Obama Secretly Loosened Standards for Drone Killings in Pakistan
Wall Street Journal revelation comes amid mounting calls for U.S. to come clean regarding all civilians killed in covert attacks
While publicly vaunting drone strike reforms allegedly aimed at minimizing civilian deaths, President Barack Obama secretly loosened the standards for covert attacks in Pakistan, likely paving the way for the killing and wounding of an unknown number of non-combatants, the Wall Street Journal revealed Sunday.
The news follows last week's revelation that CIA drone strikes in January killed one U.S. and one Italian hostage in Pakistan and comes amid mounting calls for the U.S. to come clean regarding all civilians killed in its covert war--not just Western ones.
The new reporting sheds light on the Presidential Policy Guidelines (pdf), which were announced by Obama in May 2013 and allegedly impose the requirement that "before lethal action may be taken," U.S. forces are required to attain "near certainty that non-combatants will not be injured or killed." Furthermore, the policy states that the U.S. "will use lethal force only against a target that poses a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons."
The reforms were ostensibly designed to minimize civilian deaths, and they came in response to growing international outrage over the large numbers of non-combatants killed and wounded in U.S. drone attacks.
However, according to the Wall Street Journal's reporting, Pakistan was exempted from these alleged reforms. Journalist Adam Entous writes:
Under a classified addendum to the directive approved by Mr. Obama, however, the CIA's drone program in Pakistan was exempted from the "imminent threat" requirement, at least until U.S. forces completed their pullout from Afghanistan.
The exemption in the case of Pakistan means that the CIA can do signature strikes and more targeted drone attacks on militant leaders who have been identified without collecting specific evidence that the target poses an imminent threat to the U.S. Being part of the al Qaeda core in Pakistan is justification enough in the Obama administration's eyes.
Entous posits, "If the exemption had not been in place for Pakistan, the CIA might have been required to gather more intelligence before" the strike that killed the two Western hostages.
Fox News confirmed this reporting on Monday, stating that a military intelligence source said "there are indeed looser rules in effect for CIA strikes in Pakistan."
The secret exemption has large implications, as Pakistan is the country most heavily targeted by U.S. drone strikes since 2004. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, up to 962 civilians have been killed and 1,722 wounded in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan between 2004 and 2015.
However, Robert Naiman, policy director for Just Foreign Policy, told Common Dreams that Pakistan is not the only country exempted from supposed drone reforms. "This is part of a pattern where the administration announces reforms to drone strike policy that never happen or were eviscerated through exemption, or reversed," said Naiman.
For example, the Obama administration admitted last year that the "near certainty" requirement does not apply to the war on the so-called Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria. Furthermore, Rolling Stone revealed earlier this year that the U.S. still considers Afghanistan an "area of active hostilities" and therefore the drone reforms do not apply to that country either.
Given the intense secrecy surrounding U.S. drone attacks, it is unclear what impact, if any, the administration's reforms had on reducing civilian deaths.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
While publicly vaunting drone strike reforms allegedly aimed at minimizing civilian deaths, President Barack Obama secretly loosened the standards for covert attacks in Pakistan, likely paving the way for the killing and wounding of an unknown number of non-combatants, the Wall Street Journal revealed Sunday.
The news follows last week's revelation that CIA drone strikes in January killed one U.S. and one Italian hostage in Pakistan and comes amid mounting calls for the U.S. to come clean regarding all civilians killed in its covert war--not just Western ones.
The new reporting sheds light on the Presidential Policy Guidelines (pdf), which were announced by Obama in May 2013 and allegedly impose the requirement that "before lethal action may be taken," U.S. forces are required to attain "near certainty that non-combatants will not be injured or killed." Furthermore, the policy states that the U.S. "will use lethal force only against a target that poses a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons."
The reforms were ostensibly designed to minimize civilian deaths, and they came in response to growing international outrage over the large numbers of non-combatants killed and wounded in U.S. drone attacks.
However, according to the Wall Street Journal's reporting, Pakistan was exempted from these alleged reforms. Journalist Adam Entous writes:
Under a classified addendum to the directive approved by Mr. Obama, however, the CIA's drone program in Pakistan was exempted from the "imminent threat" requirement, at least until U.S. forces completed their pullout from Afghanistan.
