of drone strikes than men globally.

The report did not ask the question in countries which suffer from the drone strikes, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia. The report said a different question was asked in Pakistan, the result for which will be released in a subsequent report.

The countries where the strikes found most favour was in the US (62 per cent), UK (44 per cent – but with 47 per cent disapproval).

In what would be considered a blow, major allies of the US in the war against terror were opposed to the strikes programme, including France (63 per cent), Germany (59 per cent ), Italy (55 per cent) .

The most opposition was found in Greece (90 per cent), Egypt (89 per cent), Jordan (85 per cent), and Turkey (81 per cent).

Women oppose strikes more than men

A gender breakdown of the poll results showed an interesting aspect to the opposition, with more women disapproving of the controversial programme.

In the 10 countries for which the breakdown was provided, more women disapproved of the strikes than men, with Brazil (12 to 26 per cent), Germany (24 to 54 percent), Japan (11 to 32 percent), and the United States (51 to 74 per cent).

Legal battle continues

With the US claiming ardent success of its drone programme, the latest feather being the scalp of al Qaeda’s deputy commander Abu Yahya al Libi. But with mounting debate of its legality, the White House maintains the strikes are per US laws.

Though the question of its legality has arisen with rights groups seeking to file a law suit against the US government on behalf of the survivors and relatives of strike victims.

Recently, the question of the programme’s legality was raised from within the US Congress, with members writing a letter to President Barack Obama to explain under which tenets of the Constitution were the strikes being operated and what was the criteria being employed to select targets, thereby efforts to minimise civilian casualties.”

The Express Tribune is the first paper in Pakistan to partner with The International Herald Tribune.

Additional Resource: Drone Attack Page, Express Tribune

Drone Strikes and Kill Lists | NYT Investigation

With remarkable access to participants, reporters Jo Becker and Scott Shane document the increasing use of drone warfare and targeted killings. This is the third in a series of article about President Obama called the shadow war.

It's a revealing look into the bureaucracy that sustains the drone policy and the decision by President Obama to sign off on targeted strikes outside of Pakistan where the CIA is in charge.

“In interviews with The New York Times, three dozen of his current and former advisers described Mr. Obama’s evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda.

They describe a paradoxical leader who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing. While he was adamant about narrowing the fight and improving relations with the Muslim world, he has followed the metastasizing enemy into new and dangerous lands. When he applies his lawyering skills to counterterrorism, it is usually to enable, not constrain, his ferocious campaign against Al Qaeda — even when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision that Mr. Obama told colleagues was “an easy one.”"

How the kill list is developed

“It is the strangest of bureaucratic rituals: Every week or so, more than 100 members of the government’s sprawling national security apparatus gather, by secure video teleconference, to pore over terrorist suspects’ biographies and recommend to the president who should be the next to die.

This secret “nominations” process is an invention of the Obama administration, a grim debating society that vets the PowerPoint slides bearing the names, aliases and life stories of suspected members of Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen or its allies in Somalia’s Shabab militia.”

New guidelines for strikes in Yemen.

“Today, the Defense Department can target suspects in Yemen whose names they do not know. Officials say the criteria are tighter than those for signature strikes, requiring evidence of a threat to the United States, and they have even given them a new name — TADS, for Terrorist Attack Disruption Strikes. But the details are a closely guarded secret — part of a pattern for a president who came into office promising transparency.”

Article link here.

Drone Strikes Kill 15 | Aid Cuts for Pakistan

The dialogue to open NATO supply routes through Pakistan has hit another big stick moment.

For the second time in 24 hours CIA drone strikes targeted people in Pakistan’s frontier zone. Pakistani intelligence report that ten people were killed in an early morning attack on Thursday. Five had been killed on Wednesday.

Halting drone strikes has been a key demand by the government of Pakistan before the transit routes are re-opened.

The US congress has also voted to slash economic aid to Pakistan following the sentence of a Pakistani doctor to 33 years in prison for his role in helping US forces to locate Osama bin Laden.

Shakil Afrid was found guilty under the justice system in Khyber district, part of Pakistan's semiautonomous tribal belt.

Details from the Wall Street Journal:

“A Senate panel expressed its outrage over Pakistan's conviction of a doctor who helped the United States track down Osama bin Laden, voting to cut aid to Islamabad by $33 million -- $1 million for every year of the physician's 33-year sentence for high treason.

