The CIA's unaccountable drone war claims another casualty

[Call for Change]

The CIA's unaccountable drone war claims another casualty

Last Friday, I met a boy, just before he was assassinated by the CIA. Tariq Aziz was 16, a quiet young man from North Waziristan, who, like most teenagers, enjoyed soccer. Seventy-two hours later, a Hellfire missile is believed to have killed him as he was travelling in a car to meet his aunt in Miran Shah, to take her home after her wedding. Killed with him was his 12-year-old cousin, Waheed Khan.

Over 2,300 people in Pakistan have been killed by such missiles carried by drone aircraft such as the Predator and the Reaper, and launched by remote control from Langley, Virginia. Tariq and Waheed brought the known total of children killed in this way to 175, according to statistics maintained by the organisation I work for, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

The final order to kill is signed allegedly by Stephen Preston, the general counsel at the CIA headquarters. What evidence, I would like to know, does Mr Preston have against Tariq and Waheed? What right does he have to act as judge, jury and executioner of two teenage boys neither he nor his staff have ever met, let alone cross-examined, or given the opportunity to present witnesses?

It is not too late to call for a prosecution and trial of whoever pushed the button and the US government officials who gave the order: that is, Mr Preston and his boss, President Barack Obama.

There are many people whom I know who can appear as witnesses in this trial. We – a pair of reporters, together with several lawyers from Britain, Pakistan and the US – met the victim and dozens of other young men from North Waziristan for dinner at the Margalla hotel in Islamabad on Thursday 27 October. We talked about their local soccer teams, which they proudly related were named for Brazil, New Zealand and other nations, which they had heard about but never visited.

The next morning, I filmed young Tariq walking into a conference hall to greet his elders. I reviewed the tape after he was killed to see what was recorded of some of his last moments: he walks shyly and greets the Waziri elders in the traditional style by briefly touching their chests. With his friends, he walks to a set of chairs towards the back of the hall, and they argue briefly about where each of them will sit. Over the course of the morning, Tariq appears again in many photographs that dozens of those present took, always sitting quietly and listening intently.

Tariq was attending a "Waziristan Grand Jirga" on behalf of drone strike victims in Pakistan, which was held at the Margalla hotel the following day. As is the Pashtun custom, the young men, each of whom had lost a friend or relative in a drone strike, did not speak. For four hours, the Waziri elders debated the drone war, and then they listened to a resolution condemning the attacks, read out by Mirza Shahzad Akbar, a lawyer from the Foundation for Fundamental Rights. The group voted for this unanimously.

Neil Williams, a volunteer from Reprieve, the British legal charity, sat down and chatted with Tariq after the jirga was over. Together, they traveled in a van to the Pakistani parliament for a protest rally against drone strikes led by Imran Khan, a former cricketer, and now the leader of the Tehreek-e-Insaaf political party.

The next day, the group returned home to Waziristan. On Monday, Tariq was killed, according to his uncle Noor Kalam.

The question I would pose to the jury is this: would a terrorist suspect come to a public meeting and converse openly with foreign lawyers and reporters, and allow himself to be photographed and interviewed? More importantly, since he was so easily available, why could Tariq not have been detained in Islamabad, when we spent 48 hours together? Neither Tariz Aziz nor the lawyers attending this meeting had a highly trained private security detail that could have put up resistance.

Attending that jirga, however, were Clive Stafford Smith and Tara Murray, two US lawyers who trained at Columbia and Harvard. They tell me, unequivocally, that US law is based on the fact that every person is innocent until proven guilty. Why was Tariq, even if a terrorist suspect, not offered an opportunity to defend himself?

Let me offer an important alternative argument – the US government has a record of making terrible mistakes in this covert war. On 2 September 2010, the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan claimed to have killed Muhammad Amin, the alleged Taliban deputy governor of Takhar province in Afghanistan, in a drone strike. There was only one problem: Michael Semple, a Taliban expert at Harvard University, subsequently interviewed Muhammad Amin and confirmed that he was alive and well and living in Pakistan in March 2011.

