‘The last thing I want to do is kill kids’

Talk about it

As our air war against terrorists accelerates — with strikes by pilotless drone planes, helicopters, et al. — unintentional civilian deaths and serious injuries mount. A Feb. 22 Wall Street Journal report from Kabul begins: “U.S. Special Operations Forces (hunting down Taliban) ordered an air strike that killed at least 27 civilians, and the soldiers may not have satisfied rules of engagement designed to avoid the killing of innocents, Afghan and coalitions officials said.”

The account listed some previous “deadliest coalition mistakes,” noting that “the anger over such deaths runs deep here.” As it also does in Pakistan.

Not only civilians among our allies are greatly troubled. In Marjah, during the recent heavy allied offensive, U.S. Capt. Anthony Zinni, monitoring a live video feed from a Predator drone plane overhead about to strike, ordered a delay. Small, running figures in the video could have been children. (“Civilians in Crosshairs Slow Troops,” Wall Street Journal, Feb. 22).

There indeed were children, and when they seemed no longer in view, battalion operations officer Maj. John Harris said: “The last thing I want to do is kill kids. Once it’s confirmed there are no friendlies, (the strike) is approved.” Later, as approval was about to be given, kids came back, and the attack was aborted.

But others of our strikes there and elsewhere have killed kids. Are these unilateral presidential-authorized civilian killings justified in this global war against those who “want to kill us,” as our presidents have said?

Should corollary civilian deaths matter to us as Americans? Shouldn’t we know more about them? With regard to the actual targets of these strikes by, among others, the growing fleet of pilotless drones — including advanced models — the American Civil Liberties Union filed on Jan. 13 a Request Under (the) Freedom of Information Act (Expedited Processing Requested) that asks penetrating questions of the Departments of Defense, State and Justice (including the Office of Legal Counsel, of which John Yoo is a notorious graduate). And, of course, there are also questions for the shadowy CIA to answer.

Only limited, and soon abandoned, attention has been paid by the press to these queries that, as of this writing, have yet to be answered by the government. If President Obama’s silence continues, there may well be a lawsuit by the ACLU. I no longer expect Congress to be exercised by such stretchings of our increasingly quaint rule of law. Therefore, the ACLU forthrightly asks:

“We seek information about the legal basis in domestic, foreign (and) international law for the use of drones to conduct targeted killings, and the rules and standards that the Armed Forces and the CIA use to determine ...

“The targets ... especially in the face of anticipated civilian causalities.” To what extent, I would add, are these drone strikes called off if civilian casualties are anticipated?

The ACLU wants to know the “methods for determining the number of civilian and noncivilian casualties ... and the number of individuals — Al Qaeda, Afghan Taliban, other targeted individuals, innocent civilians, or otherwise — who have been killed or injured in these operations.”

But all this information is classified. Should it be secret, however, when the ACLU tries to find out who actually makes these terminal targeting decisions in real time? What are their qualifications for these death-and-life rulings?

“Reports also suggest,” the ACLU FOIA request continues, that in addition to Air Force and Special Forces personnel, nonmilitary personnel including CIA agents are making targeting decisions, piloting drones and firing missiles.”

Particularly disturbing, “Defense contractors also appear to be playing an important part in the drone program.” What training do they get in deciding who gets killed?

In a challenge worthy of Obama’s personal attention, the ACLU goes on: “It appears, therefore, that lethal force is being exercised by individuals who are not in the military chain of command, are not subject to military rules and discipline or oversight.”

This creates a disquieting concern: “Without official sources of information, current estimates of the number and proportions of civilians killed vary widely.” For instance, the ACLU points out, “Pakistani authorities believe 90 percent of those killed in drone strikes were civilians.” But CIA Director Leon Panetta “assured the Pacific Council on International Policy (May 18, 2009) that drone strikes involve ‘a minimum of collateral damage.’” Say it plain: The damage is civilian deaths.

What was the 2009 “minimum” in Pakistan, as Panetta defines “minimum”?

The ACLU quotes Jane Mayer’s invaluable “The Predator War” (New Yorker, Oct. 26, 2006). The drones-targeting killings, she wrote, “represent a radically new and unbounded use of state-sanctioned lethal force.” And, adds the ACLU, “the high number of civilian casualties is creating widespread hostility to the United States in local populations ... providing hostile organizations with a powerful propaganda tool, contributing to their growth.”

Here we go again, Mr. President — providing the terrorists with valuable recruiting tools. I know you don’t want to look back at your predecessors’ lethal mistakes, but you yourself are increasing targeted killings and corollary fatal mistakes right now, and we citizens are in the dark. Shouldn’t we know under what American laws and international treaties you are involving us in these civilian deaths?

Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. He is a member of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Cato Institute, where he is a senior fellow.

Copyright 2010, Nat Hentoff.

Distributed by United Feature Syndicate, Inc.

Tags: opinion, editorials, war, terrorists, coalition, military, killing, civilian