The exemption in the case of Pakistan means that the CIA can do signature strikes and more targeted drone attacks on militant leaders who have been identified without collecting specific evidence that the target poses an imminent threat to the U.S. Being part of the al Qaeda core in Pakistan is justification enough in the Obama administration's eyes.
Entous posits, "If the exemption had not been in place for Pakistan, the CIA might have been required to gather more intelligence before" the strike that killed the two Western hostages.
Fox News confirmed this reporting on Monday, stating that a military intelligence source said "there are indeed looser rules in effect for CIA strikes in Pakistan."
The secret exemption has large implications, as Pakistan is the country most heavily targeted by U.S. drone strikes since 2004. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, up to 962 civilians have been killed and 1,722 wounded in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan between 2004 and 2015.
However, Robert Naiman, policy director for Just Foreign Policy, told Common Dreams that Pakistan is not the only country exempted from supposed drone reforms. "This is part of a pattern where the administration announces reforms to drone strike policy that never happen or were eviscerated through exemption, or reversed," said Naiman.
For example, the Obama administration admitted last year that the "near certainty" requirement does not apply to the war on the so-called Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria. Furthermore, Rolling Stone revealed earlier this year that the U.S. still considers Afghanistan an "area of active hostilities" and therefore the drone reforms do not apply to that country either.
Given the intense secrecy surrounding U.S. drone attacks, it is unclear what impact, if any, the administration's reforms had on reducing civilian deaths.
While publicly vaunting drone strike reforms allegedly aimed at minimizing civilian deaths, President Barack Obama secretly loosened the standards for covert attacks in Pakistan, likely paving the way for the killing and wounding of an unknown number of non-combatants, the Wall Street Journal revealed Sunday.
The news follows last week's revelation that CIA drone strikes in January killed one U.S. and one Italian hostage in Pakistan and comes amid mounting calls for the U.S. to come clean regarding all civilians killed in its covert war--not just Western ones.
The new reporting sheds light on the Presidential Policy Guidelines (pdf), which were announced by Obama in May 2013 and allegedly impose the requirement that "before lethal action may be taken," U.S. forces are required to attain "near certainty that non-combatants will not be injured or killed." Furthermore, the policy states that the U.S. "will use lethal force only against a target that poses a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons."
The reforms were ostensibly designed to minimize civilian deaths, and they came in response to growing international outrage over the large numbers of non-combatants killed and wounded in U.S. drone attacks.
However, according to the Wall Street Journal's reporting, Pakistan was exempted from these alleged reforms. Journalist Adam Entous writes:
Under a classified addendum to the directive approved by Mr. Obama, however, the CIA's drone program in Pakistan was exempted from the "imminent threat" requirement, at least until U.S. forces completed their pullout from Afghanistan.
The exemption in the case of Pakistan means that the CIA can do signature strikes and more targeted drone attacks on militant leaders who have been identified without collecting specific evidence that the target poses an imminent threat to the U.S. Being part of the al Qaeda core in Pakistan is justification enough in the Obama administration's eyes.
Entous posits, "If the exemption had not been in place for Pakistan, the CIA might have been required to gather more intelligence before" the strike that killed the two Western hostages.
Fox News confirmed this reporting on Monday, stating that a military intelligence source said "there are indeed looser rules in effect for CIA strikes in Pakistan."
The secret exemption has large implications, as Pakistan is the country most heavily targeted by U.S. drone strikes since 2004. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, up to 962 civilians have been killed and 1,722 wounded in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan between 2004 and 2015.
However, Robert Naiman, policy director for Just Foreign Policy, told Common Dreams that Pakistan is not the only country exempted from supposed drone reforms. "This is part of a pattern where the administration announces reforms to drone strike policy that never happen or were eviscerated through exemption, or reversed," said Naiman.
For example, the Obama administration admitted last year that the "near certainty" requirement does not apply to the war on the so-called Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria. Furthermore, Rolling Stone revealed earlier this year that the U.S. still considers Afghanistan an "area of active hostilities" and therefore the drone reforms do not apply to that country either.
Given the intense secrecy surrounding U.S. drone attacks, it is unclear what impact, if any, the administration's reforms had on reducing civilian deaths.