The punitive move came on top of deep reductions the Appropriations Committee already had made to President Barack Obama's budget request for Pakistan, a reflection of the growing congressional anger over its cooperation in combating terrorism. The overall foreign aid budget for next year had slashed more than half of the proposed assistance and threatened further reductions if Islamabad failed to open overland supply routes to U.S.-led NATO forces in Afghanistan.”

In addition,

“The congressional anger over the conviction and the supply routes extended to the Senate Armed Services Committee, which completed a $631.4 billion defense budget Thursday. The panel added a provision stipulating that before Pakistan can be reimbursed with coalition funds, the secretary of defense must certify that Pakistan is opening and maintaining the supply routes, is not supporting the Haqqani network, and not detaining or imprisoning Pakistani citizens, according to Sen. John McCain, a Republican.”

US Special Forces went into Pakistan and killed bin Laden last May without notifying the government. Seven months later US forces killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in a cross border attack into Pakistan.

Following the attack, Pakistan closed the airbase that the US used for its drone strikes, kicked out all CIA operatives and closed the borders to Afghanistan preventing the movement of NATO ground supplies to the war.

A Parliamentary review issued the following guidelines.

In March at a regional summit held in the Tajik capital Dushanbe , Pakistan earned a sanctions threat after reassuring Iran and other regional countries that proposed gas pipeline projects will go ahead as planned.

“… President Asif Ali Zardari told his counterparts from Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan that his country was committed to completing the Iran-Pakistan (IP) and Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline projects. “I look forward to working with you on all issues of mutual interest,” he added.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned earlier this month that Pakistan could face US sanctions if it pressed ahead with the gas pipeline project with Iran. “[This] would be particularly damaging to Pakistan because their economy is already quite shaky,” Clinton had told a Congressional hearing.”

Additional Reading: Why Pakistan Matters | Zia Mian & Sharon K. Weiner

Targeted Killings Follow ‘Rigorous Standards’ | US Official

Yesterday, the Obama administration offered its first extensive explanation of how American officials decide when to use drones to kill people — a tactic that the government often treats as a classified secret even though it is widely known around the world.

What is must disturbing is the idea that international law progresses through violations.

“Yes, in full accordance with the law — and in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States and to save American lives — the United States government conducts targeted strikes against specific Al Qaeda terrorists, sometimes using remotely piloted aircraft, often referred to publicly as drones,”
- John O. Brennan, President Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser

“If you do something for long enough, the world will accept it. The whole of international law is now based on the notion that an act that is forbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries… International law progresses through violations. We invented the targeted assassination thesis and we had to push it. At first there were protrusions that made it hard to insert easily into the legal moulds. Eight years later it is in the center of the bounds of legitimacy.”
-Colonel Daniel Reisner, former head Israeli Defense Force Legal Dept

“We’re not in Kindergarten on this anymore: we’ve been doing this [targeted killings] since 2001, and there’ a well-established protocol.”
- Bruce Riedel, former CIA official

Lawfare

"John Brennan’s speech yesterday was important for at least three reasons: (1) it marked the first official White House acknowledgment that “the United States Government conducts targeted strikes against specific al-Qa’ida terrorists, sometimes using remotely piloted aircraft, often referred to publicly as drones”; (2) it provided a robust defense not only of the legality of targeted killing, but also of the morality, wisdom, and humanity of the practice; and (3) it provided significant detail about the government’s processes and standards for deciding whom to kill – including a general discussion of the “very high bar” the government imposes on itself in analyzing intelligence to avoid mistakes and the loss of innocent life. (The speech did not state which agencies are involved in targeted killing, and most notably did not say a word about the CIA.)"

Drone Necessary – Not Vengence

“President Barack Obama’s top counter-terrorism adviser used the anniversary of the Osama bin Laden’s killing to mount a broad public defense of the ethics and efficacy of military drones.

The drone programs, which have been widely reported but rarely discussed by administration officials, were acknowledged by Obama during a Google chat in January in what many national security observers believe was an accidental moment of candor.

But John Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counter-terrorism, expanded at great length in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, calling the drones an integral part of prevention”

Additional Resources:

US Targeted Killings and International Law (Human Right Watch)

Special Shout-Out:

The international drone summit last weekend was a truly inspiring meeting of activists sharing information, analysis and strategies to stop the proliferation of drones and targeted killing as US policy. Look for details in upcoming posts.

Talks Resume on Transit of War Supplies through Pakistan

Photo by Anjum Naveed (AP) Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani (2nd Right) meeting with U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman (2nd left) in Islamabad on Thursday 26 April.


