The repercussions of the drone lobby’s success in forcing open US domestic airspace to unmanned drones by 2015 are beginning to be felt across the US as civil liberties groups and politicians wake up to the implications for safety and privacy.
An article on the Public Intelligence website asks the basic questions “Is it even logistically possible to operate thousands of pilot-less aircraft in domestic airspace?” The authors examine two basic practical problems with unmanned drones. Firstly how they tend to become “zombies” by losing their wireless data-link to the remote operator – and then crashing. And secondly how without ‘sense and avoid’ capability drones are unable to avoid other aircraft and cause mid-air collisions. In both cases the more drones that fly – and the FAA predict up to 30,000 drones will be flying in the US by the end of the decade - the more incidents of lost data links and mid-air collisions there will be.
While safety is rightly the primary concern, civil liberties issues are also seriously affected by the new legislation. Last week the co-chairs of the Congressional Privacy Caucus, Ed Markey & Joe Barton, wrote an open letter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) pointing out the “potential for drone technology to enable invasive and pervasive surveillance without adequate privacy protection” and requesting information as to how the FAA were to address privacy concerns.
In particular the pair want to know
- What privacy protections and public transparency requirements has the FAA built into its current temporary licensing process for drones used in U.S. airspace?
- Is the public notified about where and when drones are used, who operates them, what data are collected, how are the data used, how long are they retained, and who has access to that data?
- How does the FAA plan to ensure that drone activities under the new law are transparent and individual privacy rights are protected?
- How will the FAA determine whether an entity applying to operate a drone will properly address these privacy concerns.”
A couple of days later an ‘op-ed’ piece in the Washington Post by two Brookings analysts also raised the privacy issue:
“The current legal framework with respect to observations from above by government is not particularly protective of privacy. Two of the most relevant Supreme Court cases, California v. Ciraolo in 1986 and Florida v. Riley in 1989, addressed law enforcement’s use of manned aircraft to perform surveillance of a suspect’s property. In both cases, the court held that observations made from “public navigable airspace” in the absence of a warrant did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
These precedents suggest, in a world in which UAVs will be inexpensive and plentiful, that government operators might have broad legal latitude to use them for surveillance. Non-government operators may have even fewer constraints regarding surveillance. And today’s cameras are far more capable than those of the 1980s and can acquire stunning high-resolution imagery from hundreds of feet away — imagery that can be processed using ever more capable computers.”
However, the op-ed’s authors, John Villasenor and Ben Wittes also make the not unreasonable point that given “the challenges the agency will face in safely providing for the operation of what may soon be tens of thousands of UAVs, operated by tens of thousands of people from unconventional flight locations… to broaden its already unenviable task, to include this hotly disputed field [of privacy] that lies far from its core competency, is a recipe for bad and technologically uneven outcomes that will satisfy no one.”
The consequences of allowing unmanned drones to fly within domestic airspace both in terms of safety and privacy are beginning to be apparent to all. That such a serious step should be taken in such a rush and under such pressure, simply because of industry lobbying is ludicrous. There needs to be a serious re-think, as well as an investigation into how companies with a vested industry were able to force through such a huge change with little apparent regard to the consequences.
Expanding drone strikes
The Washington Post reported this week that the CIA is seeking to expand its use of drone strikes in Yemen. According to the report, the CIA is currently “limited” within Yemen to using drone strikes against known individuals on a targeted kill list. However it now is seeking permission from the National Security Council (Chaired by President Obama) to launch drone strikes when intelligence shows what is called the “telltale signature of al-Qaeda activity”. These so-called ‘signature’ strikes (as opposed to ‘personality’ strikes) are based on intelligence about vehicle movements, communications, movements in and out of a particular building or compound, and patterns of behavior.
It should be noted that in Yemen, as opposed to Pakistan, US military forces such as the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) are also involved in launching attacks against suspected al Qaeda targets and these forces may well already have such “permission”.
Of course the whole idea that the US can grant itself “permission” and “authority” to attack either known individuals associated with al Qaeda or those suspected of being involved, anywhere in the world, at any time has no basis in international law as many have repeated made clear.
This week Human Rights Watch (HRW) has again challenged the CIA’s use of drone strikes. In a speech at Harvard Law School on April 10, 2012. entitled “CIA and the Rule of Law” the CIA’s general counsel, Stephen Preston, said the agency would implement its authority to use force “in a manner consistent with the … basic principles” of the laws of war. James Ross legal and policy director at Human Rights Watch said
“When the CIA general counsel says that the agency need only act in ‘a manner consistent’ with the ‘principles’ of international law, he is saying the laws of war aren’t really law at all… The Obama administration should make it clear that there’s no ‘CIA exception’ for its international legal obligations.”