The man who was killed was Zabet Amanullah, who was out campaigning in parliamentary elections – along with nine of his fellow election workers. This was confirmed by exhaustive research conducted by Kate Clark, a former BBC correspondent in Kabul who now works for the Afghanistan Analysts Network, who had met with Zabet Amanullah in 2008. The error could have been avoided, Clark points out in her report, if US military intelligence officers had just been "watching election coverage on television", instead of living in its "parallel world" remote from "normal, everyday world of Afghan politics".

If Barack Obama's CIA believed in justice and judicial process, they could have attended the Islamabad jirga last Friday and met with Tariq. It was, after all, an open meeting. They could have arrested and charged Tariq with the help of the Pakistani police. If a prosecution is ever mounted over the death of Tariq, those of us who met him on several occasions last week would be happy to testify to the character of the young man that we had met. But if the CIA has evidence to the contrary, it should present it to the world.

Unless the CIA can prove that Tariq Aziz posed an imminent threat (as the White House's legal advice stipulates a targeted killing must in order for an attack to be carried out), or that he was a key planner in a war against the US or Pakistan, the killing of this 16 year old was murder, and any jury should convict the CIA accordingly.

The Guardian on Facebook | Facebook

[junaidd]

According to the Long War Journal, 138 civilians and more than 2,000 Al-Qaeda and Taliban members have been killed in these attacks.

Since the Pakistani army has prohibited the independent media from entering and thus properly covering the FATA war, we have no choice but to take anyone's word for whatever is going on over there.

However, every second day, we hear about Egyptian, Palestinian, Uzbek, Chechen, Kashmiri, Punjabi, Uyghr and other foreign terrorists dying there in these drone attacks and it makes one wonder how they all got there in the first place. Now given how these terrorists have made life unbearably miserable for the local Mehsud and Wazir tribesmen, it's not such a bad thing that the US is eliminating these terrorists with its own resources.

The only thing Pakistan has to do to end these drone strikes is by entering North Waziristan instead of making cowardly peace deals with hardened terrorists and either flushing the terrorists out of there or prove to the world that there are no terrorists there. The ball is in our court.

Many Pakistanis, especially Imran Khan's supporters, often criticize these drone attacks for two reasons:

1) These drones infringe on Pakistan's sovereignty.
2) These drone attacks cause civilian casualties.

My questions for these people are:

1) Don't these militant groups such as Gul Bahadur's militia, Sirajudin Haqqani's groups, Hekmatyaar's groups, Mullah Nazir's groups, etc, who create virtual no-go areas where Pakistani civilians and military personnel cannot even enter without taking prior permission from these warlords also infringe on Pakistan's sovereignty?

2) Don't the Pakistani military operations all over FATA and KPK cause more civilian casualties and damage to property than these precision drone attacks? After all, these drones fire a single missile at a specific target and that projectile is barely the length of an arm whereas the Pakistani army uses heavy artillery and carpet bombing in civilian areas. If the lives of innocent civilians are precious, why is Imran Khan silent on this?

[Call for Change]

Originally Posted by junaidd

According to the Long War Journal, 138 civilians and more than 2,000 Al-Qaeda and Taliban members have been killed in these attacks.

Since the Pakistani army has prohibited the independent media from entering and thus properly covering the FATA war, we have no choice but to take anyone's word for whatever is going on over there.

However, every second day, we hear about Egyptian, Palestinian, Uzbek, Chechen, Kashmiri, Punjabi, Uyghr and other foreign terrorists dying there in these drone attacks and it makes one wonder how they all got there in the first place. Now given how these terrorists have made life unbearably miserable for the local Mehsud and Wazir tribesmen, it's not such a bad thing that the US is eliminating these terrorists with its own resources.

The only thing Pakistan has to do to end these drone strikes is by entering North Waziristan instead of making cowardly peace deals with hardened terrorists and either flushing the terrorists out of there or prove to the world that there are no terrorists there. The ball is in our court.

