[Peace-discuss] Americans Press U.S. Ambassador for End to Drone Strikes in Pakistan, and the Ambassador Responds

Fri Oct 5 15:22:21 UTC 2012

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/americans-press-us-ambass_b_1941919.html

Islamabad, Pakistan -- Sometimes, when some people insist that it's
impossible to put some urgent problem on the table for discussion and
redress, you have no choice but to undertake flamboyant action. Call it
"propaganda by nonviolent deed."

On Wednesday, as a member of a U.S. peace
delegation<http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?id=6206>to
Pakistan organized by Code Pink, I delivered a
petition<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/pakistan-drones>
from
more than 3,000 Americans to Acting U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Richard
Hoagland calling for an end to the CIA drone strike policy in Pakistan.

I also delivered a letter <http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/1312> from
Alice Walker, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf, Oliver Stone, Danny Glover, Jody
Williams, Tom Hayden, Patch Adams, Glenn Greenwald, Juan Cole and other
prominent Americans, including former U.S. government officials, calling
for an end to the drone strikes. The letter
concludes<http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/1312>
:

We demand an immediate moratorium on the drone strikes. We demand that U.S.
policy in Pakistan be brought into compliance with U.S. and international
law, that the U.S. government come clean about civilian casualties, that
civilian victims and their families be compensated, and that "signature"
drone strikes and attacks on civilian rescuers be permanently abandoned, in
Pakistan and everywhere else."

In our meeting, I particularly pressed Ambassador Hoagland on reports of
U.S. drone attacks on civilian rescuers.

Ambassador Hoagland responded in more specific detail to some of the
concerns that I and others raised than has been typical for U.S. officials
in the past, who have usually either 1) refused to talk publicly and on the
record about the U.S. drone strike program because it is "classified" or 2)
have defended the policy in vague and misleading terms without answering
specific allegations.

For an example of the latter: in April, White House counterterrorism
adviser John Brennan claimed that civilian deaths as a result of the drone
strikes have been "exceedingly
rare<http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/30/11475659-us-official-acknowledges-drone-strikes-says-civilian-deaths-exceedingly-rare>."
Can such a vague assertion truly be reassuring? What exactly does
"exceedingly rare" mean? How "rare" is "exceedingly rare"?

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has
reported<http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/>
474-884
civilians killed in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004 out of
2,572-3,341 killed overall. That suggests that somewhere between a sixth
and a third of the deaths have been civilian deaths. Is that "exceedingly
rare"? Meanwhile, a recent Stanford/NYU
report<http://livingunderdrones.org/> says
that only 2 percent of drone strike deaths have been "high-level" targets.
This suggests that somewhere between 7 and 15 times as many civilians have
been killed as "high level" targets, and that while killing civilians has
been common, it is the killing of "high level" targets that has been
"exceedingly rare."

On the question of killing rescuers, The Stanford/NYU report
notes<http://livingunderdrones.org/> the
"US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has
killed rescuers." A recent
report<http://civiliansinconflict.org/uploads/files/publications/The_Civilian_Impact_of_Drones_w_cover.pdf>
from
Columbia Law School and the Center for Civilians in Conflict notes:

"There are numerous reports of follow-up attacks and some accounts suggest
they have the result of killing rescuers who come to the scene to aid
wounded individuals. In February 2012, the Bureau of Investigative
Journalism reported that at least 50 individuals were killed in follow-up
drone strikes in Pakistan when they had gone to help victims killed in
initial strikes."

Some accounts have reported that killings of rescuers have been deliberate.
In the *Small Wars Journal*in February, Peter Matulich
wrote<http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/why-coin-principles-dont-fly-with-drones>
:

"Initial strikes on targets are based on sizeable amount of intelligence
from both reconnaissance and HUMINT sources. However in the kill-boxes
follow-up attacks often occur after the initial strike targeting those
coming to the potential aid of wounded militants. It is in these follow-up
attacks [that] rescuers are targeted in an attempt to score a windfall of
extra militants killed. Unfortunately in these attacks on rescuers, the
task of differentiating civilian from militant is up to the [discretion] of
a drone operator. In these circumstances it appears little has been done to
discern combatant from non-combatant, the consequence being an increased
amount [of] civilian casualties."

In our meeting with Ambassador Hoagland, I said:

"I particularly would like you to address... the issue of attacks on
civilian rescuers... I'm sure you're aware that many experts in
international law are absolutely
convinced<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/a-question-of-legality/>
that
whatever one may think otherwise about the lawfulness of the drone strikes,
even if it were a lawful conflict, attacks on civilian rescuers are a war
crime..."