HRW argues that command of all US armed drone strikes should be transferred to US military forces rather than remain in the hands of the secretive and unaccountable CIA.
Others argue that the drone strikes should cease altogether and accuse the US of participating in war crimes. Drone protestors attempted to deliver a war crimes indictment at Hancock Air Force base this weekend on Earth Day were preemptively arrested by police two blocks from the entrance. According to the groups press release, those arrested included an 87 year old woman in a wheelchair, parents (accompanying their children), a member of the press, and the group’s attorney Ron Van Norstrand. Cameras, camcorders and phones were confiscated by the Sheriff’s Department. Six other people, did manage to reach the gate of the base, where they were also arrested. The indictment can be read here.
Meanwhile General Atomics, maker of the Reaper and Predator, have announced they have designed a significant upgrade for their drones which will enable them to expand to almost double the amount of time they can stay in the air. The company is proposing extending the wings, adding additional fuel pods and strengthening the landing gear in order to enable the drone to stay aloft for up to 42 hours nonstop. General Atomics says the upgrades can be done to current drone in service ‘in the field’, but as yet it is not known if this proposal will be taken up by US and British military who have armed drones in active military service.
As secret and unaccountable US and British drone strikes continue in remote corners of the globe, closer to home (but firmly behind closed doors), the drone industry continues to research and develop a drone-filled future.
Bristol billboard exposes drone conference
Over the past couple of weeks, protesters in the UK and the US have gathered to turn the spotlight on the increasingly secret use and development of armed drones. In Bristol, at the beginning of April, the great and good of the drone industry came together at the Annual International UAV Conference to be met with a good-natured, noisy protest. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic at the Creech Air Force base, members of the faith-based group Nevada Desert Experience delivered an ‘Indictment for the Violation of Human Rights’ to the commander of the base. At each demonstration protesters were arrested and jailed.
But it’s not just protesting against the drone wars, that can bring serious trouble. Pakistani human rights lawyer Shahzad Akbar, who represent victims of US drone strikes in Pakistan is being denied a travel visa to enter the US to speak at a conference organised by Code Pink and others. Speaking from Pakistan by telephone, Akbar told the Guardian:
“Denying a visa to people like me is denying Americans their right to know what the US government and its intelligence community are doing to children, women and other civilians in this part of the world. The CIA, which operated the drones in Pakistan, does not want anyone challenging their killing spree. But the American people should have a right to know.”
Abdulelah Haider Shaye in court detention cell
However it is Yemeni journalist Abdulelah Haider Shaye who is suffering the most for exposing the drone wars.
In 2010 Shaye revealed that an airstrike that took place in al Majala, Yemen in December 2009 killing 14 women and 21 children was launched by US drones, not the Yemeni air force, thus embarrassing both the Yemeni and US authorities. Later, Shaye also interviewed AQAP leaders including Anwar Al-Awlaki challenging them about their methods.
In August 2010, Shaye was kidnapped from his house by Yemeni security forces and disappeared for a month. He turned up in detention after being beaten and was sentenced to five years imprisonment for associating with terrorists. Amnesty International and other human rights groups have campaigned for his release, and it looked as though in February 2012 he was about to be freed. However a few days before Ali Abdullah Saleh, was forced to about to step down as President, Obama called him to “express concern” at the news that Shaye was about to be pardoned. Shaye release was immediately halted and he remains in prison. For more on this case see detailed report by Jeremy Scahill and this excellent film byAl Jazzera.
Exposing the rise of the drone wars is increasingly becoming the task of our times. But it can be a risky business.
Predator drone crew at Creech AFB
The concern that drones make armed attacks and military intervention more likely is often rejected by the military and the drone industry, who argue that the drone pilots are able to stand above the ‘fog and friction’ of the battlefield and to make dispassionate and rational decisions about whether or not to use ‘kinetic force’.
This argument, however, has been torn to shreds by the release of a mass of papers detailing the US military investigation into a massacre of Afghan civilian on 21st February 2010. The ‘incident’ as the papers describe the attack, took place on three vehicles near the village of Shahidi Hassas, Uruzgan district, Afghanistan. According to the US investigation 15 or 16 men were killed (they couldn’t tell because the bodies were so badly damaged) and 12 people were wounded, including a woman and three children. Elders from the Afghans’ home village, however said that 23 had been killed, including two boys, Daoud, 3, and Murtaza, 4.
