Living Under Drones

182 Pages·2012·3.77 MB·English

Fall
08
September 2012

Living Under Drones
Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians
From US Drone Practices in Pakistan

I n t e r n a t i o n a l H um a n R i g h t s
a n d C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n C l i n i c
S t a n f o r d L a w S c h o o l
G l o b a l J u s t i c e C l i n i c
http://livingunderdrones.org/
N Y U S c h o o l o f L a w
Cover Photo: Roof of the home of Faheem Qureshi, a then 14-year old victim of a January 23, 2009
drone strike (the first during President Obama’s administration), in Zeraki, North Waziristan, Pakistan.
Photo supplied by Faheem Qureshi to our research team.

Suggested Citation:
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION CLINIC AT STANFORD LAW SCHOOL AND GLOBAL
JUSTICE CLINIC AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW, LIVING UNDER DRONES: DEATH, INJURY, AND TRAUMA TO
CIVILIANS FROM US DRONE PRACTICES IN PAKISTAN (2012).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I
ABOUT THE AUTHORS III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS V
INTRODUCTION 1
METHODOLOGY 2
CHALLENGES 4
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 7
DRONES: AN OVERVIEW 8
DRONES AND TARGETED KILLING AS A RESPONSE TO 9/11 10
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ESCALATION OF THE DRONE PROGRAM 12
“PERSONALITY STRIKES” AND SO-CALLED “SIGNATURE STRIKES” 12
WHO MAKES THE CALL? 13
PAKISTAN’S DIVIDED ROLE 15
CONFLICT, ARMED NON-STATE GROUPS, AND MILITARY FORCES IN NORTHWEST PAKISTAN 17
UNDERSTANDING THE TARGET: FATA IN CONTEXT 20
PASHTUN CULTURE AND SOCIAL NORMS 22
GOVERNANCE 23
ECONOMY AND HOUSEHOLDS 25
ACCESSING FATA 26
CHAPTER 2: NUMBERS 29
TERMINOLOGY 30
UNDERREPORTING OF CIVILIAN CASUALTIES BY US GOVERNMENT SOURCES 32
CONFLICTING MEDIA REPORTS 35
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT MAY LEAD TO CONFLICTING REPORTS 40
LIMITED FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE 40
UNREPORTED STRIKES 40
STRIKE DATA AGGREGATORS 43
THE LONG WAR JOURNAL 45
NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION 47
THE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM 53
CHAPTER 3: LIVING UNDER DRONES 55
VOICES FROM BELOW: ACCOUNTS OF THREE DRONE STRIKES 56
MARCH 17, 2011 57
JUNE 15, 2011 62
JANUARY 23, 2009 66
BEYOND KILLING: CIVILIAN IMPACTS OF US DRONE STRIKE PRACTICES 73
IMPACTS ON WILLINGNESS TO RESCUE VICTIMS AND PROVIDE MEDICAL ASSISTANCE 74
DIRECT PROPERTY DAMAGE AND ECONOMIC HARDSHIP IMPACTS 77
MENTAL HEALTH IMPACTS OF DRONE STRIKES AND THE PRESENCE OF DRONES 80
IMPACTS ON EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES 88
IMPACTS ON BURIAL TRADITIONS AND WILLINGNESS TO ATTEND FUNERALS 92
IMPACTS ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL ACTIVITIES 95
IMPACTS ON COMMUNITY TRUST 99
CHAPTER 4: LEGAL ANALYSIS 103
WHETHER THE US USE OF FORCE IN PAKISTAN VIOLATES PAKISTAN’S SOVEREIGNTY 105
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH INDIVIDUALS MAY LAWFULLY BE LETHALLY TARGETED 110
THE EXISTENCE OF AN ARMED CONFLICT IN PAKISTAN 110
DRONE STRIKES UNDER INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW 112
IN THE ABSENCE OF ARMED CONFLICT, ONLY INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW APPLIES 117
US DOMESTIC LAW 118
ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY 122
CHAPTER 5: STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS 125
DRONE STRIKE ACCURACY AND EFFECTIVENESS IN HAMPERING ARMED VIOLENCE 125
US DRONE STRIKE POLICIES FOMENT ANTI-AMERICAN SENTIMENT AND MAY AID RECRUITMENT TO ARMED NON-STATE
ACTORS 131
DRONES UNDERMINE US CREDIBILITY IN PAKISTAN AND THROUGHOUT THE REGION 138
US TARGETED KILLING AND DRONE STRIKE PRACTICES MAY ESTABLISH DANGEROUS PRECEDENTS AND UNDERMINE THE
RULE OF LAW AND US DEMOCRACY 140
APPENDIX A: TESTIMONY 147
APPENDIX B: STRIKE & MINIMUM CASUALTY NUMBERS PER WEEK (2010-2012) 153
APPENDIX C: US STATEMENTS ON CIVILIAN CASUALTIES 157
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report is the result of nine months of research by the International Human Rights
and Conflict Resolution Clinic of Stanford Law School (Stanford Clinic) and the Global
Justice Clinic at New York University School of Law (NYU Clinic). Professor James
Cavallaro and Clinical Lecturer Stephan Sonnenberg led the Stanford Clinic team;
Professor Sarah Knuckey led the NYU Clinic team. Adelina Acuña, Mohammad M. Ali,
Anjali Deshmukh, Jennifer Gibson, Jennifer Ingram, Dimitri Phililps, Wendy Salkin,
and Omar Shakir were the student research team at Stanford; Christopher Holland was
the student researcher from NYU. Supervisors Cavallaro, Sonnenberg,a nd Knuckey, as
well as student researchers Acuña, Ali, Deshmukh, Gibson, Salkin, and Shakir
participated in the fact-finding investigations to Pakistan.
In December 2011, Reprieve, a charity based in the United Kingdom, contacted the
Stanford Clinic to ask whether it would be interested in conducting independent
investigations into whether, and to what extent, drone strikes in Pakistan conformed to
international law and caused harm and/or injury to civilians. The Stanford Clinic agreed
to undertake independent fact-finding and analysis on these questions, as well as others
related to drone strikes and targeted killings in Pakistan, beginning in December 2011.
Later, the NYU Clinic agreed to join the research project and participated in the second
research trip to Pakistan, as well as in additional research, writing, and editing of this
report.
In the course of the research, the Stanford and NYU Clinics have exchanged information
and logistical support with Reprieve and its partner organization in Pakistan, the
Foundation for Fundamental Rights (FFR). The latter organization assisted in
contacting many of the potential interviewees, particularly those who reside in North
Waziristan, and in the difficult work of arranging interviews. The Stanford and NYU
Clinics designed the research project, analyzed information, and drafted and edited the
report independently from Reprieve and FFR.
Cavallaro, Knuckey, and Sonnenberg supervised and directed the preparation of the
report, oversaw the writing, and served as the final editors of this publication. Students
Acuña, Ali, Deshmukh, Gibson, and Shakir drafted initial sections of the report. Acuña,
Ali, Gibson and Shakir synthesized and restructured the initial draft sections. Holland
from the NYU Clinic also assisted with research for the report. Firas Abuzaid, Jennifer
Ingram, Usman Liaqat, Clara Long, Waqas Mustafeez, Ada Sheng, and Zade Shakir
assisted the research team in the review and fact-checking of the final version.
Abdulrasheed Alabi, Danny Auron, Dr. Rajaie Batniji, Kristen DeRemer, Aisha Ghani,
Emi MacLean, Veerle Opgenhaffen, Professor Margaret Satterthwaite, Dr. Saad Shakir,

