Civilian Deaths from CIA Drones Strikes: Zero or Dozens?
For well over a year now, the ACLU has been urging the government to
level with the public about the number of civilians that are being
killed in its drone strike/targeted killing operations.
The
government has been tight-lipped — refusing even to confirm or deny the
existence of any records relating to civilian casualties in CIA drone
strikes.
Last month, however, John Brennan, the White House's top
counterterrorism advisor broke this silence,
telling reporters
that "in the last year 'there hasn't been a single collateral death
because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities
that we've been able to develop.'"
Zero civilian casualties — during a period when there were more than
100 CIA drone strikes — sounded almost too good to be true. As it
turns out, it was.
According to a new
report from the UK's
award-
winning Bureau of Investigative Journalism,
released last night, at least 45 civilians were killed in 10 strikes
since August 2010. Among these, the Bureau reports that it has
identified, by name, six children killed in drone strikes. More
civilians are likely to have been killed in an additional 15 strikes
for which precise information is not available.
In response to queries from the Bureau, a senior official stood by
Brennan's zero-civilian casualties claim and insisted that "the most
accurate information on counter-terror operations resides with the
United States." The trouble is that United States refuses to share
its information — even basic information — with the public.
Indeed, it is absurd that senior government officials would claim
that there have been no civilian casualties in drone strikes in
Pakistan, and at the same time refuse to confirm or deny the existence
of civilian casualty data in response to the ACLU's
Freedom of Information Act request.
This kind of selective disclosure not only deprives the public of
basic information about the human cost of the government's actions, but
it also undermines the credibility of the government's statements.
The public has no basis to trust John Brennan's zero-civilian-casualty
estimate because the government has refused to disclose what its
figures are based on, or even the criteria it uses to distinguish
fighters from civilians in CIA drone strikes.
The public debate on drone strikes is severely hobbled by the
government's failure to provide basic information not just about the
number of innocent civilians killed, but also about the legal criteria
that its uses in conducting targeted drone killings, and the internal
accountability measures that are in place to ensure that strikes —
especially those conducted by the CIA — comply with the law.
Outside groups like The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the
Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC), and the
New America Foundation
have done admirable work attempting to fill this void. But it is
emphatically the government's obligation to provide an accounting to
the public when it uses military force abroad.
The government
continues to shirk this obligation. And reports like the Bureau's
starkly demonstrate that "trust us" just doesn't cut it when it comes
to the wisdom and ethics of military action.
