Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Confirms US Drone Program in Pakistan; 'US Drones Very Precise'
In frank admission, Obama argues he has authority to bomb sovereign nations and that 'drones have not caused a great number of civilian casualties'
On Monday, as President Obama was answering questions during an interview conducted by several Americans through a Google+'s "hangout" group video chat feature, he acknowledged publicly the use of US drones and airstrikes inside Pakistan.
In answering, Obama argued that "first of all, drones have not caused a great number of civilian casualties." A claim that belies evidence. UPDATE: In response to Obama's acknowledgement of the drone program in Pakistan, Amnesty International today asked for his administration to clarify the legal basis for such a program. The statement, in part, read:
The US authorities must give a detailed explanation of how these strikes are lawful and what is being done to monitor civilian casualties and ensure proper accountability, said Sam Zarifi Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific director.
What are the rules of engagement? What proper legal justification exists for these attacks? While the President's confirmation of the use of drones in Pakistan is a welcome first step towards transparency, these and other questions need to be answered. [...]
Past justifications offered by US officials have invoked legal theories based on a “global war” between the USA and al-Qa’ida, a concept not recognized by international humanitarian or human rights law.
"The US administration must use the occasion of Attorney General Holder's speech to disclose the relevant legal and factual documentation necessary for a meaningful assessment of the lawfulness of the deliberate killings it is carrying out - simply trying to find another way to say 'trust us, it's legal' will not be good enough," said Sam Zarifi.
* * *
Obama's admission came in response to a question from a young man named, Evan, from Brooklyn, New York, who said: "Mr. President, since you took office you've ordered more drone attacks in your first year than your predecessor did in his entire term. These drone attacks cause a lot of civilian casualties. I'm curious to know how you feel they help the nation and whether you think they're worth it."
In answering, Obama first argued that "first of all, drones have not caused a great number of civilian casualties. For the most part they have been very precise, precision strikes against Al Qaeda and their affiliates. We have been very careful in how it's been applied." He goes on to say that the drone program is "kept on a very tight leash" and that it's not "just a bunch of folks in a room somewhere making decisions."
In a follow up question regarding the degree to which US drone incursions might be "perceived" as interference in other countries, Obama responded that even in "sovereign nations" its better to have pinpoint capabilities, suggesting airstrike accuracy lessens the infringement of sovereignty in those nations, and, in fact, are helpful to those countries because they could not otherwise apprehend (or annihilate) these targets.
Subsequently, Obama confirmed that “a lot of these strikes have been in the FATA [Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas]."
The session was broadcast live via YouTube. Here's the clip:
* * *
Pakistan Calls Drone Use, Missile Strikes 'Unlawful' and 'Counterproductive'
Al-Jazeera reports:
The controversial drone program run by the CIA has often been met with protests in Pakistan amid concerns of civilian casualties. The Pakistani government publicly protests the operations, but is believed to support them.
A spokesman for Pakistan's foreign ministry reiterated the government's public protest in response to Obama's comments.
"Notwithstanding tactical advantages of drone strikes, we are of the firm view that these are unlawful, counterproductive and hence unacceptable," Abdul Basit said.
The New America Foundation, a think tank in Washington, says drone strikes in Pakistan have killed between 1,715 and 2,680 people in the past eight years.
* * *
The New America Foundation report, Year of the Drone, which studied drone attacks and civilian casualties, strongly refutes Obama's claim that drones "have not caused a great number of civilian casualties." According to the report:
Our study shows that the 283 reported drone strikes in northwest Pakistan, including 70 in 2011, from 2004 to the present have killed approximately between 1,717 and 2,680 individuals, of whom around 1,424 to 2,209 were described as militants in reliable press accounts. Thus, the true non-militant fatality rate since 2004 according to our analysis is approximately 17 percent. In 2010, it was more like five percent.*
We have also constructed a map, based on the same reliable press accounts and publicly available maps, of the estimated location of each drone strike. Click each pin in the online version to see the details of a reported strike. And while we are not professional cartographers, and Google Maps is at times incomplete or imperfect, this map gives our best approximations of the locations and details of each reported drone strike since 2004.
