Stanford-NYU Report: Drone Attacks Illegal, Counterproductive

trbdavies writes "In 'Living Under Drones,' investigators from Stanford and NYU Law Schools report on interviews with 130 people in Pakistan about U.S.-led drone attacks there, including 69 survivors and family members of victims. The report affirms Bureau of Investigative Journalism numbers that count '474 to 884 civilian deaths since 2004, including 176 children' while 'only about 2% of drone casualties are top militant leaders.' It also argues that the attacks violate international law and are counterproductive, stating: 'Evidence suggests that US strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivated further violent attacks One major study shows that 74% of Pakistanis now consider the U.S. an enemy.'"

Comments

74% of Pakistanis now consider the U.S. an enemy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I guess it's time to hang up the drones, and dust of the ICBMs.

What % always considered us the enemy?

[HornWumpus]

Without the baseline information the summary is clearly propaganda.

Re:What % always considered us the enemy?

[ThatsMyNick]

Ok I will rephrase the question. How many considered USA their enemy before the drone attacks?

Re:What % always considered us the enemy?

[LifesABeach]

Cultural evidence implicates that if the Drones had only killed the single target in the group of people, that the people's views would not have changed much. What we have is a classic case of the Hatfields verses the McCoys. In Pakistan, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda are not the bad guys. The pervasive attitude is, "bin Laden, a hero, was murdered, and by the very people that made him a hero."

What surprizes me is that the CIA/DOD are using Drones, maybe for future readyness? I'm ask the question, "which is cheaper? Drone Kill Logistics? Or 1,000,000 iPads with free connection service?" The one method works and makes a lot of noise, but the other REALLY WORKS, and makes more noise.

Re:What % always considered us the enemy?

[Mitreya]

The pervasive attitude is, "bin Laden, a hero, was murdered, and by the very people that made him a hero."

Yep. That's the attitude. It has nothing to do with things like
"The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims."
because that's a minor detail no one would worry about.

Re:What % always considered us the enemy?

[anagama]

Except you don't win anything by murdering a few innocent people here and there. All you do is sully your reputation and make enemies. If you want to win a war, this drone thing is as retarded as it gets, not to mention fucking immoral. It makes the US nothing but a terrorist bully.

Re:US military doctrine is simple to understand...

[trout007]

And it would help to stop being brown and start worshipping Jesus.

So let's see...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of the 176,745,364 people in Pakistan (according to World Bank), they chose 130 and managed to get more than half who were related to the "474 to 884" people who've died. You know, I could continue to point out the problems here, but it doesn't seem necessary. This entire "investigation" is complete and utter bullshit.

Re:So let's see...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no claim that this was a random survey. From the article:

Following nine months of intensive research—including two investigations in Pakistan, more than 130 interviews with victims, witnesses, and experts, and review of thousands of pages of documentation and media reporting—this report presents evidence of the damaging and counterproductive effects of current US drone strike policies.

These interviews provided useful information about various things, such as the "double tap" attacks on rescuers:

Another interviewee, Hayatullah Ayoub Khan, recounted a particularly harrowing incident that he said he experienced while driving between Dossali and Tal in North Waziristan.[163] He stated that a missile from a drone was fired at a car approximately three hundred meters in front of him, missing the car in front, but striking the road close enough to cause serious damage.[164] Hayatullah stopped, got out of his own car, and slowly approached the wreckage, debating whether he should help the injured and risk being the victim of a follow-up strike.[165] He stated that when he got close enough to see an arm moving inside the wrecked vehicle, someone inside yelled that he should leave immediately because another missile would likely strike.[166] He started to return to his car and a second missile hit the damaged car and killed whomever was still left inside.[167] He told us that nearby villagers waited another twenty minutes before removing the bodies, which he said included the body of a teacher from Hayatullah’s village.[168]