Marc Grossman is in Pakistan for the first time since US forces killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in a cross border attack last November. The US has been unwilling to suspend drone attacks into Pakistan, one of the key demands before ground transit of NATO and US war supplies to Afghanistan can resume.

AP reports on the meeting yesterday.

“He said he didn't expect to get an immediate commitment that the routes would reopen but that "the task now is to begin a conversation about how to move forward." Grossman also repeated earlier U.S. statements of regret but didn't apologize.

Washington wants the supply routes open before a May 20-21 summit of NATO leaders in Chicago.”

Here is a review of the Pakistani demands.

"After weeks of debate, the Parliament of Pakistan has unanimously endorsed a list of demands to guide discussions with the United States.

The paper, drafted by the national security service, is the latest step in redefining ground rules after 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed by US airstrikes in a November cross border attack.

The result is a series of comprehensive demands, including an official apology for the killing of the Pakistani soldiers, an end to CIA drone strikes, and a ban on the transport of US/NATO weapons and ammunition thru Pakistan to the war in Afghanistan.

There is a prohibition on overt or covert military operations in the country, a ban on private contractors and a call on the government to pursue a natural gas pipeline with Iran.

This level of engagement by Parliament is really a demand for transparency. Claiming oversight responsibilities with the demand that no verbal agreements regarding national security be entered by the government.

If these demands are met, the US/NATO supply lines – for food and fuel – would be opened. The demands are non-binding and must be approved by senior US and Pakistani officials.”

Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control | Medea Benjamin

From the introduction by Barbara Ehrenreich

"In many ways, drones present the same moral issues as any other action-at-a-distance weapon: They allow warriors to kill at a minimal risk to themselves, thus lowering the human cost of aggression. Thus the ancient contempt for archers, as recounted in The Iliad, where the Greek chieftains deride the Trojan prince Paris for his reliance on the bow and arrow. Real men are not afraid of hand-to-hand combat; only cowards attack from a distance, often hiding behind trees or rocks.

Drones are of course the ultimate action-at-a-distance weapon, allowing the aggressor to destroy targets in Pakistan or Afghanistan while “hiding” thousands of miles away in Nevada. But this alone does not make them uniquely pernicious: Missiles and aerial bombardment can also be launched from great distances, by individuals who need not see the extent of the violence they inflict. If we are to end war, we need to take aim at all the weaponry that makes it possible and even inviting – guns, artillery, fighter planes and bombs—and at the industries that manufacture them.

But in this remarkably cogent and carefully researched book, Medea Benjamin makes it clear that drones are not just another high-tech military trinket. In fact, it is hard to even claim that their primary use is “military” in any traditional sense. Drones have made possible a program of targeted assassinations that are justified by the U.S. “war on terror,” but otherwise in defiance of both international and U.S. law. As Benjamin documents, it is the CIA, not the Pentagon, that operates most drone strikes in Western Asia, with no accountability whatsoever. Designated targets, including American citizens, have been condemned without evidence or trial-- at the will, apparently, of the White House. And those who target the drones do so with complete impunity for the deaths of any civilians who end up as collateral damage.

One of Benjamin’s most disturbing revelations has to do with the explosive expansion of the drone industry in just the last few years, to the point where 50 nations now possess the devices. Drone Warfare sketches out the nightmare possibilities posed by this insane proliferation. We cannot only expect drones to fall into the hands of “rogue” nations or terrorist groups; we should brace ourselves, too, for the domestic use of surveillance drones and even armed drones at the Mexican border and possibly against American civilian protestors.

In anyone else’s hands, this could be a deeply depressing book. Fortunately though, Medea Benjamin is not just an ace reporter; she’s one of the world’s leading anti-war activists. Drone Warfare ends with the story of the global anti-drone movement, in which she has played a central role. At the end of this book, you’ll be inspired – and you’ll know exactly how to get involved!"

Order the book here.

David Swanson Review Robots Kills, But Blood is on Our Hands

KnowDrones National Tour | Philadelphia 25-27 April

Philadelphia will be the final stop before the International Drone Summit being held the following weekend (28/28 April) in Washington DC. There will be a Thursday evening event at Friends Center.


Following the DC summit, the tour will resume. Check out the calendar to see if they are coming to your town.


Additional Resource: Attorney General Eric Holder Defends Targeted Killings.

