CIA's reign of terror

Good to see that some research is being carried out on the aftermath of drone strikes. It should have been ideally done by Pakistanis, anyways wont make any difference to the Americans.

The report that explains what US is doing to Fata people | DAWN.COM

**LONDON: ‘Living Under Drones’, a new report from Stanford and New York universities, was a difficult piece of fieldwork — I was with the law students in Peshawar as they tried to interview victims of the CIA’s drone war. But it has made an important contribution to the drone debate by identifying the innocent victims of the CIA’s reign of terror: the entire civilian population of Waziristan (roughly 800,000).
**

**Until now, the dispute has revolved around how many drone victims in the Pakistan border region are dangerous extremists, and how many children, women or men with no connection to a terrorist group. Until the area is opened up to media inspection, or the CIA releases the tapes of each Hellfire missile strike, the controversy will rage on.
**

However, there can be no sensible disagreement over certain salient facts: first, the US now has more than 10,000 weaponised drones in its arsenal; second, as many as six Predator drones circle over one location at any given time, often for 24 hours a day, with high-resolution cameras snooping on the movements of everyone below; third, the Predators emit an eerie sound, earning them the name bangana (buzzing wasp) in Pashtu; fourth, everyone can see them, 5,000ft up, all day — and hear them all night; fifth, nobody knows when the missile will come, and turn each member of the family into what the CIA calls a “bugsplat”.

The Predator operator, thousands of kilometres away in Nevada, often pushes the button over a cup of coffee in the darkest hours of the Waziristan night, between midnight and 5am. So a parent putting children to bed cannot be sure they will wake up safely.

Every Waziri town has been terrorised. We may learn this from the eyewitness accounts in ‘Living Under Drones’, or surmise it from the exponential increase in anti-anxiety and anti-depression medication across the region. Sometimes it is difficult for those in the west to understand. But for me, it brings to mind my mother, Jean Stafford Smith. In 1944 she was 17. She had left the safety of her school in the countryside to do a secretarial course in London. Each evening she took the bus home from Grosvenor Place, behind Buckingham Palace, to her digs off Tottenham Court Road. Back then, darkness would truly descend on the city, as the blackout was near total.

Sixty-eight years on, my mother retains vivid memories of the gathering gloom. When the doodlebugs (as V1s — Hitler’s drones — were called) came over, she knew that she was safe so long as she could hear the engine; only when they fell silent did she have to worry where they might fall.

In 1944, two doodlebugs hit the environs of Buckingham Palace, near where my mother learned shorthand. One blew out the secretarial school’s windows. A second killed more than 100 people who had been singing hymns in the Guards Chapel on Birdcage Walk. It was a weekend, so my mother was back at her digs.

My mother, an eternal optimist, never really thought she was going to die, even when — on June 30 1944 — a drone struck Tottenham Court Road. Perhaps reminiscent of the tragedy of 7/7 (the tube and bus attacks in 2005), a witness described “a bus, still packed with people sitting in all the seats, but all the glass blown out and all the skin blown off their faces”.

Many suffered far more than my mother. Indeed, fear for those you love can be more devastating than facing danger yourself: my grandmother Vera, a formidable woman, lived 60 miles north of London near Ely, and worried constantly about her youngest daughter. The ripples of anxiety spread wide.

So little changes. Current RAF doctrine tells us, euphemistically, how “the psychological impact of air power, from the presence of a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) to the noise generated by an approaching attack helicopter, has often proved to be extremely effective in exerting influence…” Perhaps they mean “terror”, as described by David Rohde, a former New York Times journalist held by the Taliban for months in Waziristan.

Rohde describes the fear the drones inspired in ordinary civilians: “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.”

**I hope that this report reminds us all what the US — with British support — is doing to the people of Pakistan. Maybe then there will be less surprise at the hatred the drone war is engendering in the Islamic world — and a chance that we will reconsider what we are doing.
**

Clive Stafford Smith is director of Reprieve
—By arrangement with The Guardian

Re: CIA’s reign of terror

Did this article just imply that CIA is the US’s arm of terror ?

The Predator operator, thousands of kilometres away in Nevada, often pushes the button over a cup of coffee in the darkest hours of the Waziristan night, between midnight and 5am. So a parent putting children to bed cannot be sure they will wake up safely.

This is disgusting.

And then this ‘operator/murderer’ leaves early from work to attend his kid’s soccer game. :chai:

Re: CIA’s reign of terror

Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says - CNN.com

CNN) – U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have killed far more people than the United States has acknowledged, have traumatized innocent residents and largely been ineffective, according to a new study released Tuesday.

The study by Stanford Law School and New York University’s School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of “high-level” targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low – about 2%.

The report accuses Washington of misrepresenting drone strikes as “a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the U.S. safer,” saying that in reality, “there is significant evidence that U.S. drone strikes have injured and killed civilians.”

It also casts doubts on Washington’s claims that drone strikes produce zero to few civilian casualties and alleges that the United States makes “efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability.”

Re: CIA's reign of terror

alot has been written against drone strikes and the horrible effects on people of FATA. but, would US stop them anytime soon? doesnt really matter if they are violating international law, they dont care, because they think they are the law.

I was reading this article by some poli sci prof in States and he emphasized how drone attacks should be continued, because they are weakening taliban and that they have done more good than harm, these guys who write these articles sitting in their cozy lavish houses have no clue about the ground realities in Pakistan, they dont know that how second person in Pakistan tribal areas has lost someone due to this so called war on terror.They are just using this as a tool to appease their citizens, that hey we are winning this war, we are killing bad guys, by bombing innocent women and children and at the end of the day, call it collateral damage! disgusting!