Many Pakistanis, especially Imran Khan's supporters, often criticize these drone attacks for two reasons:

1) These drones infringe on Pakistan's sovereignty.
2) These drone attacks cause civilian casualties.

My questions for these people are:

1) Don't these militant groups such as Gul Bahadur's militia, Sirajudin Haqqani's groups, Hekmatyaar's groups, Mullah Nazir's groups, etc, who create virtual no-go areas where Pakistani civilians and military personnel cannot even enter without taking prior permission from these warlords also infringe on Pakistan's sovereignty?

2) Don't the Pakistani military operations all over FATA and KPK cause more civilian casualties and damage to property than these precision drone attacks? After all, these drones fire a single missile at a specific target and that projectile is barely the length of an arm whereas the Pakistani army uses heavy artillery and carpet bombing in civilian areas. If the lives of innocent civilians are precious, why is Imran Khan silent on this?

I am not pro-Imran so i cannot answer on his behalf.
As far as other questions are concerned let me make it clear that according to the international law no country has the right to violate the boundaries of other sovereign country. Secondly, tell me if you are doing something wrong in your home does your neighbor has the right to enter in your home and punish you?

Total reported killed: 2,349 - 2,959
Civilians reported killed: 392 - 781
Children reported killed: 175
Total strikes: 306

read these figures dear and decide. I am very much anti-drone strikes because I am a PAKISTANI and i do not allow any one to enter in my territory and kill my people . Go and kill a single American and then bear the consequences (if you can).

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com...-2011-strikes/

pay a heed to this report

Regards,

[shakeel ghori]

This is nothing but a mockery that without any knowledge someone claims to be in favor of drones. They say that this is a peace promoting mission from American side that will bring forth a betterment in ours behalf, as well. I would say that this is a complete forgery against not only pakistan but also against whole Muslim community, to attribute the mark of terrorism with them to disparage the whole Muslim world.
And as you have said that we do not have any substantial sources to acquire the real information of what is going on over there, and why is it happening? So how you reached at the decision that killing of civilians or so-called suspected terrorists' is meaningful? how you came up at believe that America is doing right without any exception? dear "out of sight is out mind".
Pakistan has contributed as much in this so-called war against terror as no other county has, but nevertheless it got a stigma mark of double standard. so how can someone claim that everything is going right behind drones policy.
I really appreciate the original writer of this thread who lead us to know a most important fact that many of the victims of drones are either common civilians or suspected as terrorists. And dear CIA will never prove the killing of tariq as justifiable, because they have nothing to do with justice, except legislating those ruthless policies which are in their own interest.

[junaidd]

Originally Posted by Call for Change

I am not pro-Imran so i cannot answer on his behalf.
As far as other questions are concerned let me make it clear that according to the international law no country has the right to violate the boundaries of other sovereign country. Secondly, tell me if you are doing something wrong in your home does your neighbor has the right to enter in your home and punish you?

Total reported killed: 2,349 - 2,959
Civilians reported killed: 392 - 781
Children reported killed: 175
Total strikes: 306

read these figures dear and decide. I am very much anti-drone strikes because I am a PAKISTANI and i do not allow any one to enter in my territory and kill my people . Go and kill a single American and then bear the consequences (if you can).

Obama 2011 Strikes: TBIJ

pay a heed to this report

Regards,

Firstly, the Pakistani government (PPP and their partners) and the establishment (the military and the ISI) have given the US express permission to carry out these air-strikes. In fact, they have given complete control of at least two military bases to the US to that effect - the Shamsi Airbase and the Jacobabad Airbase. Therefore, these attacks do not infringe on Pakistan's sovereignty at all.

Secondly, since you mentioned your country's sovereignty, does it not bother you that there are militant groups that are non-state actors and they control vast chunks of your country's territory? Why do you not worry about your country's sovereignty when these terrorist groups in North Waziristan take over the government and even your own army has to ask for their permission before crossing their territory? What happens to your sovereignty then? If we are against the Americans for illegally occupying and attacking our territory, why are we not against these militants who are doing the same thing?