What Security Looks Like | Pakistan and the War

After weeks of debate, the Parliament of Pakistan has unanimously endorsed a list of demands to guide discussions with the United States.

The paper, drafted by the national security service, is the latest step in redefining ground rules after 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed by US airstrikes in a November cross border attack.

The result is a series of comprehensive demands, including an official apology for the killing of the Pakistani soldiers, an end to CIA drone strikes, and a ban on the transport of US/NATO weapons and ammunition thru Pakistan to the war in Afghanistan.

There is a prohibition on overt or covert military operations in the country, a ban on private contractors and a call on the government to pursue a natural gas pipeline with Iran.

This level of engagement by Parliament is really a demand for transparency. Claiming oversight responsibilities with the demand that no verbal agreements regarding national security be entered by the government.

If these demands are met, the US/NATO supply lines – for food and fuel – would be opened. The demands are non-binding and must be approved by senior US and Pakistani officials.

It is a positive sign. If only the US were as committed to diplomacy and dialogue as we are to supply lines. That map below illustrates the lengths the US and NATO have gone through to continue the war fighting.



Before the November attack, one-third of American war supplies moved through Pakistan, costing about $17 million a month. Since then, coalition forces have relied on the Northern Distribution Network, a system of supply lines in countries such as Russia, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, inflating supply costs by $87 million more per month, according to the Associated Press.

More links on Pakistan here.

What regional security looks like here.

International Drone Summit | 28/29 April, Washington DC

Human rights activists, civil liberties groups, lawyers, and robotics experts will gather in Washington DC to look at the expanding use of lethal and surveillance drones.

Hosted by CODEPINK, Reprieve, and the Center for Constitutional Rights the summit will have Sunday strategy sessions to explore ways to resist this expansion.




Background:

US drone strikes have killed an estimated 3,000 people around the world, including hundreds of civilians, without any judicial process or meaningful oversight, and without any transparency or accountability. The summit’s dual objectives are to better inform the public about the reality and significance of the US government’s expanding use of both killer and surveillance drones, and to facilitate networks and strategies to resist this expansion. Click here for the program.

Location:

Mount Vernon Place United Methodist Church
900 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC, 20001

Additional Resource: How the CIA Became a Killing Machine,

Tag: Drones

Week in Review | Pakistan

The Parliamentary Committee on National Security (PCNS) submitted their eagerly awaited report on Tuesday. The recommendations are to serve as the basis/framework for a formal review of relations with the United States.

The Parliamentary debate is scheduled to begin on Monday with a vote expected soon after on whether or not to accept the report.

The key recommendations are far reaching. An unconditional apology from the US over the cross border attack that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in November, an end to drone strikes, no kill/capture campaigns by US forces in Pakistan, strong oversight of foreign security contractors and a tax on US/NATO war supplies going to Afghanistan.

If these demands are satisfied the land border-crossing for war supplies into Afghanistan would be re-opened.

The U.S. is currently paying more than “$500 million a year in transit fees to send military materiel through Central Asian states to Afghanistan.”

In the lead-up to the review, Sherry Rehman, Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington said “We want this relationship to be transparent and predictable…”

The NYT’s covered some of the initial reactions in Pakistan and notes that US sources have already said they will be willing to pay a tax of war supplies but were unwilling to end the CIA drone campaign.

“The recommendations are excellent,” said Imtiaz Safdar Warraich, a senior Pakistan Peoples Party lawmaker, outside Parliament. “Sovereignty and territorial integrity are the cornerstone of our foreign policy.”

Kamil Ali Agha, a senator from the Pakistan Muslim League-Q party, predicted a “very detailed and very lively” debate next week. “This is a very, very important issue for each and every Pakistani,” he said.

A resumption of full diplomatic relations with the Obama administration now looks unlikely before the middle of next month. American officials say they are ready to negotiate tariffs on NATO transit goods but will not consider an end to the C.I.A. drone campaign, which is viewed as a vital weapon against Al Qaeda and Taliban extremists operating from Pakistani soil.

Additional Resource:

For a good overview of the challenges faced in Pakistan listen to Terry Gross’ interview with Ahmed Rashid. He gives an eloquent defense of the need to engage with the Taliban as part of a political solution to the war. Also see this review of his new book.

Today, by the way is Pakistan day. A national holiday that celebrates the overthrow of colonial rule and the emergence of Pakistan as the world’s first Islamic republic in 1956.

