[Peace-discuss] at HuffPost: Pass the Drone Strike Transparency Act

[Robert Naiman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/pass-the-drone-strike-tra_b_5121353.html

Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, we all believe that government
should be transparent and accountable, right?

How should we decide where we stand on a controversial government policy? A
crucial first step is to try to establish key facts in the public record.

CIA chief John Brennan -- the same guy who has led efforts to obstruct the
Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation of CIA torture -- has
publicly claimed that civilian casualties resulting from its policy of
conducting drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia have been "exceedingly
rare<http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/brennans-speech-counterterrorism-april-2012/p28100>."
But the record of independent reporting strongly suggests that John
Brennan's claim was not
true<http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/>
.

Can we have a meaningful democratic discussion about whether we should
support the drone strike policy without being able to make an informed
judgment on whether John Brennan's claim was true or false?

Until now, there is no public official source of information on how many
civilians have been killed by U.S. drone strikes.

The U.S. government has a count. But that number is
"classified<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/americans-press-us-ambass_b_1941919.html>."
Because the U.S. government's accounting has been classified, it hasn't
been subject to sufficient democratic scrutiny.

Is there any legitimate national security justification for keeping this
information classified? Is there any argument for keeping this information
classified which would not apply to the Senate Intelligence Committee's
report on CIA torture?

At long last, two Members of the House have taken a step to address this
unacceptable situation which, if it garnered public support, could have a
meaningful impact. They introduced a bill to require a public report,
expanding on a provision that was passed last
fall<http://www.thenation.com/blog/177342/senator-susan-collins-barrier-transparency-accountability-drones>
by
the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) -- a member of the House Intelligence Committee --
and Walter Jones (R-NC) -- a member of the House Armed Services Committee
-- have introduced legislation, the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency
Act<http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4372/>,
to require an annual report on the number of combatants and civilians
killed or injured annually by U.S. drone strikes. The bill also
requires<http://schiff.house.gov/press-releases/reps-adam-schiff-and-walter-jones-introduce-bipartisan-bill-requiring-annual-reporting-on-drone-casualties/>
that
the report include the definitions of combatants and civilian noncombatants
used. This is important, because many people believe -- indeed, *The New
York Times* reported in May
2012<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html>
--
that the CIA came up with its story that civilian casualties have been
"exceedingly rare" by undercounting who was a "civilian."

The bill also requires that the first annual report go back five years.
This is important because U.S. obligations to international law -- in the
wake of Crimea, we all support compliance with international law now,
right? -- demand accountability for past actions, not only future actions.

Here is what *The New York Times* reported in May
2012<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html>
about
counting civilian casualties, for which the U.S. government has never been
effectively called to account:

Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did
little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a
strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials,
unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.
[...]
This counting method may partly explain the official claims of
extraordinarily low collateral deaths.
[...]
But in interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed
disbelief that the number could be so low. The C.I.A. accounting has so
troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have
brought their concerns to the White House. One called it "guilt by
association" that has led to "deceptive" estimates of civilian casualties.

"It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be
militants," the official said. "They count the corpses and they're not
really sure who they are."

The Schiff-Jones bill has been
endorsed<http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/news-item/joint-statement-in-support-of-the-targeted-lethal-force-transparency-act>
by
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Whether the introduction of this legislation will mark a turning point in
efforts to subject the drone strike policy to democratic scrutiny and the
rule of law will significantly depend on whether members of the public
rally behind the Schiff-Jones bill, and press their representatives in
Congress to co-sponsor it.

That, dear reader, is up to you. You can ask your representative to
co-sponsor the Schiff-Jones bill
here<http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/drone-strike-civilian-deaths>
.
 --
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
(202) 448-2898, extension 1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20140410/92785a86/attachment-0001.html>