Even as it seemed increasing likely that the attempted Times Square bombing was blowback from U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan, Reuters reported Thursday that the CIA has received "approval to target a wider range of targets in Pakistan's tribal areas, including low-level fighters whose identities may not be known."[1] -- Reuters said that "the United States believes the drones have killed since the summer of 2008" some "500 suspected militants." -- But the CIA's figures on the number killed buy drones are about as reliable as the Coast Guard's figures on how much oil is leaking into the Gulf of Mexico. -- On Thursday, Al Jazeera noted that "The U.S. tally of combatant and non-combatant casualties is sharply lower than some Pakistani press accounts, which have estimated civilian deaths alone at more than 600. -- Analysts have said that accurately estimating the number of civilian deaths was difficult, if not impossible. -- 'It is unclear how you define who is a militant and who is a militant leader,' Daniel Byman, a counterterrorism expert at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy, said. . . . Former intelligence officials acknowledged that in many, if not most cases, the CIA had little information about those killed in the strikes."[2] -- Don't expect to read about it soon in the mainstream media, but "National security law experts, inside the government and out, are in the middle of an intense debate over whether the remotely piloted attacks are legal," Noah Shachtman reported on his Danger Room blog on the website of Wired.[3] -- One leading law professor told Congress last week that the drone operators could be tried for 'war crimes,' under certain circumstances." ...
1.
CIA DRONES HIT WIDER RANGE OF TARGETS IN PAKISTAN
Reuters
May 6, 2010
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6450KT20100506
The CIA received approval to target a wider range of targets in Pakistan's tribal areas, including low-level fighters whose identities may not be known, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.
The expanded strikes began under President George W. Bush and have accelerated under President Barack Obama.
Supporters credit the covert targeted killing program with dealing a serious blow to al Qaeda and the Taliban, benefiting U.S. forces in neighboring Pakistan.
Critics say the expanded CIA strikes raise legal as well as security concerns amid signs the suspect behind Saturday's attempted car bombing in New York's Times Square had ties to the Pakistani Taliban movement, known as Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP.
Despite initial U.S. skepticism, an official said TTP links to the case looked increasingly "plausible."
CIA-operated drones have aggressively targeted TTP leaders over the past year in Pakistan's tribal areas, and the group has vowed to avenge strikes that have killed several top leaders and commanders.
Current and former officials said government lawyers backed expansion of the "target set" for CIA drone strikes on self-defense grounds based on the threat the fighters pose to U.S. forces in Afghanistan and the United States as a whole.
In his few public references to the drones, Obama cited what he called the need to "take out high-level terrorist targets" if Pakistan would not.
"Targets are chosen with extreme care, factoring in concepts like necessity, proportionality, and an absolute obligation to minimize loss of innocent life and property damage," a U.S. counterterrorism official said.
Of the 500 suspected militants whom the United States believes the drones have killed since the summer of 2008, only 14 are widely considered to be top-tier militant targets, while 25 others are considered mid-to-high-level organizers.
Former intelligence officials acknowledged that in many, if not most cases, the CIA had little information about the foot soldiers killed in the strikes.
The counterterrorism official denied that strikes against fighters were "random."
"Counterterrorism operations are driven by information and observation, gathered over time. You can track individuals, and -- patiently and carefully -- build up a picture of how they move, where they go, and what they see. That makes it easier to determine when and how to take action," the official said.
Jeffrey Addicott, director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University, said the CIA's goal in targeting foot soldiers was to "demoralize the rank and file."
"The message is, 'If you go to these camps, you're going to be killed,'" he said.
(Editing by Peter Cooney)
2.
News
Americas
U.S. TO EXPAND PAKISTAN DRONE STRIKES
Al Jazeera
May 6, 2010
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/05/201056104348785170.html
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been granted approval by the U.S. government to expand drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal regions in a move to step up military operations against Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters, officials have said.
Federal lawyers backed the measures on grounds of self-defence to counter threats the fighters pose to U.S. troops in neighbouring Afghanistan and the United States as a whole, according to authorities.
The U.S. announced on Wednesday that targets will now include low-level combatants, even if their identities are not known.
Barack Obama, the U.S. president, had previously said drone strikes were necessary to "take out high-level terrorist targets".