Tags: Drone Strikes, Pakistan

CIA Drone Strikes Kill 15 in Waziristan

Reuters is reporting that two separate CIA drone strikes in Waziristan left 15 dead this morning.

"In the first strike, a drone fired missiles at a vehicle in the Birmal area of the South Waziristan tribal region, killing eight."

"Seven were killed in the second attack later in the day, when a drone fired missiles at a vehicle in the Sara Khawra area, which straddles the border between North Waziristan and South Waziristan."

Earlier in the week Bloomberg reported that the Government of Pakistan again sought to end the CIA program through high level meetings in Washington.

“Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington, Sherry Rehman, met Vice President Joe Biden’s national security adviser Antony Blinken on March 9 and told him that Pakistan’s political parties have agreed that the drone flights over Pakistan must end, officials involved said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the talks were private.”

Last month Pakistan's Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar said.

"Drones are not only completely illegal and unlawful and have no authorization to be used within the domains of international law but even more importantly, they are counter-productive to the objective of getting this region rid of militancy, and terrorism and extremism."

Ahmed Rashid writing in today’s financial times gets to the core of the issue; arguing that the Government of Afghanistan can’t seek a long-term US military presence and peace with the Taliban.

“The Afghan president’s desire to seek a strategic partnership agreement with the US is becoming more and more unacceptable to the Afghan people. At the same time he also wants to make peace with the Taliban, but they have no desire for a pact with Washington. His dilemma, which he still refuses to understand, is that he can either ask for a long-term US presence or peace with the Taliban, but not both.”

It is based on this fact.

“Increasing numbers of Afghans would agree with what the Taliban have been arguing for almost a decade: that the western presence in Afghanistan is prolonging the war, causing misery and bloodshed.”

He ends with the challenges ahead.

“After the spate of incidents this year, there should be no doubt in Washington that seeking a negotiated settlement to end the war with the Taliban as quickly as possible is the only way out. Mr Obama has to put his weight behind this strategy to ensure an orderly withdrawal and to give the Afghan people the chance of an end to this war. A power-sharing formula with the Taliban, which now appears increasingly unavoidable, and an accord with neighbouring states to limit their interference, will be key.

In 1989 it was America and Pakistan who refused to allow a political solution to end the fighting because they wanted not just the Soviets gone but also Moscow’s Afghan protégées led by Mohammad Najibullah. Instead he hung on for three years, resulting in a civil war. America cannot again leave Afghanistan with a civil war as its bequest to the Afghans. Washington, and Nato, must seek an end to the war before withdrawing their forces. Despite the tragic death of so many innocent children, this is still possible if there is a concerted diplomatic and political push.”

CIA Drone Strikes Kill 13 in South Waziristan | Pakistan

This morning CIA drone strikes killed 13 in the Miramshah and Mir Ali areas of Pakistan's tribal agency of South Waziristan. The strikes broke a two-week-long lull in US attacks.

Last month Pakistan's Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar said.

"Drones are not only completely illegal and unlawful and have no authorization to be used within the domains of international law but even more importantly, they are counter-productive to the objective of getting this region rid of militancy, and terrorism and extremism."

In November 2011, following a US attack that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers the Government of Pakistan shut down US/NATO supply lines for the war in Afghanistan and demanded that the CIA vacate a drone base on its territory. The government also boycotted the Bonn II gathering.

On Tuesday(6 March) the Nation (Pakistan) published an article about the US desire for the unconditional resumption of NATO supplies.

US Ambassador Cameron Munter, following meetings in Washington DC briefed colleagues on the "state of frustration prevailing in the US over the delay in Pakistan’s parliamentary review of bilateral relations that remain in tatters since Nato’s November 26 attacks on Salalah security posts. Sources said that Ambassador Munter would soon start meeting Pakistani leaders and officials in renewed US efforts seeking unconditional resumption of Nato supplies to Afghanistan."

“We respect Pakistan’s sovereign right for parliamentary review process. We are patiently waiting as the US is committed for resumption of full spectrum relations with Pakistan”, Embassy spokesman Mark Stroh told The Nation.

He said the US and Pakistan in the meanwhile were keeping their diplomatic channels open.

The Obama administration has been confused and frustrated after Pakistan’s refusal to receive senior American officials for normalising relations with Pakistan.

Pakistan had refused to receive Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman, Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides and the administrator of the US Agency for International Development, Rajiv Shah on the plea that it was useless till completion of parliamentary review process.”