Re: CIA's reign of terror

The problem is the entire study is based on interview and eye witness accounts. In a situation like that exists in Pakistan today, there is no way of verifying. Two thinks one will have to consider here. a) The 90% population in the target area hates US b) loud explosion in the middle of night could be anything, rival group bombing (suicide bombing), people wake up in the morning thinking it was drone (remember drones make no noise).

In any case, most studies are funded by some group; professors get rich and research students get paid until they too get a job and own funding. I prefer writers, who spend considerable amount of time on ground live the life, understand the population and then write a book.

Re: CIA's reign of terror

^^Forget EVERYTHING, how would you sleep at night when you are not sure if you will not be able to see your children/parents in the morning because either you, them or all of you may get killed just because some suspected militants live/roaming in your area?

Re: CIA's reign of terror

Ultimately, it is the failure of the pakistani government / establishment that it is allowing it to happen. I know that drones are evil, but what leg can Pakistan stand on when on one hand it agrees that N Waz is full of bad people but then not take any action on it? I agree with Imran that Pakistan should not be accepting "aid" from the US for such things, but I would go further and have Army kick these people out since police can't really police any area that is full of paramilitary organizations.

PS There is an interesting debate on New York Times on this issue, and the minority opinion in favor of drone strikes by Christine Fair is that not only do Pakistani goals differ on "terrorists", but drone strikes have less collateral damage than pakistani artillery attacks. Coming to think of it, where the f*ck is the army's / FC's COIN strategy when we have been fighting this war for over a decade?

Re: CIA's reign of terror

so do we believe the Americans that the drones only target terrorists?

As far as increasing anti Americanism is concerned, you need to thank the drone strikes for that. They are the main reason for increase in anti American sentiments even in those countries where the Americans have not used drones. You will find many articles as to how drones are increasing anti US sentiments in the wider middle east due to drone attacks in Yemen. The people of FATA are in the middle of the war for more than 7 years and you think that they can't differentiate between drone strikes and bombs, secondly your administration owns them up with pride.

Re: CIA's reign of terror

I can't believe there are still some guppies here who support drone attacks. Disgusting.

Re: CIA’s reign of terror

Analysts say

Analysts say ‘trauma’ of drone strikes is fueling anti-American sentiment

**The White House’s policy to mitigate civilian deaths in its armed drone campaign against al Qaeda is “ambiguous at best” and sowing anti-American feelings in the Mideast and around the world, according to a new report. **

Drafted by analysts at Stanford University and the New York University School of Law, the report claims U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere are “giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities” in areas where drone strikes are carried out.

The anxiety about the strikes is creating a groundswell of anti-American sentiment that al Qaeda and other terror groups have used to increase their footholds, according to the report.

Efforts by the White House, Pentagon and U.S. intelligence community to ensure civilians are not harmed during drone strikes are “ambiguous” and counterproductive to U.S. counterinsurgency operations running in tandem with the drone strikes.

**One of the researchers quoted a resident in North Waziristan, Pakistan, where many of the drone strikes have been targeted.

"Before the drone attacks, we didn’t know [anything] about America,” the Pakistani said. “Now everybody has come to understand and know about America … [and] almost all people hate America.” **

The report’s release coincides with high-level diplomatic talks between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and various leaders in the Arab World during the United National General Assembly meeting in New York.

In June, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said the international body is considering holding investigations into U.S. policies governing the strikes.

The investigations would focus on the rate of civilian casualties generated by the American drone campaign, and whether those casualties constituted human-rights violations, Pillay said at the time.

“Drone attacks do raise serious questions about compliance with international law,” she told reporters in Islamabad after a four-day visit with the country’s leaders that month.

The expanded authorities implemented by the Obama administration regarding drone strikes has allowed U.S. military and intelligence officers to hammer away at suspected terror targets with increased accuracy.

Most recently, an American drone strike in northwest Pakistan reportedly killed four suspected terrorists on Tuesday, including Abu Kasha al-Iraqi, a high-ranking al Qaeda planner and facilitator, according to reports by Radio Free Europe.

Last Saturday, U.S. drones killed three suspected al Qaeda operatives traveling in a vehicle near the town of Mir Ali, the main town in the northwest quadrant of Pakistan.

Despite such successes, critics continue to argue the expanded drone strike policy includes loopholes allowing the White House to claim drops in collateral damage, when in reality the strikes are no safer to civilians than before.

One loophole is that U.S. military and intelligence officials can operate under the assumption any individual in or around a suspected terror target — whether it’s a house, car or building — can be considered terrorist suspects.

If those individuals are killed during a drone strike, those deaths can be counted as legitimate kills, even if there is no tangible proof those killed had any terrorist ties.

But the mere threat of a misfired missile from an American drone has been enough to terrorize, and in some cases radicalize, wide swaths of civilian populations in the Mideast region, particularly in Northwest Pakistan, according to the report.

“Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning,” the report said.

“Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves,” it added.

— This story was updated at 12:20 p.m.

Re: CIA's reign of terror

On this forum and others we have been pointing this fact for months if not years that drone strikes are counterproductive as they increase anti American sentiment on one side and undermines the governments where they are being conducted on the other.

Drone strikes results in feelings of helplessness, despair amongst the aggrieved people and smacks of arrogance of the US which results in anger towards them.

The correlation between the strikes and the sentiments towards US is directly proportional, but if still the Americans want to use them best of luck to them.

Re: CIA's reign of terror

If you believe, America has the right to act on these terrorists, because Pakistan (willingly or otherwise) given permission to do this, then you would accept that this is the least damaging way to go after them. Any other form of attack land or air based would cause more civilian damage. If you believe, that US should not touch these guys and allow Pakistan to continue the policy of start sponsored terror, then it is wrong.