Drones

Here's a List of 700 (Out of At Least 2,300) People Killed in U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan

|

drone survivor in congress, five representatives showed up
trust.org/flickr

The Bureau of Investigative Justice (BIJ) has compiled a list of more than 700 names of people killed in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan—representing less than a third of known casualties. The BIJ says 323 of those names are of civilians and classifies each victim as a "reported civilian" or "alleged militant," based on interviews conducted in Pakistan and combing through media reports and Pakistani government documents. Of the 323 "reported civilians," 99 are children.

The BIJ explains:

Senior US officials have described drones as highly precise weapons that target and kill enemies of the US. John Brennan, who oversaw the development of the drone campaign and is now director of the CIA, has called drone technology an 'essential tool' for its 'surgical precision – the ability, with laser-like focus, to eliminate the cancerous tumour called an al Qaeda terrorist while limiting damage to the tissue around it.'

Those killed by drones include high-ranking militant leaders – figures such as Abu Yahya al Libi, al Qaeda's feared second-in-command, or Baitullah Mehsud, commander of the Pakistan Taliban (TTP).

But according to credible media reports analysed by the Bureau, the dead also include at least 400 civilians. Some were unlucky enough to be nearby when militants were attacked. Others were killed alongside their husbands or fathers, who were believed to be militants. Still others were mistaken for terrorists by drone operators sitting thousands of miles away.

The U.S. government considers any military-aged (Muslim) male in an area it targets a militant. Even after the drone operations began to be widely reported in the media the U.S. officially considered the program covert. Last year Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged four U.S. citizens had been killed in drone strikes—three in Yemen and one in Pakistan, including Ayman al-Awlaki's teenaged son.

Read an interview with a former drone operator who couldn't participate in killing any more children.

And here's a 2012 Reason TV piece explaining three reasons U.S. drone policy is scary:

NEXT: White House Accidentally E-Mails Torture Report Talking Points to Associated Press

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Of the 323 “reported civilians,” 99 are children.

    Now they’ll never grow up and become terrorists.

    1. Genius! I’ll compose the press release now…
      “It is now the official policy of the United States to recognize that every child has terrorist potential. Therefore, we are embarking on a radical pre-emptive retaliatory strike on all children, everywhere, so that none of them will ever grow up to threaten the United States or its interests. We urge congress to give their approval for this action, but we will carry out the strikes regardless. If it saves even one human life from the threat of terrorism, it will have been a successful action. Failure to act now will see us lose our moral authority to be the driving force for freedom in the world, so I am authorizing the United States armed forces to begin bombing the children… for the children.” – Executive Order 13672

  2. Ed, I am no MathMGICIAN but I am pretty sure 2 + 3 is 17…not four.

    1. sneaky update Ed…
      *squints*
      I am watching you.

  3. Muslim math: 3=30, 10=100, 3+8=120, because 1=$

    1. We get it, you don’t like Muslims

      1. Actually, I don’t like anybody that intentionally lies about casualty numbers to garner sympathy and receive cash payouts.

        1. And your proof that the numbers reported here are lies? I look forward to seeing it.

          1. I’ve been there. I’ve actually seen the aftermath of an air strike, and I’ve actually seen the locals misrepresent the casualties. There’s ALWAYS about five-times the number of casualties claimed than actually occurred. There’s ALWAYS dead women and children. When you ask to see the bodies, they’ve ALWAYS already been buried (an hour after they were supposedly killed). Everybody is ALWAYS just innocent farmers and merchants, even when you’ve got recorded video feed that irrefutably shows them shooting at you an hour earlier. It’s how they play the game.

  4. The U.S. government considers any military-aged (Muslim) male in an area it targets a militant.

    The same justification the Germans used in the London bombing campaign and our government used in Dresden.

    1. Yup, and (to the best of my knowledge) not ever called out as a war crime. On either side.

  5. The uniformed services are supposed to have PID – positive identification of who, or at least a demonstrated hostile action/intent (ie. planting an IED, it does not matter if they know who you are). It appears the CIA has a SID – sort of ID… kind of the Chicago PD’s “he’s a mope, so he deserves __________”. I hope the DoD gets away having any involvement in this type of stuff (if they still do at this point, and it isn’t all CIA/NSA/DIA/WHATEV)

  6. During World War II, we used to target civilian populations on purpose.

    The reason countries like the U.S. and Israel don’t carpet bomb, firebomb, or nuke civilian populations is because we care about civilian casualties.