While the investigation finds that several factors contributed overall to the tragedy, it makes it very clear that the attitude and actions of the Predator drone crew were a significant cause of the civilian deaths:
“The Predator crew demonstrated a propensity/bias for kinetic operations and failed to accurately pass Distributed Common Ground Systems (DCGS) Screeners [the analysts watching the live video feed from the drone] assessments to the [commander in the field] that could have prevented the strike. The Predator crew’s bias towards kinetic operations skewed their reports. The Predator crew emphasized information suggesting the vehicles were hostile, while downplaying or ignoring information to the contrary.” (Centcom FOIA 10-0218 Uruzgan , p.61)
Elsewhere in the papers, the investigator lays out in detail, using the audio logs of conversations from the drone pilots, how they “skewed” their reports towards an attack:
1: While the Screeners [analysts watching video feed} assessed the vehicles appeared to be attempting to egress the area, the Predator assessed the vehicles to be attempting to flank the ODA [soldiers in the area 5 miles away]
2: While the Screener identified children [in the vehicles] the Sensor Operator and the Pilot responded with “Bullshit”
3: The Predator pilot and crew constantly challenged the Screeners assessment whenever there was an indication that it may not have been a hostile target. “at least one child… Really? Assisting MAM [Military term meaning Military Aged Males] means he’s guilty…. Review that (expletive deleted). Why didn’t he say ’possible child’? Why are they so quick to call (expletive deleted) kids but not call (expletive deleted) a rifle”
4: The Predator pilot made the assessment that a scuffle with the target location was due to suing some passengers as a “human shield”. There was no basis or experience for this assessment.
5: After the initial strike, they identified the women on the objective as men in women’s clothes with earrings and jewellery. They refused to accept the fact there were women on the object.
6. There are any more examples through the internal [communications] transcript. What is most concerning is when you cross walk the transcript between the Screeners in Florida to the Predator pilot in Creech AFB Nevada, then crosswalk the actual transmission, between the predator pilot and the [commander of the US soldiers on the ground 5 miles away} it becomes clear that the predator Pilot and selected members of the crew independently skewed the ground picture.
Finally, target hand off between the predator crew and the OH-58D [the helicopter crew which launched the attack as they had more weapons than the Predator drone which was to attack "squirters" running from the vehicles] was lacking key information – there was no mention of adolescents by the Predator crew… The OH 58D pilots testified if they would have known f adolescents in the convoy they would not have engaged until cleared from their higher.” (Centcom FOIA 10-0218 Uruzgan , p.52/53)
Elsewhere the investigating officer makes clear that, except for the sergeant commanding the small force of soldiers on the ground some 5 miles away, “no one involved considered the males as civilians at any time” (Centcom FOIA 10-0218 Uruzgan , p.49) and later “even after the strike, adult males were reported as enemy killed in action despite the fact that no weapons or explosives were found.” (Centcom FOIA 10-0218 Uruzgan , p.38)
While it is not possible to say for certain, one wonders what would have happened if the Sergent commanding the small group of soldiers – who immediately reported possible civilian casualties – had not done so? How many other such ‘incidents’ have gone unreported and uninvestigated, and merely put down as insurgents killed in action?
According to the LA Times which reported the attack after seeing a summary of the investigation papers last year, the Predator crew were disciplined but the Air Force refused to reveal their specific punishment. The Pentagon however confirmed that no one faced a court-martial in relation to the attack.
This ‘propensity to kinetic action’ cannot be applied just to one lone Predator crew however. (It should be noted that a USAF Captain observing at Creech told the investigators that “there was a ‘Top Gun’ mentality amongst the Predator Crews.”) Rather it must be applied much wider as drones have enabled the US military to ’go kinetic’ further and further afield, and more and more often.
Yesterday, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) reported that US drone attacks in Yemen have risen sharply over the past two years to the point where it is now at the same level of strikes as in Pakistan. TBIJ has painstakingly detailed a huge amount of covert US military involvement in Yemen over the past decade and amongst that, reports 20 confirmed, and a further 14 unconfirmed, strikes in Yemen over the past two years alone.