CONFLICTING FIGURES
"Targets are chosen with extreme care, factoring in concepts like necessity, proportionality, and an absolute obligation to minimize loss of innocent life and property damage," a U.S. counterterrorism official said.
But the numbers show that more than 90 per cent of the 500 people killed by drones since mid-2008 are lower-level fighters, raising questions about how much the CIA knows about the targets, experts said.
Only 14 of those killed are considered by experts to have been high ranking members of al-Qaeda, the Taliban or other groups.
"Just because they are not big names it does not mean they do not kill. They do," the counterterrorism official said.
The U.S. tally of combatant and non-combatant casualties is sharply lower than some Pakistani press accounts, which have estimated civilian deaths alone at more than 600.
Analysts have said that accurately estimating the number of civilian deaths was difficult, if not impossible.
"It is unclear how you define who is a militant and who is a militant leader," Daniel Byman, a counterterrorism expert at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy, said.
Jonathan Manes, a legal fellow at the American Civil Liberties Union, said: "It is impossible to assess the accuracy of government figures, unattributed to a named official, without information about what kind of information they are based on, how the government defines 'militants' and how it distinguishes them from civilians."
U.S. MESSAGE
Former intelligence officials acknowledged that in many, if not most cases, the CIA had little information about those killed in the strikes.
Jeffrey Addicott, director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St Mary's University, said the CIA's goal in targeting was to "demoralize the rank and file."
"The message is: 'If you go to these camps, you're going to be killed,'" he added.
Critics say the expanded U.S. strikes raise legal as well as security concerns amid signs that Faisal Shahzad, the suspect behind the attempted car bombing in New York's Times Square on Saturday, had ties to the Pakistani Taliban movement, known as Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan.
CIA-operated drones have frequently targeted the group over the past year in Pakistan, and its members have vowed to avenge strikes that have killed several of their leaders and commanders.
Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Pakistan's foreign minister, told CBS television channel that the US should not be surprised if anti-government fighters try to carry out more attacks.
"They're not going to sort of sit and welcome you [to] sort of eliminate them. They're going to fight back," Qureshi said.
3.
Danger room
NO-NAME TERRORISTS NOW CIA DRONE TARGETS
By Noah Shachtman
Wired
May 6, 2010
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/02/3-gis-killed-in-pakistan-when-do-we-start-treating-this-like-a-real-war/
Once upon a time, the CIA had to know a militant’s name before putting him up for a robotic targeted killing. Now, if the guy acts like a guerrilla, it’s enough to call in a drone strike.
It’s another sign of that a once-limited, once-covert program to off senior terrorist leaders has morphed into a full-scale -- if undeclared -- war in Pakistan. And in a war, you don’t need to know the name of someone on the other side before you take a shot.
Across the border, in Afghanistan, the rules for launching an airstrike have become tighter than a balled fist. Dropping a bomb from above is now a tactic of last resort; even when U.S. troops are under fire, commanders are reluctant to authorize air strikes. In Pakistan, however, the opposite has happened. Starting in the latter days of the Bush administration, and accelerating under the Obama presidency, drone pilots have become more and more free to launch their weapons.
“You’ve had an expanded target set for [some] time now and, given the danger these groups pose and their relative inaccessibility, these kinds of strikes -- precise and effective -- have become almost like the cannon fire of this war. They’re no longer extraordinary or even unusual,” one American official tells CNN.
This official -- like many other officials -- insists that the drone strikes have torn up the ranks of militants.
“The enemy has lost not just operational leaders and facilitators -- people whose names we know -- but formations of fighters and other terrorists,” the official tells the Los Angeles Times. “We might not always have their names, but . . . these are people whose actions over time have made it obvious that they are a threat.”
National security law experts, inside the government and out, are in the middle of an intense debate over whether the remotely piloted attacks are legal. One leading law professor told Congress last week that the drone operators could be tried for “war crimes,” under certain circumstances. The State Department’s top lawyer counters that the drone attacks are a legitimate act of self-defense.
The connection between the robotic strikes over there and our safety here appears to be growing, The Pakistani Taliban, who have claimed credit for the botched Times Square bombing, say the car bomb was in retaliation for drone strikes. But the robotic aircraft are only one component in the war in Pakistan. American troops are on the ground there, and getting into firefights. American contractors are operating a fleet of helicopters above . Higher in the sky are the American drones, flown by the U.S. Air Force and the CIA.