    If our objective were to eliminate the threat of terrorism in Afghanistan, we could do that at a much loser price point with a bombing campaign that really doesn’t take civilian casualties into consideration. You know why we don’t do that?

    Because we do take civilian casualties into consideration.

    I don’t think it’s going overboard to suggest that drones are surgically precise when compared to the kinds of civilian casualties that would be inflicted by other weapons, both nuclear and conventional.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

    If you want to end the Afghanistan War, civilian casualties are a great reason to do that. But there’s no reason to pretend civilians casualties would be the same regardless of whether we were using drones in our bombing campaign. It’s possible we’re flying missions we wouldn’t fly otherwise because we can limit civilian casualties like we couldn’t before.

    1. Just a quibble, but aren’t we the only nation in the world that’s nuked a civilian population?

      1. I’m not sure what the quibble is about. Did I word something funny?

        We’re not the only country in the world that owns nuclear weapons and has restrained itself from using them against enemies that don’t possess them.

        The reason Israel doesn’t bomb the hell out of the Palestinians of Gaza and drive them all into the sea? Isn’t because they don’t care about civilian casualties. Why they care may be up to debate.

        Maybe they only care because they’d lose our support if they did that. Maybe the only reason the Pentagon cares about civilian casualties is because the American people will only accept so much. Regardless, the reason we do things like drone strikes is because we want to limit civilian casualties.

        Korean War B-52’s doing high altitude bombing would also be effective, also present no threat to pilots, and it would probably cost less than putting troops on the ground. So don’t we do that?

        I suspect we use drones, instead, to limit civilian casualties.

        1. My quibble is that we are, in fact, the only nation the has used a nuclear (atomic,really) weapon against a civilian population.

          As to this statement: I suspect we use drones, instead, to limit civilian casualties.

          I would say I suspect we use drones because it’s easier to kill somebody when you’re playing a video game than when you’re looking down the sights at a dirt hut in the middle of nowhere 15,000 miles away and trying to kid yourself into believing that what you’re looking at is a threat to the security of the United States of America.

          1. I would say I suspect we use drones because it’s easier to kill somebody when you’re playing a video game than when you’re looking down the sights at a dirt hut in the middle of nowhere 15,000 miles away and trying to kid yourself into believing that what you’re looking at is a threat to the security of the United States of America.

            This made me laugh. Not because of anything in particular, but because I imagined myself baking in a fucking desert looking at that dirt hut through a scope, and then imagined myself saying “fuck this bullshit” and going home, leaving my shit there.

          2. I honestly don’t think the policy makers at the Pentagon are worried about how the troops feel looking down the sites of their guns.

            From the perspective of a pilot, high altitude bombing may actually be more impersonal than looking through the camera of a drone.

    2. But there’s no reason to pretend civilians casualties would be the same regardless of whether we were using drones in our bombing campaign.

      Is anyone pretending that?

      1. Yeah. The “we’d be murdering more innocent people if we carpet bombed them” is a pretty shitty defense of bombing a bunch of innocent people to death by remote control.

        1. Somehow, the “We’re at least murdering them humanely!” defense doesn’t fly with me. No pun intended.

          1. Yeah,well,you’re a,decent human being and not the kind of sociopath that thinks murdering civilians is OK so long as it’s done in the name of freedom.

        2. That’s not what I’m saying.

          “If you want to end the Afghanistan War, civilian casualties are a great reason to do that.”

          I’m on board with ending the war, but I’m not willing to pretend things are other than the way they are in order to accomplish that.

          And if this piece is questioning whether drone strikes really minimize civilian casualties? Then, yeah, there’s some wishful thinking going on–if you don’t like the word “pretending”.

          1. And if this piece is questioning whether drone strikes really minimize civilian casualties? Then, yeah, there’s some wishful thinking going on–if you don’t like the word “pretending”.

            Drone strikes only minimize civilian casualties if you assume all drone strikes were both necessary and performed with the necessary level of due diligence.

            1. Know what a good way to minimize civilian casualties would be?

              Quit fucking blowing shit up.

