A recent investigation by the Associated Press into ten U.S. drone attacks in the tribal regions of Pakistan concluded that about 70 percent of those killed were militants, countering common Pakistani perceptions that the majority killed are civilians.
Reporters from the Associated Press conducted an on-the-ground investigation of 10 of the deadliest drone attacks in the past 18 months and was told in interviews with about 80 villagers that of at least 194 people killed in the attacks, at least 138 were militants. The remaining 56 were either civilians or tribal police.
Approximately 38 of those 56 civilians were killed in a single attack on March 17, 2011. U.S. officials familiar with that incident said the group targeted were heavily armed suspected militants. But villagers and Pakistani officials said the missiles hit a community meeting held to resolve a mining dispute, killing four Pakistani Taliban fighters and 38 civilians and tribal police.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, has published the most comprehensive study of casualty figures in the drone war. It said strikes have killed between 2,383 and 3,109 people, of whom 464 to 815 were civilians, implying militant casualties 70-80 percent of the time.
But a policy of military aggression which has killed over 800 innocent men, women, and children in a country that is not a declared war zone is still criminal. The drone program is technically classified and the U.S. government refuses to make any information on casualties public, so somewhat sketchy reporting in a difficult area is all that is available. And this methodology could very well result in an under-counting of actual civilian deaths, especially since journalists are not typically allowed in the area.
The Bureau also has reported that many strikes have deliberately launched follow-up attacks, killing people “who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals.” This is clearly a war crime regardless of the overall share of civilians the broader drone war kills.
Even beyond the consistent civilian fatalities the drone war causes over time, it rests on very shaky legal ground anyways. As Naz Modirzadeh, Associate Director of the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (HPCR) at Harvard University has said, “if it is not in a situation of armed conflict, unless it falls into the very narrow area of imminent threat then it is an extra-judicial execution. We don’t even need to get to the nuance of who’s who, and are people there for rescue or not. Because each death is illegal. Each death is a murder in that case.”
Whew! I've been very worried the past few years wondering whether the people in the mideast we are murdering deserved it or not. According to that bastion of progressivism, the AP blah-blah org, most of them do deserve it. Thank god and DICK Sanitorium that the crucifix adorns most drones now and we've finally arrived at our objective of killing every one of them for their own good. More children! More children! We need more children!
What's a 'militant?' They used to be 'suspects,' did they not? Sounded remarkably honest, back then. Is anybody that's armed a 'militant' now? That seemed to have been what 'Collateral Murder' showed. Tipsters and phone data are used in targeting. There are malicious tips and other reasons to call people. To what extent does the study credit these, post mortem; is it about the extent to which targeting credited them in the first place? It'd be hard to exhaust the list of questions about such studies. Anybody? I double dog dare yah. (-er- I guess I should've said "Please.")
"Militant" is so much cleaner than "suspect." Relieves the uneducated and ill-informed of the responsibility of thinking…
Though offered candy on three passes…subject still would not get in the car. This militance will cost her.
When every Muslim, Arab,or Iranian is considered a militant than of course drones only kill militants. Anyway, the press and electronic media have long ago abandoned their watchdog role and function only as the propaganda apparatus of the government, and their credibility is non existent.
And the AP is at the top of the list of Administration (it matters not which one) lapdogs – so much easier than actually doing any investigative reporting.
Drone strikes have been going on quite a bit longer than the last 18 months.
Sure. If only one considers that AP stands for Ass Press, then one would believe that. Of course, the other consideration is that the Ass Press doesn't define the term "militant" if they did, however, things may change.
mil·i·tant
/ˈmɪlɪtənt/ Show Spelled[mil-i-tuhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause: militant reformers.
AP lies, poor people of color die. Last year two exhaustive studies of drone strikes found that 90 to 95% of those killed in drone strikes were innocent civilians. The Associated press is part of the imperial U.S. war machine and has zero credibility . AP was essential in starting and maintaining the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. How could they possibly be considered a reasonable source of information on such a crucial matter? The very reason for the need for a sight like Anti War is that AP and the entire Western media organization is part of the imperial war machine that employs cowardly and grotesque drone strikes as a means of terror .