Additional Resources:

Nancy Murray's paper Are Drones Legal.
The paper was delivered at the forum Drones: The New Frontier of Warfare and Spying, held at Cambridge Friends Meetinghouse, February 29, 2012

More on drones here, Pakistan here.

AG Eric Holder Defends Targeted Killings Of Americans

Targeted killings are also at the core of the deadlock in the US-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership. The government of Afghanistan would like the U.S. to turn over all prisoners it holds on its territory and to stop the kill/capture policy of the night raids that have left so many dead.

Most importantly, it is a defense of the deadly drone program run by the CIA.

Here is what the ACLU had to say.

"In remarks delivered at the Northwestern University School of Law today, Attorney General Eric Holder provided the Obama Administration’s most detailed public description yet of the legal authority under which it believes it can carry out targeted killings, including of U.S. citizens abroad. Unfortunately, the remarks still amounted to a broad defense of the government’s claimed expansive authority to conduct targeted killings far from a battlefield, without judicial review of its legal justifications or evidence, either before or after a killing. The remarks also mischaracterized the debate over the need for judicial review of targeted killing decisions"

***

"As Holder’s speech demonstrates, though, judicial oversight is critically important given the breathtaking authority the government has claimed. Holder acknowledged that all U.S. citizens, including those accused of being terrorists, have a right to due process under the Constitution, but he argued that the Executive Branch, alone, should determine whether the due process requirement is satisfied when the government claims law of war or self-defense authority to kill. In a system of constitutional checks and balances, that simply cannot be the case. Courts must have a role in determining whether the government’s authority to kill its own citizens is legal and whether a decision to kill complies with the Constitution. Otherwise, the government can wield the power to take life with impunity. We should not trust any president – whether this one or the next – to make such momentous decisions fully insulated from judicial review. As the Supreme Court has admonished, “a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens.”

Additional Resources: A view from the ground in Chicago.

This morning's Washington Post editorial makes this point. The administration “should release the Justice Department memorandum that lays out the domestic and international strictures which, it says, undergird its drone policy.”

CIA Drone Strikes leave 21 dead in North Waziristan

The BBC is reporting that CIA drone attacks have left 'at least' 21 dead in North Waziristan. The number of dead from the two separate attacks was confirmed by Pakistani security officials.

Pakistan has previously complained that such attacks violate its sovereignty and in fact increase militancy. Last Friday Pakistan's Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar said.

"Drones are not only completely illegal and unlawful and have no authorization to be used within the domains of international law but even more importantly, they are counter-productive to the objective of getting this region rid of militancy, and terrorism and extremism."

On February first the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the US government asking for basic — and accurate — information about the government’s targeted killing program.

“Our government’s deliberate and premeditated killing of American terrorism suspects raises profound questions that ought to be the subject of public debate. Unfortunately the Obama administration has released very little information about the practice — its official position is that the targeted killing program is a state secret — and some of the information it has released has been misleading.

Our suit overlaps with the one recently filed by The New York Times insofar as it seeks the legal memos on which the targeted killing program is based. But our suit is broader. We’re seeking, in addition to the legal memos, the government’s evidentiary basis for strikes that killed three Americans in Yemen in the fall of 2011. We’re also seeking information about the process by which the administration adds Americans to secret government “kill lists.” We think it’s crucial that the administration release the legal memos, but we don’t think the memos alone will allow the public to evaluate the lawfulness and wisdom of the program.”

More on drones here.
More on Pakistan here.

Assassinations | CIA Drone Strikes | US Policy

At an open public briefing yesterday, President Obama admitted that the United States has been directing the CIA to carry out targeted killings, or assassinations, in Pakistan.

The drone program, extensively discussed among activists and legal scholars, has been Washington's worst-kept secret. Last night CIA drones killed 12 in Yemen.

Here is the big question. At what point does official acknowledgment of an on-going 'covert' action that is killing thousands of people demand accountability? And, how do you stop it?

Jonathan Master writing with the Council on Foreign Relations lays out the post 9/11 strategy and rationale for CIA and special forces targeted killings.

“The United States adopted targeted killing as an essential tactic to pursue those responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have employed the controversial practice with more frequency in recent years, both as part of ongoing combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in counterterrorism efforts in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.”

The domestic rational rest on the expansive language of a statute passed by the US Congress just days after the 9/11 attack.

“As a matter of domestic law, the legal underpinning for U.S. counterterrorism operations and the targeted killing of members of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and its affiliates across the globe is the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which the U.S. Congress passed just days after 9/11. The statute empowers the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force" in pursuit of those responsible for the terrorist attacks.”