              1. Aye. This.

            2. How is that different from carpet bombing?

              Again, look at photos from the firebombing of Tokyo or Hamburg or Dresden.

              I think this is a question of the baseline you want to use. If you’re comparing drone strikes to not bombing anyone at all, then drone strikes kill more civilians than the alternative.

              However, if they’re going to have a war over my objections, then, certainly, drone strikes cause fewer civilian casualties than the other options. Why pretend otherwise?

              We’re not going to convince anyone who supports the war now to be against it by trying to get them to believe that drone strikes cause civilian casualties just like the other options. It just isn’t so.

              To me? This is like Obama or Tony telling us that raising the capital gains tax won’t have a negative impact on the level of investment. Yes it will! …even if it just means we’ll have less in the future than would have had otherwise.

              It’s possible we fly missions now that we wouldn’t otherwise because the casualties drones cause are so much lower than they were by conventional bombing. I’ll concede that.

          2. First,,explain what the war in Afghanistan has to do with us murderdroning people in Pakistan and Yemen.

            Second,explain how using a drone is different than using a plane to bomb people in any way other than to remove the personal experience of looking down a sight at an actual human target that poses no threat to you or American safety.

            The drone campaign is meant to make war more palatable to those asked to wage it. Any civilian casualties were worried about limiting extend no further than the civilians flying these drones in an air conditioned room in the Nevada desert. Because if we gave even the slightest fuck about Pakistani civilians, we’d not be bombing them as we go after nebulous targets we’ve never justified.

            1. Bullshit. There’s a few thousand people in the military that would have no problem being inserted into Pakistan or Yemen and personally shooting “bad guys” in the face, and the idea that we’re randomly expending $120,000 missiles on “an actual human target that poses no threat to you or American safety.” is more bullshit.

              1. You think we’d get thousands of soldiers in our professional military to trek the thousands of miles to the middle of nowhere and scope in on the head of some dirt farmer in a hut with no water or power and pull the trigger merely because the target is over 18? Oh,,did I mention that he’d be in a nation we’ve not declared hostilities with?

                I think if you did that, you’d have mass desertion and possibly rebellion within the ranks against the officers issuing the “kill any adult male in the region, it’s cool” order. At least I would hope so.

                Col John, what are your thoughts?

                1. Here’s where your thinking is wrong: We’re not droning or shooting “any adult male in the region”, dumb-ass. We’re not targeting “some dirt farmer in a hut”. It’s just not happening, no matter how much you’d like to think it is.

                  1. If were not doing that, then why do the ROE’s qualify those me. As the legitimate targets?

                    Is it so we can classify them as a terrorist kill rather than a civilian kill after we fuck up and blow,up the wrong wedding party? Or is it so we can bolster our war effort by claiming more terrorist kills simply,by rigging the math?

                    Because in my estimation it’s got to be one or the other.

                    1. That’s just it: The ROE are very specific. Nobody is blowing up “the wrong wedding party”, and nobody is randomly targeting military-aged-males.

                      Ever seen a Pakistani or Afghan Taliban “wedding party”? The females are separate; not even allowed outside with all the men around. If you’re a Taliban, and all your wedding guests are Taliban, you’re fair game.

                2. It would not be a lawful order to “just go shoot someone 18 and up without PID”.

    3. We’re flying drones because the military ROE’s would never allow,for the fast and loose bombing rationale the CIA is employing when they call all adult males in a region to be terrorists.

    4. Bombing a hostile population has no chance of eliminating a terrorist threat since the more brutal you are, the more vengeful the survivors will be.

      Unless you are planning on making a desert and calling it peace, carpet bombing is worthless against an enemy that is resorting to terrorism.

      1. One way to make sure Afghanistan was free of terrorists? Would be to make Afghanistan free of people.

        We can do that at little expense, but it requires a total, complete disregard for civilian casualties.

        I don’t think a lot of people really grok what our capabilities are. It may be because of evolving social norms or whatever–but I think it’s more likely a function of technological innovation.

        Don’t want to talk about World War II? How ’bout Vietnam? Between Laos and Cambodia and Vietnam proper, we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians with our bombing there.

        If it weren’t for drones, we’d probably see numbers like that in Afghanistan proportional to the population. Why wouldn’t we?