Crucially, the threat of the “double tap” reportedly deters not only the spontaneous humanitarian instinct of neighbors and bystanders in the immediate vicinity of strikes, but also professional humanitarian workers providing emergency medical relief to the wounded. According to a health professional familiar with North Waziristan, one humanitarian organization had a “policy to not go immediately [to a reported drone strike] because of follow up strikes. There is a six hour mandatory delay.”[169] According to the same source, therefore, it is “only the locals, the poor, [who] will pick up the bodies of loved ones.”[170]

The dissuasive effect that the “double tap” pattern of strikes has on first responders raises crucial moral and legal concerns. Not only does the practice put into question the extent to which secondary strikes comply with international humanitarian law’s basic rules of distinction, proportionality, and precautions, but it also potentially violates specific legal protections for medical and humanitarian personnel, and for the wounded.[171] As international law experts have noted, intentional strikes on first responders may constitute war crimes.[172]

and the psychological effect of living in an area targeted for aerial attacks:

One of the few accounts of living under drones ever published in the US came from a former New York Times journalist who was kidnapped by the Taliban for months in FATA.[198] In his account, David Rohde described both the fear the drones inspired among his captors, as well as among ordinary civilians: “The drones were terrifying. From the ground, it is impossible to determine who or what they are tracking as they circle overhead. The buzz of a distant propeller is a constant reminder of imminent death.”[199] Describing the experience of living under drones as ‘hell on earth’, Rohde explained that even in the areas where strikes were less frequent, the people living there still feared for their lives.[200]

Community members, mental health professionals, and journalists interviewed for this report described how the constant presence of US drones overhead leads to substantial levels of fear and stress in the civilian communities below.[201] One man described the reaction to the sound of the drones as “a wave of terror”

Re:So let's see...

[Beetle B.]

Of the 176,745,364 people in Pakistan (according to World Bank), they chose 130 and managed to get more than half who were related to the "474 to 884" people who've died.

Not at all sure what your point is. I haven't read the report, but your comment is without merit.

They targeted a lot of people who were relatives of the deceased. They didn't randomly sample the country and then happen to get over 65 who were related to the deceased.

And the problem with that is...?

Re:US military doctrine is simple to understand...

[dzelenka]

And it would help to stop being brown and start worshipping Jesus.

Jesus was brown.

The US and law

[OzPeter]

If the US was interested in following the spirit (if not the letter) of the law, then you wouldn't have things like "Special Rendition". That the US use drone attacks in a country where it doesn't even have a "police action" going on is not surprising. This is just an example of the "Same ol' same ol' ..Ends justifies the means" that has been used for decades (if not since the beginning of the 20th century).
 
And yes .. I know .. anti-american foreigner and all that. Been there, heard the criticism and got the free T-shirt. But if you won't listen when your friends say "Woooo dude .. that's way out of line there", then pretty soon you aren't going to have any friends left.

Other opinions

[kamapuaa]

On the other hand the Pakistan Military allowed the US to use Pakistani airbases for the drone strikes until 8 months ago, requested increased use of drone attacks in 2008, still offer tacit support for the drone attacks, and have themselves said most of those killed in drone strikes were terrorists, despite the political inconvenience of admitting this (by contrast, Pakistan always denied their connection to terrorists working against India in Kashmir, even when the connection was obvious).

The souring of relations with Pakistan centers on the raid on bin Laden, and just the natural friction between the US and a nation with a record of selling nuclear secrets on the black market, supporting the Taliban, and supporting terrorist actions against India.

Illegal

[rossdee]

If you are fighting a war against terrorists, and you play by the rules, and they don't, you are going to lose.

Re:Illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

And this right here folks is why Americans shouldn't be allowed at the grown-ups' table.

Yes you can "play by the rules" and get the right result. In fact, in Ireland it was only once the British really stopped breaking the rules and adopted a more respectful pose that they made progress. Not playing by the rules just gives ammunition and recruits to your opponents - after all they're painting you as the aggressor here.

