A new report from Columbia University Law School’s Human Rights Clinic has found that between 72 and 155 Pakistani civilians were killed by drone strikes in 2011 and says “the US government owes the public an accounting of who is really being killed.” The report titled “Counting Deaths from Drone Strikes” shows how, in the absence of official information, media outlets have attempted to arrive at casualty figures, with very differing conclusions. The report points out that part of this discrepancy results from the government’s own definition of what constitutes a “militant” (v.s. a civilian).
As Pam Bailey reported in Mondoweiss over the weekend:
A note about that word “militant,” so often used by the Western media: Too often all those who are killed by drones are assumed to be terrorists. U.S. officials have confirmed that it now counts all adult males to be militants, absent exonerating evidence. In other words, all men living in Waziristan are guilty until proven otherwise.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism adds in its story on the Columbia report:
The term ‘militant’ is dangerously ambiguous, the report’s authors add: the US has provided no legal definition, although in May it emerged that the US administration classifies all Waziri men of fighting age as militants. Only the Bureau consistently uses the term ‘alleged militant’ in its reporting – a policy the study suggests that other organisations adopt.
Here is the full press release from Columbia University Law School’s Human Rights Clinic:
NEW YORK— The U.S. government should provide an official accounting on who is being killed by drone strikes, said a new report released today by Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Clinic.
Counting Drone Strike Deaths is a systematic review of drone strike casualty estimates provided by media and aggregated by three major casualty tracking organizations: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Long War Journal, and New America Foundation. These organizations have filled the gaps left by the U.S. government, which refuses to officially provide information on casualties; however, their estimates are incomplete and, in the case of the latter two organizations, significantly undercounted the extent of reported civilian deaths in Pakistan during 2011.
“Drone strike casualty estimates are substituting for hard facts and information about the drone program,” said Naureen Shah, Acting Director of the Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School. “These are good faith efforts to count civilian deaths, but it’s the U.S. government that owes the public an accounting of who is being killed, especially as it continues expanding secret drone operations in new places around the world.”
The report warns that low civilian casualty estimates may provide false assurance to the public and policymakers that drone strikes do not harm civilians. According to the report, despite their strong efforts, two of the tracking organizations, the Long War Journal and New America Foundation, significantly and consistently underestimated the potential number of civilians killed in Pakistan during the year 2011.
Recounting the data, the Columbia Human Rights Clinic found reports of between 72 and 155 civilians killed in 2011 Pakistan drone strikes, with 52 of the reportedly civilian dead identified by name – a relatively strong indicator of reliability. By comparison, New America Foundation’s count was just 3 to 9 civilians killed during this period; Long War Journal’s was 30 civilians killed. In percentage terms, the Clinic found 2300 percent more “civilian” deaths than the New America Foundation and 140 percent more “civilian” deaths than the Long War Journal, based on minimum figures for Pakistan in 2011. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s estimates came closest to those found by the Columbia Human Rights Clinic: the Clinic found just 5.9 percent more “civilian” deaths than the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, based on minimum figures.
“The tracking organizations are all credible institutions, and the discrepancies in their counts show just how hard it is to get an accurate understanding of the impact of drone strikes from media reports alone,” said Chantal Grut, lead researcher and 2012 L.L.M. graduate of the Human Rights Clinic.
The tracking organizations’ estimates are based on news reports of particular strikes. The news reports suffer from common flaws. For example, they often rely on anonymous Pakistani government officials or unnamed witnesses for the claim that “militants”—rather than civilians—were killed. In Pakistan, more in-depth reporting is all too rare because of limited access for journalists, and it is likely that some deaths and possibly even entire strikes are not captured.
“Accuracy and access are problems for any war-time reporting,” said Grut. “But with drone strikes, we’re seeing the labels ‘militant’ or ‘terrorist’ used to describe people killed, despite the limited information and on-the-ground reporting.” The report explains the ambiguity of these terms and cautions media and observers against repeating “militant” estimates without more information and greater qualification.
In the rare but significant cases where on-the-ground reporting has offered evidence of civilian deaths from drone strikes, the U.S. government has failed to officially respond or provide information about whether it conducts its own investigations into potential civilian deaths. The report calls on the government to investigate reports of civilian casualties, track and release drone strike casualty information, and disclose the standards and definitions it uses to categorize individuals as subject to direct attack. Investigations are a crucial first step toward recognizing and dignifying the loss of families and local communities.
The report is based on an independent review of the publicly available materials relied on by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Long War Journal, and New America Foundation for drone strikes in Pakistan during the year 2011. The Human Rights Clinic recently published a major study on civilian harm from drone strikes, Civilian Impact of Drones: Unexamined Costs, Unanswered Questions, with the Center for Civilians in Conflict.
(Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic Report including, summary, recommendations, the Columbia dataset and related material ‘Civilian Impact of Drones: Unexamined Costs, Unanswered Questions’ available for download here)
For more on this issues, see “Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan”, at http://www.globalresearch.ca/living-under-drones.
RE: “The report points out that part of this discrepancy results from the government’s own definition of what constitutes a ‘militant’ ” ~ Robbins and Horowitz
MY COMMENT: I think it would be more accurate to refer to the casualties of our drone warfare as “expendables” rather than “militants”.
I.F. STONE (1967): “All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.” ~ In a Time of Torment, 1961-1967 (1967), p. 317
Militants or expendables both sound better than what the US military calls them: “bug splat”. From this Aljazeera article by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad:
With that kind of dehumanization, is it any wonder we end up with horrible things like Abu Ghraib and US soldiers videotaping themselves urinating on Afghan corpses?
As to drone-dead, “We killed 11 of those bastards” and “we killed 11 bug-splats” is far more honest, because it makes no suggestion that the killing was judicially defensible, logical, in the USA’s interest, or anything, really, except the joy some people get from killing with high-technology.
Readers should reject media use of {“alleged” or “suspected” or “”} {“militants” or “terrorists”} out of hand as purest (and laziest) drivel-propaganda.
The media’s laziness in this regard is appalling, except for those media who aspire merely to be the USA’s government’s mouthpiece and loud-speaker.
Media should, of course, call all drone-dead “human beings” or “people” or “victims” or “victims of USA drone strike” or the like. Use (or, worse, omission) of “alleged” or “suspected” begs the question of who is doing the alleging or suspecting or deciding and on the basis of what information, belief, theory, and/or technique (much of which is, no doubt, classified and therefore never-to-be-unrevealed.
Conversation:
“Militants” is also too vague. Pakistani soldiers are surely “militants” unless there’s a widely-agreed definition out there which says that “militants” are fighters not in military service. “Security forces” likewise might mean anything from “police” or “soldiers” to “thugs” or “militias” or “private guards” or “death squads”. In fact, the best one can judge is that “security forces” suggests to mean “guys with guns” working for or with a government.
“Terrorists” is too vague. Does it mean people who are known to have attacked “innocent civilians” and who are also NOT members of any military (one USA definition of terrorist excludes any member of any military) (as our CIA drone-jockeys do, BTW, CIA not being part of the military); believed instead of known? planned to attack instead of had already attacked? gave money to support terror attacks? all too vague. Lacking definition.
>> The report warns that low civilian casualty estimates may provide false assurance to the public and policymakers that drone strikes do not harm civilians.
Drone strikes don’t harm civilians – they merely prevent terrorists, insurgents, radicals, militants and assorted ne’er-do-wells from thwarting America’s delivery of freedom, justice and democracy to all corners* of the globe.
(*All corners = the corners that are of value to America. The rest can rot, as far as America is concerned.)