        1. One way to make sure Afghanistan was free of terrorists? Would be to make Afghanistan free of people.

          Better men than you have tried. Carpet bombing rarely exterminates everyone

          Even if the U.S launched every nuke in their arsenal and created a dead-zone as big as they could make, there would be neighbors in the adjacent not-everyone-died zones swearing to avenge their friends.

          If one wants to stamp out terrorism, attacking civilian populations is about the most counterproductive method possible, since it breeds far more enemies than it eliminates.

          1. Germany and Japan are both our allies now.

            And they’re more pacifist than we are.

            Anyway, I’m not advocating total destruction. I’m saying that carpetbombing and the like is the kinds of other options we should be comparing drone strikes to.

            1. … and the Japanese and the Germans weren’t engaging in terrorism prior to the carpet bombing.

              … moreover, when some of the natives *did* experiment with terrorism against the occupation forces, the U.S. didn’t use reprisals, and eventually the terrorism ended.

              So if you are hoping to back up your argument, I’m afraid you’ve selected the wrong examples.

    5. Soooo…are we at war with Pakistan and Yemen now?

      Silly question, of course we are, otherwise these drone strikes would qualify as war crimes.

  7. If they didn’t want to be droned, they shouldn’t have been born terrorists.

    1. If they want to live without a government, maybe they should move to Somalia.

  8. It appears the CIA has a SID – sort of ID… kind of the Chicago PD’s “he’s a mope, so he deserves __________”.

    Sketchy motherfuckers are always up to *something*. You can smell the crime on ’em. Drone ’em all, and let what’sisname sort ’em out.

    1. Sketchy motherfuckers are always up to *something*. You can smell the crime on ’em. Drone ’em all, and let what’sisname sort ’em out.

      Wait, I actually believe that, but about the US Government.

    2. I am so stealing “You can smell the crime on ’em. “

  9. I don’t understand the term “reported civilians.” Are there dead unreported civvies too? Is there question as to whether or not they’re bystanders? If so, what happened to “innocent until proven guilty?”

    They’re either innocent bystanders or they are not. If there is a question about which of these two they are, then the default should be bystander, and the term “reported civilians” should be removed from the asshole that made it up’s lexicon.

    1. It just means they were reported as civilians. And yes, there are unreported civilian deaths too. I think that would be the known unknowns.

      1. Right, but why even bother with the “reported” qualifier? It’s an adjective used to create some kind of doubt. What purpose does the false implied doubt serve?

        1. Let’s say my brother is making a bomb, and he gets killed by a missile. I could falsely claim that we was a civilian…. that would make my brother a “reported civilian”.

          If I am reading correctly, it’s used to mean that there is an unconfirmed claim of civilianness.

  10. I followed the link about the interview and was surprised to see I had a hat tip for it. Anyway, in my search, I came across this oldie-but-goodie.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuF03PTNpp8

  11. I believe drone bombing ought to be outlawed by the Geneva Convention. If you can’t at least look the person or target in the eye that you’re going to destroy then it isn’t worth destroying. And a bunch of slapdicks sitting in their air conditioned CIA offices in Nevada sipping on Big Gulps while they murder innocent people is a lot easier than a pilot/bombardier looking down a sight at a dirt hut with no water or electricity 15,000 miles from their home and saying “this seems like the kind of person that is a direct threat to the security of the United States”.

    1. Nobody is saying “this seems like the kind of person that is a direct threat to the security of the United States”. There’s a long, drawn-out vetting process for targeting an individual. A Target Package is reviewed by attorneys, JAG officers, and a whole host of people. For a Target Package to be approved, there’s got to be irrefutable evidence that the target is a bad guy.

      This isn’t 1776, where we line up in brightly-colored uniforms and shoot at each other. There’s no difference between looking at a target through thermal/IR optics from 5 miles, or 5000 miles. It all looks the same. The only difference is that there’s no pilot in danger when he’s sitting 5000 miles away.

      1. A Target Package is reviewed by attorneys, JAG officers, and a whole host of people. For a Target Package to be approved, there’s got to be irrefutable evidence that the target is a bad guy.

        CITATION FUCKING REQUIRED!!!!!!!!!!