How many civilian casualties would have been OK for a drone strike on Timothy McVeigh? Should the Brits have bombed areas of Belfast? How about some extraordinary rendition for anyone who gave money to NORAID (a US based fund directly given to the IRA)?

Drone strikes like these don't reduce the number of enemies - they increase them. Every innocent civilian killed (and they are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty) is a klaxon call to take up arms. When fathers and brothers are killed, who do you think people turn to when they need a new guiding figure in their lives? Would you accept the deaths of your spouse and children because they were in the same region as a terrorist?

Acting like you're some kind of cowboy sheriff isn't going to fix things. This isn't the wild west - it's a country of hundreds of millions of people. Going in guns blazing just makes you the enemy to more and more people, and all the time the terrorists can hold up pictures of the dead innocents as proof that you are the indeed the great Satan that they claim.

You know there are two reasons why the police get hauled over the coals when they break the rules. The first is that people, even guilty ones, have rights. But the second reason is to protect the police themselves: Once they are seen to be corrupt their legitimacy shatters. When this happens they lose the support of the ordinary people, who will stop complying with them. This leads to a total breakdown of law and order, as has been seen countless times across (eg) African nations.

So play by the rules. Breaking them is immoral, it is repugnant, and even worse than all that: It doesn't work.

Drones are cheaper.

[raehl]

Maintaining the network would be impossible. The Taliban (or whoever) just kills the family of whoever is supposed to do the tech work to keep the network up.

Re:Drones are cheaper.

[jamstar7]

Number of countries the US has military bases in: 60-130, depending on who you believe.
Total number of foreign US military bases: on the order of 650.
Number of foreign countries who have military bases in the US: None, although command of NORAD changes between an American general and a Canadian general every 2 years. And we train a lot of foreign military at our bases here in the States.

And people wonder why the US spends more on 'defense' than the next 26 countries combined when 25 of them are nominally allies.

Re:Drones are cheaper.

[foniksonik]

A lot, the vast majority I'd say of those military bases were requested by the host nation. Those countries want our military invested in their region as a preventative measure to keep their neighbors peaceful. I'm sure the bases also keep those countries on their toes regarding US relations as well.

Immoral and counter-productive, yes.

[John Hasler]

"illegal", no. The aerial bombing (the bombers being unmanned is irrelevant) of Pakistan would be an act of war were it not being done with the permission of the Pakistani government (they are neither trying to shoot down the bombers nor filing official complaints with the UN). As it is being done with permission, it is legally a bilateral Pakistani and USA affair. It is, unfortunately, not a violation of USA law and evidently not a violation of Pakistani law either. Until the givernment of Pakistan tries to stop it by, at minimum, formally demanding that it stop it is not legally anyone else's business (which is not to say it is not wrong: it is).

Re:Immoral and counter-productive, yes.

[ceoyoyo]

The report says "current US targeted killings and drone strike practices undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents." Killing people the government deems inconvenient, with no oversight, legal process or warning, and collateral damage to boot, might not be strictly illegal but it's certainly against the spirit of both US and international law and custom,and sets a dangerous precedent.

Persecution of Christians

[Taco Cowboy]

If you really want to know how the Christian minority in Pakistan are being treated, here are some links you should explore:

http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/headlinenewsd.php?hnewsid=2556

http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/headlinenewsd.php?hnewsid=3659

http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/vieweditorial.php?editorialid=23

http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/headlinenewsd.php?hnewsid=3765

http://www.compassdirect.org/english/country/pakistan/15560

All the above links are all based on what actually had happened. They are not propaganda.

Unlike the liberals in the US who lives on anti-US propaganda, the Christian minority in Pakistan have no luxury at all living in the world of propaganda.

Every single day of their lives they have to go through the gauntlet of threats and insults.

Every single day some one from their community got beaten up or killed or raped or forcibly converted into Islam.

Every single day in their lives tragedy happens.

But you do not get to read any of that in the main stream media, do you?

That is because the Western main stream media, - from New York Times to Le Monde of France, - are being controlled by the liberals who hate Christianity more than anything else.