Chart:
# # #

80 Comments so far
Show Allhttp://michiganmessenger.com/33426/michigan-company-putting-bible-quotes...
A: Because he has 5-10,000 atom-bombs and half the world's military arsenal to stop that justice from happening.
(And still Obama claims his main worry is Iran starting to think about making one - 1 - a-bomb: that's chutzpah of self-contradiction for ya!)
If the government of Russia authorized President Medvedev the right to drone bomb those they labeled "militants" inside the U.S. would you defend this as a legal act?
They randomly shot people at a distance, raining down death from out of the blue. Remember all the press, the outrage?
How much different is that from what Obama and Panneta are doing in various countries around the world. Them and their gang decide unilaterally who lives and who dies, without warning, bang their dead. No trial, no jury, just the execution, just like the DC snipers.
So we have people in Pakistan living in the same terror for years, that the residence of DC had to live with for just 3 weeks. Will I die today, will someone in my family, will my neighbor? How that is not terrorism is beyond me.
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich."
-- Peter Ustinov
Yes indeed....It has been described as "a poor man's air force".
Thomas Gilbert-
I find it incredible how almost totally devoid of empathy so many Amerikans are: I mean, these same individuals will watch some late night horror-thriller on TV about a sociopathic killer loose in some small mid-western town who is gradually picking off the residents of that place one by one by one, and of course they all cheer when the "hero" of the film ultimately tracks down the killer and brings him to "justice", and yet they have absolutely no conception of why so many people in Afghanistan and Pakistan hate us.
One would think that Amerikans don't even think that people in other countries even have souls!
The other comment relates to arithmetic. It happens that 17% is very close to 16.66667%, meaning that roughly one out of six or two per dozen of all the individuals killed by the drones are considered "civilians". Needless to say, it is much easier to visualize "one out of six" than it is to visualize "17 out of 100".
I only bring this up because I happen to be an amateur mathematician who also belongs to two organizations promoting the use of base twelve, The Dozenal Society of America and The Dozenal Society of Great Britain. While it is very easy to visualize simple fractions as parts of a dozen, counting by powers of ten makes it very hard to visualize simple fractions. Precisely because base ten makes it difficult to visualize simple fractions, statistics using "decimal fractions" are almost entirely devoid of emotional impact, which means that whenever you read "facts and figures" relating to war crimes presented in terms of "percentages", you are much less likely to be outraged and to go out into the streets to protest, a fact that serves the MIC and the decimal-based M$M just fine! (In other words, base ten keeps the plebes docile;-)
Well, at least we smoked him out on this one point.
Now Turkey and Cambodia have been added to the list of nations along with China, India and Russia and probably many South American ones not going along with the sanctions on Iran’s oil and central bank and I think we will see many other nations join in to stop this war from spreading.
I think if he fights a hot war with Iran before the election, the Republicans will obviously blame him for that even though they will say it was too late.
In any case If Romney picks Ron Paul for VP, and talks about what Jesus would do, he could win.
Within this corrupt society, there is an acceptance of killing individuals "described as militants".
The accuser is the judge and the executioner.
NO ONE is challenging Obama in the democrat's corporate country club.
The republican challengers are trying to prove that they would be (at least) the democrats equals in this abomination.
The vast majority of voters in the United States of Global Corporate Domination would not dream of NOT voting for these murderous corporate assholes.
Most of the voters are drone-like, except for that air of desperation which fuels them.
Except for maybe Darcy Richardson who tried to primary Obama.
"maxpayne"
Thank you for the correction.
It seems there are about 14 democrats who have said they would try to challenge their leader. I'm guessing that they will fall in line after the convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.
That statement makes Obama a war criminal as he admits his culpability for murdering ( albeit only a few ) innocent civilians. One has to wonder, if one of his daughters happened to be one of the children murdered, if he would feel the same way.
Not any different than when Cheney condoned torture!