        1. Sorry, sloppy, you don’t have the proper clearances to be told that information. Trust them.

          1. Auto correct apparently hates you, sloopy.

      2. Generally “irrefutable evidence” is supposed to be considered at trial prior to conviction and sentencing. If you’re going to add all this legal baggage to the normal conduct of war, which is “there’s a guy in the wrong uniform with a gun! Shoot him!” then why not go the full distance and apprehend and try the target?

        Or don’t bother at all and just kill them all? Your attempt to justify this stuff with legal maneuvering and procedure is simply hand waving. Why bother making up all that stuff to pretty up the reality?

      3. A Target Package is reviewed by attorneys, JAG officers, and a whole host of people. For a Target Package to be approved, there’s got to be irrefutable evidence that the target is a bad guy.

        According to the Obama admin, the vetting process consists of: if he’s 18 or up, he’s a valid target. And you don’t see how this pulls us down from the moral high ground here?

        1. Really? Sounds like bullshit to me, because I’ve seen enough target packages to know that it’s bullshit.

      4. There’s a long, drawn-out vetting process for targeting an individual.

        Except they aren’t only targeting individuals, are they?

        Some of the missiles are hitting individuals who are deemed to be behaving suspiciously ie. signature strikes.

        1. Shit happens in war. Signature strikes usually involve a bunch of men running around carrying guns and RPG’s.

    2. “If you can’t at least look the person or target in the eye that you’re going to destroy then it isn’t worth destroying.”

      So the Navy and Air Force just got abolished?

      *ducks and runs from room*

  12. I’m not,gonna get my blood boiling any more arguing in the comments section. This is 10x as bad as an abortion thread for me because I can see nothing coming out of this other than to find out people I generally like might be war-mongering assholes.

    But I will say that anybody that supports America fighting an offensive but undeclared war against people that pose no threat,to us whatsoever has no idea what the principles of freedom are and deserves to experience the hell these,people are going through in our names all because they’re little more than a 19 year old that happened to be born in the wrong province in Pakistan.

    1. But why do you hate our BRAVE SOLDIERS sloopy?

      1. I love our soldiers. And I have faith that if they were issued orders to go into a region like this and kill any adult male in the area that they’d lay down their weapons and would arrest the officer issuing the order.

        That’s why we’re using CIA hacks in office building ps to murder these people instead of professional soldiers.

        1. It might interest you to note that the vast majority of drone flights are piloted by Air Force personnel, not the “CIA”.

          1. Majority of drone flights =/= majority of drone bombing missions.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

        2. Hey sloops, anti nut punch for ya:

          “Our first day patrolling in Iraq, the battalion commander pushed us outside the gate,” Salerno said. “He told us to shoot anybody wearing black.”

          To Salerno and Kent, the order was absurd. Not only was it immoral but it was impractical, because so many Iraqis are clothed in black garments and robes.

          Kent returned to the Tactical Operations Center to confront the battalion commander, Lt. Col. Charles Forshee. “We are not going to do that,” he informed him.

          “It is difficult for a new 2nd Lieut. to stand across the desk from a red-faced battalion commander who is screaming profanities at you and hold your ground,” Salerno said. “Chris Kent is a pillar of moral courage and I will always love him for that.”

          After a series of complaints about him, Forshee was relieved of command, his Army career ended.

          http://blog.oregonlive.com/ore…..s_chr.html

          1. But people say our soldiers would gleefully go in and kill any adult male, right? I have a lot more faith in our soldiers that they would react as Lt. Chris Kent.

            Thanks for the uplifting story.

            1. Some people also say our soldiers will unquestioningly go door to door to confiscate civilian-owned firearms.

              Both statements belie an incredible contempt of the intelligence and moral compass of the average soldier/sailor.

            2. I don’t recall anyone stating that “our soldiers would gleefully go in and kill any adult male”. Can you point out where that was posted?

          2. Imagine if the police did this type of thing…

            *dreamily contemplates a really great America*

    2. But, but, but if we don’t kill those poor goat farmers there then they’re going to use their nonexistent wealth to come to the USA and set up roadside bombs in Manhattan!

    3. Plus. fucking. one.

    4. I think maybe you need to visit “the wrong province in Pakistan”. As they’re cutting your head off with a dull knife and laughing about the gurgling sounds you’re making as you drown in your own blood, you’ll understand.

      1. Please point to the stories where the people from these provinces are coming to America and doing what you say they are.