They will not report any news on the persecution of the Christian minority in Indonesia or in Pakistan.

But if ever there is a single case of Muslim being hurt or killed, you bet on the next day those liberal controlled main-stream-media will have their BIG HEADLINE blaring "Evil Christian killing peace loving Muslims !!!"

Re:Persecution of Christians

[Grygus]

I guess I don't understand your point. Let's say you are completely correct; so what? Aren't we, as Americans, supposed to hold ourselves to higher standards of behavior, particularly in terms of tolerance of different races and belief systems? Saying that a militant theocracy acts in a certain horrific way doesn't mean we get to act that way, too;. it means that it's a good thing we're not a militant theocracy. Additionally, criticizing another nation for not adhering to our standards of behavior seems pointless to me, while criticizing ourselves for the same reason seems like a good idea.

What am I missing?

Re:Persecution of Christians

[Anonymous Coward]

His point is that drawing equivalency between persecutions of Muslims in the US vs. Christians in Pakistan is ridiculous. Calling drone actions by the gov't as persecution of Muslims when civilians are hit is illogical as well, as Christians can just as easily be "collateral damage"

Re:Persecution of Christians

[farble1670]

That is because the Western main stream media, - from New York Times to Le Monde of France, - are being controlled by the liberals who hate Christianity more than anything else.

sure, some people hate christians, but that's not what you're talking about. you are talking about people who don't live their lives and change the laws of the US to be in accordance with your religious beliefs.

the US was founded with freedom of religion. but that's not enough for some people. no where in the world will you find the variety of religions practiced in freedom in the US. it's not perfect. bad people do bad things, like that christian who recently killed all of the sikhs, but in general we're pretty tolerant.

however, some folks aren't happy with being able to worship in freedom and peace - aren't happy until everyone either believes what they believe, are is forced to act in accordance with it whether they believe it or not.

Re:Persecution of Christians

[Arker]

Eh, the thing is, Pakistani christians are just as pakistani as anyone else. Just as native. A family may have been Christian since before Mohammed. It's not right to imply they should leave, particularly when many may have no practical option to leave, but even if they all did - would you leave your homeland like that? That line of thought is all wrong.

Now that said, I dont think it is the duty or the legitimate business in any way of the US to go around trying to dictate how other countries work. If I were in the government I would be very careful with my words as a result. But as a private citizen I dont need to do that and I do find religious discrimination anywhere, against anyone, unacceptable, and thus I find your defense a bit offensive.

Re:Persecution of Christians

[Arker]

Well if that's correct his points are nonsense. Religious persecution is religious persecution, prejudice is prejudice, in any country. There is nothing ridiculous about it. Civilians murdered are civilians murdered, regardless of their religion. And if I bomb civilians in an area I know is 98% Muslim, the implication that I am deliberately murdering Muslims would seem a fairly strong one, whether or not I manage to kill a Christian or two in the process.

As a side note, apparently there was a memo I missed, and Eastern rite christians dont really count as Christians. At least Western rite Christians dont seem to care at all when they are murdered or dispossessed. In the last dozen years we (as in the USA) has essentially eliminated Christianity from Iraq, something many centuries of Muslim and even Mongol rulers have never been able to do. Al Queda thanks you, US Government!

Re:Persecution of Christians

[phantomfive]

I think his point is that the vast majority of Muslims living in America are not actually harassed for their religion. Unlike Christians in Pakistan, who are harassed daily, to the point of being kidnapped, raped, and murdered.

I don't know if he is right, but I believe that is his point.

Re:Persecution of Christians

[hairyfeet]

I don't think they hate Christians so much as they hate pretty much anything to do with white people, and if they are white they probably hate themselves. Its classic liberal white guilt, where you appease any group you can claim were "wronged", no matter how far back you go, try going to HuffPo and show those links and see how quickly they bring up the crusades. Yeah that was what? 600 years ago?