Ambassador Hoagland responded:

"On this one, for at least the last several years that I have been here in
Pakistan and more intimately associated with the knowledge of this, there
is never any deliberate strikes against civilian rescuers. Now, what I have
seen is that after a strike, there will be colleagues from one of the
isolated places, never urban, it's not ambulances or anything like that,
who are also part of the larger group. But I can tell you honestly I have
never, ever in recent times seen any deliberate strike on rescuers coming
to a site."

I later responded:

"Shahzad [lawyer Shahzad Akbar of the Foundation for Fundamental Rights]
mentioned thereport <http://livingunderdrones.org/> from Stanford and NYU
that just come out last week, there was extensive attention on this issue
of the 'secondary,' 'follow-up,' 'double tap' strikes, and the question of
attacking civilian rescuers, and the [Center for Civilians in Conflict] and
Columbia Law also just put out a
report<http://civiliansinconflict.org/uploads/files/publications/The_Civilian_Impact_of_Drones_w_cover.pdf>,
also addresses this, there was also an article in the *New York
Times*<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/us-drone-strikes-are-said-to-target-rescuers.html>,
there was an investigation<http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/>
by
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and *The Independent*, so I would
strongly urge you to look at those sources, check that against what you
know, there's the specific allegation of targeting rescuers, but then more
broadly, whether or not rescuers are specifically targeted, the tactic of
secondary strikes intrinsically threatens rescuers, people that would come
to a site after there's a strike."

"So I urge you to look at this, and please put out a public statement, from
the Embassy, after you've looked at this question, and say, we've looked at
this, and we believe this not to be true, or we believe this not to be true
over this period, and here's why. I think it would tremendously add to the
transparency of the debate, if there would be an official, government
response to these allegations."

To which Ambassador Hoagland responded:

"I think it would, and I agree with that, I can't promise you that that
will ever happen, but I agree that it would add to the transparency of the
debate. Who are these sources? Can we talk to them, [that] kind of thing.
And really get down to the ground truth."

It is my hope that Ambassador Hoagland's acknowledgement that it would be a
good thing if the U.S. government would respond publicly and on the record
to these allegations will encourage Members of Congress and others in
Washington to press for such a public and official response.

Medea Benjamin asked Ambassador Hoagland:

"Can you give us any estimate of how many civilian casualties there have
been from the drone strikes?"

To which Ambassador Hoagland responded:

"Well, first of all, for the numbers, to be very honest, I looked at the
numbers before I came here today, and I saw a number for civilian
casualties that officially -- U.S. government classified information --
since July 2008, it is in the two figures, I can't vouch for you that
that's accurate, in any way, so I can't talk about numbers. I wanted to see
what we have on the internal record, it's quite low."

I found it striking that Ambassador Hoagland acknowledged that the U.S.
government has a count of how many civilian deaths it thinks have resulted
from U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan and that this number is classified. Why
is this number classified? Should not Members of Congress and others in
Washington press for its release?

Sushila Cherian asked Ambassador Hoagland: "Has there been, or Is there
going to be, any discussion about compensation for the killing of innocent
civilians here?"

Ambassador Hoagland responded:

"That's a good question. And the reason I say it's a good question is there
has to be some kind of an apparatus set up for that. I'd say that in
principle, the U.S. government is not against that kind of compensation,
because as you point out, I understand we do it in Afghanistan. Also...
what is referred to here as the Salala Incident of November 26 [2011] when
there was a border -- a serious misunderstanding that led to the deaths of
24 Pakistani military by NATO/ISAF forces, and I assure you immediately
after that we made an informal offer of compensation, through the
government of Pakistan, to the Pakistani military, so you see that is not
in the realm of the impossible. But there's nothing in place for that right
now."

I hope that Ambassador Hoagland's acknowledgement that the demand for
compensation of civilian victims and their families is a just demand will
encourage Members of Congress and others in Washington to press for the set
up of an apparatus that will bring such compensation about.

I hope that Ambassador Hoagland's willingness to meet with us and engage
substantively on our concerns will establish a new standard for the policy
of the administration in engaging public concerns about the drone strikes.

On Saturday we travel to Waziristan, where the U.S. drone strikes have been
carried out, for a massive peace rally on Sunday. Ambassador Hoagland told
us: "I can assure you with 100 percent certainty that you will not be
targeted." I hope that if we can make a small corner of Waziristan safe
from U.S. drone strikes for one day, it will set a precedent for addressing
the conflicts between the U.S. government and people in Waziristan through
politics rather than violence.

Here is video from our meeting with Ambassador Hoagland:

US Peace Activists Challenge Ambassador in Pakistan About
Drones<http://vimeo.com/50777393>
 from CODEPINK <http://vimeo.com/user13863647> on Vimeo <http://vimeo.com/>.

-- 
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20121005/daf36c3c/attachment-0001.html>