Is there any legitimate national security justification for keeping secret information about how many civilians the United States is killing in drone strikes? A bipartisan bill would require an accurate reporting on the key figure so an informed debate on drone strikes is possible.
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, we all believe that government should be transparent and accountable, right?
How should we decide where we stand on a controversial government policy? A crucial first step is to try to establish key facts in the public record.
CIA chief John Brennan – the same guy who has led efforts to obstruct the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation of CIA torture – has publicly claimed that civilian casualties resulting from its policy of conducting drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have been “exceedingly rare.” But the record of independent reporting strongly suggests that John Brennan’s claim was not true.
Can we have a meaningful democratic discussion about whether we should support the drone strike policy without being able to make an informed judgment on whether John Brennan’s claim was true or false?
Until now, there is no public official source of information on how many civilians have been killed by US drone strikes.
The US government has a count. But that number is “classified.” Because the US government’s accounting has been classified, it hasn’t been subject to sufficient democratic scrutiny.
Is there any legitimate national security justification for keeping this information classified? Is there any argument for keeping this information classified that would not apply to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on CIA torture?
At long last, two members of the House have taken a step to address this unacceptable situation, which, if it garnered public support, could have a meaningful impact. They introduced a bill to require a public report, expanding on a provision that was passed last fall by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) – a member of the House Intelligence Committee – and Walter Jones (R-NC) – a member of the House Armed Services Committee – have introduced legislation – the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act – to require an annual report on the number of combatants and civilians killed or injured annually by US drone strikes. The bill also requires that the report include the definitions of combatants and civilian noncombatants used. This is important because many people believe – indeed, The New York Times reported in May 2012 – that the CIA came up with its story that civilian casualties have been “exceedingly rare” by undercounting who was a “civilian.”
The bill also requires that the first annual report go back five years. This is important because US obligations to international law – in the wake of Crimea, we all support compliance with international law now, right? – demand accountability for past actions, not only future actions.
Here is what The New York Times reported in May 2012 about counting civilian casualties, for which the US government has never been effectively called to account:
Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. . . .
This counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths. . . .
But in interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed disbelief that the number could be so low. The CIA accounting has so troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have brought their concerns to the White House. One called it “guilt by association” that has led to “deceptive” estimates of civilian casualties.
“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.”
The Schiff-Jones bill has been endorsed by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
Whether the introduction of this legislation will mark a turning point in efforts to subject the drone strike policy to democratic scrutiny and the rule of law will significantly depend on whether members of the public rally behind the Schiff-Jones bill and press their representatives in Congress to cosponsor it.
That, dear reader, is up to you. You can ask your representative to cosponsor the Schiff-Jones bill here.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.