I'm not right or left, I actually lean towards socialist, but the path of appeasement is a path of death and failure. Nobody has EVER gotten anywhere with appeasement, its a failed policy and no matter whether you dress it up with terms like white guilt or political correctness or tolerance its still the same thing, classic appeasement policy.

Re:Persecution of Christians

[DNS-and-BIND]

Nope. The position you advocate would result in Americans holding themselves higher than other nations, something that has been disallowed for some time now. Americans are not permitted to think themselves better than anyone. As a matter of fact, Americans are always worse. Why?

A pervasive argument appearing in the post-colonial paradigm is that of Moral Equivalence. In the case of Islamic terrorism the dynamics of moral equivalence can be seen among some figures of the western intelligentsia in their vociferous moral indignation at the behavior of Western nations that, they allege, led to acts of terror, and their understanding attitude towards the terrorist acts themselves (HRC). Even if they do not intentionally excuse terrorism, such writers produce the unhappy consequence of explaining Islamic terrorism in terms of Western misdeeds and faults, and of framing the debate in terms of what the West did to deserve such attacks and, therefore, reverse the moral equation. The Westâ(TM)s âoewrongsâ come to be seen as more reprehensible than the reaction (however âoeharshâ and inexcusable) by terrorists. The easy moral challenge is: âoeAre we not hypocrites, when we do the same thing?â

At some level, this is a pathology of self-criticism (MOS) â" it is all our fault, and if we were better, then we could fix everything. Meanwhile, while we demand the highest standards of ourselves, we treat the terrorists as morally challenged, who canâ(TM)t even understand the questions of intention and cannot be expected to self-criticize. We become incapable of making the distinction between victims and perpetrators, and end up blaming the victim.

Re:Persecution of Christians

[sociocapitalist]

All the above links are all based on what actually had happened. They are not propaganda.

All newspapers have spin and are mechanisms of propaganda. You can't know what actually happened for sure unless you were there.

I am not saying that Pakistani christians aren't being persecuted. There is persecution of minorities in every country in the world to one degree or another often resulting in degraded living conditions and death for those of the minority. Muslims persecute Christians, Christians persecute Muslims, blacks persecute whites and whites persecute blacks, Chinese / Japanese, Jews / Palestinians...the list goes on without end and that's just today, never mind what happened in the middle ages. Not much of it makes it into the news because it happens all the time which means it isn't sensational and as such doesn't 'sell papers'. Only when there are genocides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Genocide ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide ) do such items make it into the news.

But you do not get to read any of that in the main stream media, do you?

That is because the Western main stream media, - from New York Times to Le Monde of France, - are being controlled by the liberals who hate Christianity more than anything else.

They will not report any news on the persecution of the Christian minority in Indonesia or in Pakistan.

Putting your obvious right wing religious basis aside for a moment, I'll just say that you don't get stories on such topics in the US mainstream media because you get almost nothing in the US mainstream media of any substance unless it directly affects the US or US interests. This is not specific to any particular set of minority bashing (or any other number of subjects that get ignored in the US), but is a general reality for the media.

But if ever there is a single case of Muslim being hurt or killed, you bet on the next day those liberal controlled main-stream-media will have their BIG HEADLINE blaring "Evil Christian killing peace loving Muslims !!!"

This is just wrong. The American media, for instance, plays down what Israel does in Palestine all the time to the point where Americans generally haven't got the slightest clue of what actually goes on there.

Re:Even without the drones. Pakistanis don't like

[Anonymous Coward]

Dissatisfaction with the current incompetent administration != hatred of the USA

Re:US military doctrine is simple to understand...

[xevioso]

To make Brown Jesus, you'd need to mix Red Jesus, Yellow Jesus, and Blue Jesus.

If you are making a watercolor Jesus, you'd need something like veridian Jesus and alizarin crimson Jesus mixed together. I'm not sure what the easiest RGB Jesus values would give you a Brown Jesus, but it shouldn't be too hard to find.