The New American Foundation estimates that drone strikes in Pakistan alone have killed between 1,700 and 2,700 people in the last eight years. The government of Pakistan has consistently condemned the bombing attacks as a violation of its sovereignty.

Additional Resources: How the CIA Became a Killing Machine

Out of the Loop: The Future of Drones | Shane Harris

Shane Harris reveals the dangers of relying on robotic/computer technology for modern weapons systems. He does not neglect the threats to international law and morality as well.

“In 1988, the U.S.S. Vincennes, a guided missile cruiser on patrol in the Persian Gulf, shot down an Iranian passenger jet, after the ship’s Aegis targeting system mistook it for a military fighter. The crew of the Vincennes could tell from the plane’s course, speed, and radio signal that it was a civilian aircraft. But Aegis, which had been programmed to identify large Soviet bombers, said otherwise.

“Even though the hard data was telling the crew that the plane wasn’t a fighter jet, they trusted what the computer was telling them more,” Singer writes in Wired for War. “Aegis was on semiautomatic mode, but not one of the eighteen sailors and officers on the command crew was willing to challenge the computer’s wisdom. They authorized it to fire.”

Singer notes that the Navy had such faith in Aegis’s abilities to identify a true enemy that the Vincennes was the only ship in the area allowed to fire on its own volition, without the crew seeking permission from more senior officers in the fleet. All 299 passengers and crew aboard the Iranian jet died, among them sixty-six children.”

Here is the introduction...

"In the game of life and evolution there are three players at the table: human beings, nature, and machines. I am firmly on the side of nature. But nature,I suspect, is on the side of the machines."

—George Dyson in Darwin Among the Machines

"If you want to understand how human beings stack up next to machines in the conduct of modern warfare, consider this:

In World War II, it took a fleet of 1,000 B-17 bombers—flown, navigated, and manned by a crew of 10,000 men—to destroy one Axis ground target. American bombs were so imprecise that, on average, only one in five fell within 1,000 feet of where they were aimed. Aerial bombing was a clumsy affair, utterly dependent on the extraordinary labor of human beings.

Just one generation later, that was no longer true. In the Vietnam War, it took thirty F-4 fighter-bombers, each flown and navigated by only two men, to destroy a target. That was a 99.4 percent reduction in manpower. The precision of attack was also greatly enhanced by the first widespread use of laser-guided munitions.

After Vietnam, humans’ connection to air war became more attenuated, and less relevant. In the Gulf War, one pilot flying one plane could hit two targets. The effectiveness of the human-machine pairing was breathtaking. A single “smart bomb” could do the work of 1,000 planes dropping more than 9,000 bombs in World War II. By the time the United States went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, one pilot in one plane could destroy six targets. Their weapons were guided by global positioning satellites orbiting thousands of miles above the surface of the earth. And increasingly, the pilots weren’t actually inside their planes anymore.

The historical trend is sobering. As aircraft and weapons have become more precise, human beings have become less essential to the conduct of war. And that may suit the military just fine."

Do Drones Undermine Democracy?
P.W. Singer | 21 January 2012 | New York Times

"I do not condemn these strikes; I support most of them. What troubles me, though, is how a new technology is short-circuiting the decision-making process for what used to be the most important choice a democracy could make. Something that would have previously been viewed as a war is simply not being treated like a war.

THE change is not limited to covert action. Last spring, America launched airstrikes on Libya as part of a NATO operation to prevent Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s government from massacring civilians. In late March, the White House announced that the American military was handing over combat operations to its European partners and would thereafter play only a supporting role."

US Drones Patrolling Its Skies Provokes Outrage in Iraq
Eric Schmitt and Michael Schmidt | 30 January 2012 | New York Times

"A senior American official said that negotiations were under way to obtain authorization for the current drone operations, but Ali al-Mosawi, a top adviser to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki; Iraq’s national security adviser, Falih al-Fayadh; and the acting minister of interior, Adnan al-Asadi, all said in interviews that they had not been consulted by the Americans.

Mr. Asadi said that he opposed the drone program: “Our sky is our sky, not the U.S.A.’s sky.”

Additional articles on Drones.

Second CIA Drone Strike in 48 hours Kills 6 | Pakistan

A second CIA drone strike has killed 6 people in North Waziristan. The targeted assassinations took place in the same region as yesterday’s strike. An attack that formally recommitted the US to the deadly drone war in Pakistan.