See this short AL Jazzera piece on the TBIJ report:
Drones have specifically enabled the US military to “go kinetic” in six separate countries over the past 12 months. Is this not evidence that drones are in fact lowering the threshold when it comes to launching attacks?
We’re reposting this short report, together with the links to further information, that we have just received today:
One of the trucks after the Hellfire strike in Feb 2010
Centcom.mil released on 22 March 2012 a declassified 2,100-page report on slaughter of 23 Afghan non-combatants – men, women, children – in February 2010, blamed on Creech drone pilots over-enthusiastically calling in Hellfires on a 3-vehicle civilian convoy.
Minutely detailed descriptions are provided of how drones are directed from screeners at Centcom and pilots at Creech AFB using a battery of secure communications devices: IRC chat, radio, video, satellites, VOIP, telephone, not all of which are coordinated and supervised and thus lead to disaster.
Pilots of choppers which fired the Hellfire missiles claim drone operators cannot be trusted due to lack of contact with real world conditions on the ground and because mission controllers at Creech reward “Top Gun” aggressiveness.
Caution of screeners at Centcom and in Afghanistan in this case were overridden by drone operators at Creech to authorize kinetic action against the civilians. As one military interviewee said: from the safety of Creech drone pilots were too avid for kills and used the Tom Cruise Top Gun appellation to describe their “juvenile” behaviour.
The whole report is worth reading and promulgating to counter the PR machinery promoting drones as safe-kill from afar. Interviews of the civilians writhing painfully in hospitals probably won’t get much press.
Here are a couple of small excerpts:
http://cryptome.org/2012/03/creech-savagery.pdf (summary of the report)
http://cryptome.org/2012/03/creech-savagery2.pdf (hospital interview)
Full report is available here: http://tinyurl.com/clfkdj6 (Note this is a multi-part file, about 153MB total from the Centcom FOIA website which can be difficult to access at times.)
The following is excerpted from a new briefing written by Nathalie Van Raemdonck of Istituto Affari Internazionali. ‘Vested Interest or Moral Indecisiveness? Explaining the EU’s Silence on the US Targeted Killing Policy in Pakistan’ explores the US policy of targeted killing and the EU’s (lack of) response.
Click to download full briefing
When the United States and the European Union committed to cooperating more closely in the fight against terrorism in 2004, they took special care to emphasise that they would act in keeping with the rule of law and international law. Accordingly, the EU has an obligation in this engagement to examine those practices – including drone strikes – that raise serious concerns as to their compatibility with international law, and to ask the US for more information about the specifics of targeted killing.
Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have reminded the European Commission of this obligation with parliamentary questions, requesting the EU to ask the US for the legal basis of this tactic. On 16 January 2012, a written declaration was issued by a group of MEPs urging the EU to commit to ensuring that states publish their criteria for combat drone operations, and in the event of unlawful killing, measures be taken against the perpetrators.
However, neither the European Commission in the form of the High Representative (who is also the Commission’s Vice President) nor the Council have thus far released any statements on this subject. This is striking, as the Council has been quite vocal on the matter on other occasions, notably on the targeted killings carried out by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT).
When confronted with this discrepancy, EU officials vaguely reply that the European Council has been in an ongoing debate with the US about how to forge a durable framework to combat terrorism within the rule of law since 2004. Yet, no opinions are expressed on the legality of the practice, and no statements have been made by EU officials on future developments. Apparently questions are being asked on the lack of transparency of this tactic, but no publicly known results have so far been shown.
It is not only the EU institutions that have failed to make their voice heard on the issue of drone strikes. The member states have generally followed a similar pattern. Nonetheless, while very few words have been uttered by individual countries, the positions of at least some EU member states can be gauged by their actions.
Germany, for instance, has been refusing to provide the US with intelligence that would lead to the killing of suspected terrorists since a 2010 drone attack in Pakistan killed a German citizen, who was an Islamist but no militant. The Germans have since agreed to provide the Americans with information “for intelligence purposes only” that can be used exclusively to arrest suspects, since the German government does not want to be perceived by the public opinion as being co-responsible for US targeted killings.
On the opposite end to Germany, one can perhaps put the United Kingdom. Although six British nationals having been killed by US drone strikes in Pakistan, the British government has continued to provide the US military and the CIA with support and intelligence. The Foreign Office has said in the past that it was “looking into the reports” of the killings, but so far none of these deaths have been investigated by UK authorities. The UK is itself using armed drones in Afghanistan. Just like the US, the UK releases little information about the way in which these drones are used. Read more…
