Brian Williams - Predators

REPORTS THAT DRONES ATTACK CIVILIANS AT FUNERALS AND KILL RESCUERS WHO COME TO AID DRONE VICTIMS

There has been no group more active in lobbying against the drones than the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism. In February 2012 the bureau published a damning article that was picked up by the New York Times , London’s Sunday Times , and other newspapers and bloggers across the globe. The article, titled “Obama Terror Drones: CIA Tactics in Pakistan Include Targeting Rescuers and Funerals,” reported that the drones had killed numerous civilians while they were either trying to help those previously targeted by drones or attending funerals for drone victims. 168A New York Times account of the bureau’s investigation, titled “US Said to Target Rescuers at Drone Sites,” read as follows:

British and Pakistani journalists said Sunday that the C.I.A.’s drone strikes on suspected militants in Pakistan have repeatedly targeted rescuers who responded to the scene of a strike, as well as mourners at subsequent funerals. The report, by the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, found that at least 50 civilians had been killed in follow-up strikes after they rushed to help those hit by a drone-fired missile. The bureau counted more than 20 other civilians killed in strikes on funerals. The findings were published on the bureau’s Web site and in The Sunday Times of London. 169

After reading the report, antidrone activist Clive Stafford Smith, a lawyer who heads a British-American charity called Reprieve, which is opposed to drones, said that such “double-tap” strikes “are like attacking the Red Cross on the battlefield. It’s not legitimate to attack anyone who is not a combatant.” Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions as of 2010, concurred with Stafford Smith and added, “Allegations of repeat strikes coming back after half an hour when medical personnel are on the ground are very worrying. To target civilians would be crimes of war.” 170Such reactions were typical among readers, who doubtless envisioned the drones firing on responding paramedics and concerned civilians desperately trying to dig fellow civilians out of the rubble of a drone strike.

What most stories in the media that covered the Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s investigation did not report were the further details found on the bureau’s website. According to the site,

The first confirmed attack on rescuers took place in North Waziristan on May 16, 2009. According to Mushtaq Yusufzai, a local journalist, Taliban militants had gathered in the village of Khaisor. After praying at the local mosque, they were preparing to cross the nearby border into Afghanistan to launch an attack on US forces. But the US struck first [author’s emphasis].

A CIA drone fired its missiles into the Taliban group, killing at least a dozen people. Villagers joined surviving Taliban as they tried to retrieve the dead and injured. But as rescuers clambered through the demolished house the drones struck again. Two missiles slammed into the rubble, killing many more. At least 29 people died in total.

“We lost very trained and sincere friends,” a local Taliban commander told The News, a Pakistani newspaper. “Some of them were very senior Taliban commanders and had taken part in successful actions in Afghanistan. Bodies of most of them were beyond recognition.” 171

Essentially, the civilians killed in this drone strike were assisting Taliban militants who, before the drone struck them, had been “preparing to cross the nearby border into Afghanistan to launch an attack on US forces.” The civilians were thus aiding and abetting active Taliban militants whom the Pakistani, Afghan, and U.S. governments consider terrorists. The U.S. government had previously dropped leaflets in the FATA warning local tribesmen that if they assisted the terrorists, they would share their fate. 172

Three independent studies discussed in chapter 7have demonstrated that approximately 95 percent of those who are targeted in drone strikes are militants. Thus it follows that the vast majority of those who are being removed or rescued from the rubble of a drone strike are Taliban militants or al Qaeda terrorists, not civilians. In fact, in many, if not most, cases those who are removing the victims from the rubble are themselves Taliban militants; there are very few if any emergency medical technicians, paramedics, or first responders in this undeveloped area. The Taliban militants are the de facto authorities in these regions, so their presence at the scenes of attacks is not surprising.

There are scores of media reports of the Taliban “cordoning off” drone strike zones and “conducting recovery operations.” 173A typical account reads, “A local resident said he was woken by two loud explosions around 4 a.m. on Thursday. Militants rushed to the site immediately after the attack to clear the rubble and retrieve the bodies, he said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.” 174A second report states, “First a volley of four missiles hit a compound in the village of Mizar Madakhel. After Taliban fighters cordoned the area and began to recover bodies, a second volley was fired. Initial reports indicated that 12 Taliban fighters were killed.” 175A third source reads, “Eight militants were killed and two wounded. Militants have surrounded the [targeted] compound and are removing the dead bodies.” 176Another local Pashtun source claims, “The reason why these estimates about civilian ‘casualties’ in the US and Pakistani media are wrong is that after every attack the terrorists cordon off the area and no one, including the local villagers, is allowed to come even near the targeted place. The militants themselves collect the bodies, bury the dead and then issue the statement that all of them were innocent civilians.” 177A BBC story similarly reported, “Officials say that local Taliban militants immediately cordoned off the [strike] area and closed the road in the aftermath of the attack.” 178The Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy, a think tank of researchers and political activists from the North-West Frontier Province and FATA, similarly reported, “People told me that typically what happens after every drone attack is that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda terrorists cordon off the area. No one from the local population is allowed to access the site, even if there are local people killed or injured.” 179Civilians are rarely able to rush to the scene of a drone strike on Taliban terrorists and insurgents in order to help wounded militants or retrieve their bodies.

So well-known is the Taliban’s propensity to cordon off areas where their comrades have been killed or wounded in a drone strike that a FATA-based Pakistani official even offered the Americans some advice on how to kill more Taliban using drones. According to Al Jazeera, “He explained that after a strike, the terrorists seal off the area to collect the bodies; in the first 10–24 hours after an attack, the only people in the area are terrorists. You should hit them again—there are no innocents there at that time.” 180FATA-based scholar Farhat Taj similarly wrote, “Your new drone attack strategy is brilliant, i.e., one attack closely followed by another. After the first attack the terrorists cordon off the area and none but the terrorists are allowed on the spot. Another attack at that point kills so many of them. Excellent! Keep it up!” 181

Clearly the CIA has taken this advice and, on the basis of many reports of Taliban militants rushing to the scenes of drone attacks to save their buried or wounded comrades, begun targeting those who arrive at drone strike locations to rescue wounded militants. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism surely realized that in the vast majority of cases those who are killed or wounded in the drone strikes are themselves Taliban militants and that those who are killed in follow-up strikes are more than likely also Taliban militants. Yet they chose to completely omit this important detail in their scathing report.