        Links will help.

        1. News Flash: The border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is open. The Taliban regularly hole up in Pakistan for the winter, and cross into Afghanistan for the spring and summer “fighting season”. Their logistics support is in Pakistan. Their homes are in Pakistan. The Pakistani government not only allows the Taliban refuge, they actively supply them in order to destabilize Afghanistan. During the fighting season, they cross from Pakistan to Afghanistan and attack US forces. This is FACT. Now, is it your contention that we should allow them safe-haven in Pakistan?

          1. Where are the links, asshole?

            Or are you just gonna move the goalposts again? If so, can you move them all the way to the open Afghanistan-Yemen border?

            1. “Without doubt, Pakistan and its intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate of the army (ISI), have more influence over the Taliban than any other country or intelligence service. It provides critical safe haven and sanctuary to the groups’ leadership, advice on military and diplomatic issues, and assistance with fund raising. ”

              http://www.brookings.edu/resea…..ban-riedel

              “WASHINGTON ? The Taliban’s widening campaign in southern Afghanistan is made possible in part by direct support from operatives in Pakistan’s military intelligence agency, despite Pakistani government promises to sever ties to militant groups fighting in Afghanistan, according to American government officials.

              The support consists of money, military supplies and strategic planning guidance to Taliban commanders who are gearing up to confront the international force in Afghanistan that will soon include some 17,000 American reinforcements. ”

              http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03……html?_r=0

              Want more?

              1. Not too many headless bodies in pools of blood in those links.

                Also,since when were the Taliban, who we all but destroyed 9-10 years ago, a direct threat to the safety of thenUnited States?

                1. Just do a search for “beheading videos”. Watch a few of them, especially the one where they cut the head off the female Red Cross worker. Then get back to me on what terrible people we are for droning these “poor dirt-farmers”.

            2. As far as Yemen goes, we’re there at the invitation of the Yemeni govt.

              1. So we’re contract killers for the despots in Sana’a now? Because that’s basically what you’re saying.

                1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Yemen

                  Read and learn.

                  Of course, if you’re all about letting aircraft blow up in the skies over the US BEFORE we act, you still won’t get it.

          2. So you’ve got a ready explanation as to,why these bombing attacks, many not on the border, took place in the spring and summer fighting season? You know,when they’re supposed to be in Afghanistan cutting the have ads off of American soldiers and their families.

            http://apps.washingtonpost.com/foreign/drones/

            1. Because the Taliban leadership stays back in Pakistan, dumb-ass.

              1. Taliban leadership? Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

                If we were actually killing Taliban leaders we’d be plastering their rap sheets all over the nightly news.

                1. Get back to me when you actually know what you’re talking about. BTW, I spent 9 deployments in Afghanistan. NINE. I know what I’m talking about.

                  1. I’ve been to a hospital nine times, so,I’m prepared to conduct brain surgery.

                    1. Did you conduct brain surgery nine times while you were at the hospital? If so, you may just be qualified.

                    2. I hear you also have over 300 confirmed kills and are trained in gorilla warfare.

                    3. Fuck off.

            2. Sloopy, I would speculate that it is during the fighting season that there is activity that the US can use for targeting the networks, which extend back into Pakistan.

              1. Yeah, sometimes we used to watch the columns form up and come across – back when they were dumber about massing before leaving Pakistan. The A-10 pilots never had it so easy as 2004.

        2. Most of the people who were involved on 9/11, and those who were involved in the Bojinka plot, received training in Afghanistan and Pakistan, from terrorist groups supported by the Pakistani ISI.

  13. We’re using the Nancy Pelosi method of drone warfare: we have to kill them to find out what’s in them.

  14. I have no doubt that we have killed non-militants. However, I would like to see a little more skepticism on a couple of fronts:

    (1) Whether any given “innocent” target really was such. The militants don’t wear uniforms, you know, and all the incentives on the ground in Pakistan run toward identifying everyone as an innocent victim.

    (2) Whether any given “child” is or is not a militant. Just because you’re under 18 doesn’t mean you aren’t part of the movement, you know.

    Naturally, these caveats would be especially nice to see front and center on all reporting out of Gaza, but they should also be prominent on all reporting out of Pakistan.

    Oh, and Ed, its the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.