[junaidd]

Originally Posted by shakeel ghori

This is nothing but a mockery that without any knowledge someone claims to be in favor of drones. They say that this is a peace promoting mission from American side that will bring forth a betterment in ours behalf, as well. I would say that this is a complete forgery against not only pakistan but also against whole Muslim community, to attribute the mark of terrorism with them to disparage the whole Muslim world.

The Uzbeks and Arabs in North Waziristan have killed at least 1,500 tribal leaders so as to create a power vacuum that they will conveniently fill themselves. Is that not terrorism? If the Pakistani army has refused to act in North Waziristan then who will free the poor people of that agency from these brutal terrorists?

Originally Posted by shakeel ghori

And as you have said that we do not have any substantial sources to acquire the real information of what is going on over there, and why is it happening? So how you reached at the decision that killing of civilians or so-called suspected terrorists' is meaningful? how you came up at believe that America is doing right without any exception? dear "out of sight is out mind".
Pakistan has contributed as much in this so-called war against terror as no other county has, but nevertheless it got a stigma mark of double standard. so how can someone claim that everything is going right behind drones policy.
I really appreciate the original writer of this thread who lead us to know a most important fact that many of the victims of drones are either common civilians or suspected as terrorists. And dear CIA will never prove the killing of tariq as justifiable, because they have nothing to do with justice, except legislating those ruthless policies which are in their own interest.

Pakistan is playing a classic double-game in this war on terror. The United States is building its bases in Central Asia and the Middle-East and surrounding both China and Iran, Turkey is using this as an excuse to massacre even more Kurdish freedom-fighters and Saudi Arabia has used this war on terror as an excuse to crush all legitimate dissent. So I agree, this war on terror is a smoke-screen for cruel oppression. I don't alienate Pakistan from this list, however. We've handed over dozens of Al-Qaeda members but we've been very supportive of most of the Taliban militias. There are around 5-6 major groups fighting in FATA and only one of them is at war with Pakistan, the other 4-5 have complete autonomy or, some would argue, full support from Pakistan. The aim is to install another Taliban puppet-regime in Kabul no matter what the cost. The cost is being paid most heavily by the people of FATA.

[Call for Change]

Originally Posted by junaidd

Firstly, the Pakistani government (PPP and their partners) and the establishment (the military and the ISI) have given the US express permission to carry out these air-strikes. In fact, they have given complete control of at least two military bases to the US to that effect - the Shamsi Airbase and the Jacobabad Airbase. Therefore, these attacks do not infringe on Pakistan's sovereignty at all.

Secondly, since you mentioned your country's sovereignty, does it not bother you that there are militant groups that are non-state actors and they control vast chunks of your country's territory? Why do you not worry about your country's sovereignty when these terrorist groups in North Waziristan take over the government and even your own army has to ask for their permission before crossing their territory? What happens to your sovereignty then? If we are against the Americans for illegally occupying and attacking our territory, why are we not against these militants who are doing the same thing?

Oh my God ! man the whole world is criticizing the attacks of reapers and drones on the innocent civilians. what if anyone from your home who is not loyal to you and your family allows me to kill you and your family so does it give me the privilege to kill innocent people?? same is the case with Zardari and co if they allow US to continue these barbaric strikes it doesn't mean that US has the right to kill innocent civilians and child. go through the ethics of war and you will come to know that killing of innocent civilians, children, attack of hospitals etc is not allowed . US is so much pro democracy and tends to be the champion of human rights, then why in Pakistan or Afghanistan they kill humans indiscriminately? once again i am emphasizing on this point that according to international law no country has the right to violate the international boundaries and US is signatory of this charter as a member of international community.

For your last point i must say please read the history and you will get to know that on which conditions the tribal belts of Pakistan agreed to be the part of Pakistan.

Regards,