The resumption of the strikes coincide with Pakistan’s firing of the defense secretary over a memo sent to the Unites States offering new security guidelines. It is a dangerous political moment for the Government of Pakistan.

AP reports:

“Pakistan’s prime minister fired the defense secretary Wednesday in a dispute over a memo sent to Washington that has enraged the army, escalating a crisis pitting the civilian government against the powerful military leadership.”

*****

“The unsigned memo sent to Washington asks for its help in reining in the power of the military in exchange for favorable security policies. It was allegedly masterminded by Pakistan’ envoy to Washington, who resigned in a failed attempt to stem the fallout.”

The resumption also comes on the heels of the new US defense strategy announced by President Obama last week.

That strategy calls for fewer wars like Iraq, and more wars like Afghanistan where war-fighting coordination between the Pentagon, now run by former CIA chief Leon Panetta and the CIA now run by the former US commander in Afghanistan General Petraeus is the model.

As C.I.A. director Mr. Panetta transformed the spy agency into a paramilitary organization, with its drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as secret bases and covert operations. General Petraeus increased the use of Special Forces and private security contractors to conduct secret intelligence missions and armed and financed militia forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The Guidance envisions more of this in the future.

Additional Resources:
How the CIA became a Killing Machine

CIA Drone War Resumes in Pakistan | 4 Killed

Six weeks after twenty-four Pakistani soldiers were killed in a cross border attack the CIA has resumed the drone war in Pakistan. Yesterday, four people were killed near Miran Shah, the main town in the North Waziristan tribal region by CIA drone strikes.

Spencer Ackerman writing in Danger Room makes this point.

“The drone strikes are not a supplement to a war; they’re the centerpiece of how the Obama administration confronts terrorists. The White House’s plan for counter-terrorism makes that clear, as does the Pentagon’s new strategy blueprint. Anonymous administration officials, evidently itching to get back to the strikes, floated the (evidence-free) proposition in the New York Times that terrorists were regrouping during the six-week pause.”

The LA Times reports that

"Current and former U.S. officials recently told The Times that the CIA had suspended drone missile strikes on gatherings of low-ranking militants suspected in attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The move, they said, was an attempt to patch up steadily eroding ties between the two countries."

Voice of America reports that "American officials have denied that the recent drop-off in drone strikes was deliberate."

Radio Free Europe ran an update last week on Pakistan’s decision to seal the border with Afghanistan – blocking NATO supply trucks – after the killing of its soldiers.

Action Step: No More of the Same in Pentagon Spending

CIA Vacates Pakistan Drone Base | US Drone in Iran

The CIA has vacated the Shamsi air base in western Pakistan. The base has been used to help coordinate the CIA (not-too-secret) drone war in Pakistan's tribal areas. Attacks from the base have been reduced since the targeted killing of Osama Bin Laden in May with the US increasing striking from bases in Afghanistan.

The government of Pakistan demanded the removal of the CIA after a cross border attack killed 25 soldiers.

However.

“...[a] senior American counterterrorism official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the drone operations at Shamsi were classified, said that vacating the base would not end American counterterrorism operations in Pakistan. “The United States retains robust capabilities to fight Al Qaeda and its militant allies,” the official said. “Our operations will continue.”"

Pakistan responded on Sunday saying they will shot down US drones flying in their air space.

Also last week a drone called the ‘Beast of Kandahar’ crashed in Iran. It was flying out of an air base in Herat with sensitive sniffing sensors to monitor Iran nuclear program.

The government of Iran has formally complained to the Afghan Ambassador about the US drone.

KABUL, Afghanistan — The Iranian Foreign Ministry expressed its displeasure to Afghanistan’s ambassador to Iran over an American drone aircraft that Iran says flew deep into its airspace and crashed last week, a spokesman for the Afghan Foreign Ministry said Sunday.

According to Afghan officials, the drone was flown from the American and Afghan base at Shindand in western Herat Province. American officials have acknowledged the loss of an RQ-170, a C.I.A. stealth drone made by Lockheed Martin and designed to fly covert missions and collect information in hostile territory, but have declined to confirm or deny that it is the plane that Iran says it recovered.

A critical issue in the negotiations for a strategic partnership between the US and Afghanistan is the Afghan demand that their territory not be used by foreign powers to attack its neighbors.

The strategic agreement is envisioned to provide the framework for US troops to stay in the country beyond 2014 and to have control of military bases.