Re:Even without the drones. Pakistanis don't like

[hey!]

Is the Pakistani government an enemy of the US and often works against US interests?

Yes.

Is the Pakistani government an ally of the US that shares intelligence with the US and often allows US military to operate on Pakistani soil?

Yes.

Isn't that schizophrenic?

Yep.

Like the US, Pakistan has an elected government. Unlike the US, it has governmental organs that aren't fully under the control of civilian elected officials. The Pakistani military and intelligence services are independent national institutions (Egypt is this way as well) and within those institutions you have various fiefdoms and power centers. The Egyptian military is this way as well, almost forming a distinct society within the society with its own economic and social welfare programs.

Imagine you have a country governed by warlords. There might be some order of precedence or honor which theoretically unifies the country, but still some of the those warlords might be your "friends" and others your enemies. There's nothing mystifying about that. Now imagine those petty rulers aren't warlords who control territory, but bureaucrats that control various state functions. It's not that different.

Re:Justified

[wierd_w]

*gets asbestos suit on, affixes thermally resistant aluminum tape hat*

By that reasoning, it could be stated "I don't feel sorry for 'civilians' working for the financial entities behind the abuses in our country"

Just thought I should point that out. The twin tower destruction plan was a strategic one, as well as a terrorist attack. Bin Laden may have been an assfuck, but he wasn't a completely stupid one. He chose the trade center because it was a symbol of american led international business activity; something he directly associated with the continuing problems he saw in his part of the world.

The (suspected) muslims in this thead are right: the problem is the US's insatiable desire to control foriegn markets to hold up a faulted domestic business model. That model? "Cheap energy and heavy consumerism are A-OK, and need to continue forever, no matter what the price."

Want to see the hate in the middle east dry up? Multilateral withdrawl of all financial and military interests in the middle east by *all* western powers.

They will exhaust their resources, and poof... dry up and blow away.

The US won't get as many terrorists, we won't have to keep killing brown people, and things will be way better politically.

Oh, but then it would cost you 10$/gal to fill your hummer?

What a shame.

Re:74% of Pakistanis now consider the U.S. an enem

[psherman2001]

When I read a couple years ago that a strike had killed "mostly" militants, then the next day bombed everyone at the funeral... I felt suddenly empty. Who in their right mind would NOT think badly of the country responsible?

I love my country and consider myself quite patriotic, but these drone attacks are shameful. They should be stopped. Aside from the obvious moral imperative, there is the practicality of it: every time we kill another "al-Qaeda #2" with these cowardly half-blind strikes from the sky we create many more enemies.

Why do I hear so little protest here in the US? What can the average Joe do to raise hell about it?
And where is the press on all this? I'm tired of hearing about Mitt Romney's taxes and President Obama's birth certificate. Let's get real.

We've met the enemy...

Re:Even without the drones. Pakistanis don't like

[fche]

What a strange thing to say. The videos/pictures/transcripts I read of tea party events were about as unabashedly patriotic as any.

You better come up with proofs

[Taco Cowboy]

Tea Partiers hate far more than just the current administration. They hate women's rights, they hate gay rights, they hate minority rights

You better come up with solid proof of what you said.

The term "TEA" stands for Tax Enough Already

The TEA party is about TAX - yes, TAX

It has nothing to do with hating women rights, or hating gays, or hating minority.

If you can't come up with solid proof of what you said, you are nothing but a pathetic liberal troll !

Re:74% of Pakistanis now consider the U.S. an enem

[anagama]

Also remember that what the Obama administration means when it says "militant", is a man or a boy killed by a drone. It will revert that to civilian if it is conclusively proven after the fact the person was innocent by some mystical secret standard. In other words, a great many of the "militants" really weren't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=4&_r=2
from page 4

"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."

Re:Even without the drones. Pakistanis don't like

[Immerman]

I think you're confusing "idiots" with "tyrants". Stripping us of our civil liberties without without triggering a revolt or even widespread protests is hardly the accomplishment of an idiot.