i
Hina Shamsi, Professor Shirin Sinnar, Professor Allen Weiner, and Nate Wessler
reviewed and commented on this report or some part thereof. The Stanford and NYU
Clinics would like to thank these scholars and practitioners for volunteering their time
and expertise. The opinions and positions articulated in this report are the exclusive
responsibility of the research team and not of these external reviewers.
The Clinics also extend our appreciation to the Brave New Foundation, in particular its
president, Robert Greenwald, as well as Josh Busch, Aminta Goyel, Jeff Cole, David
Fisher, Joseph Suzuki, and John Amick for preparing a short video to accompany the
report.
The Stanford and NYU Clinics express our sincere thanks to our translators in
Islamabad and Peshawar. In particular, we would like to thank Muhammad Abdullah
Ather, Rascim Khan Khattak, Muzafar Mohiuddin, Obaid Khan, Syed Shehroz Hussain,
Adnan Wazir, Usama Khilji, and Amna Bilal.
A particular debt of gratitude is owed to those who agreed to be interviewed for this
report, often at risk to themselves. This includes in particular the Waziris who traveled
long distances and faced significant risks to share their accounts of living under drones
with our research team.

ii
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Stanford International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic
(IHRCRC)

The Stanford International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic (Stanford
Clinic) addresses a range of situations of rights abuse and violent conflict around the
world. By providing direct representation to victims and by working with communities
that have suffered or face potential abuse, the Clinic seeks both to train advocates and
advance the cause of human rights and global justice. The Clinic engages students in
sophisticated and multi-disciplinary advocacy to advance the basic human rights and
dignity of victimized individuals and communities globally. Students divide their time
between an intensive clinical seminar and ongoing clinical advocacy projects. They are
exposed to a range of tools and strategies to promote respect for rights and dignity,
including factual documentation, elaboration, and distribution of reports on rights
abuse, litigation before national and international institutions, community
empowerment strategies, and conflict transformation techniques.
Global Justice Clinic (GJC) at NYU School of Law

The Global Justice Clinic (NYU Clinic) at NYU School of Law provides high quality,
professional human rights lawyering services to individual clients and non-
governmental and inter-governmental organizations, partnering with groups based in
the United States and abroad, or undertaking its own projects. Serving as legal advisers,
counsel, co-counsel, or advocacy partners, Clinic students work side-by-side with
human rights activists from around the world. Clinic work has addressed economic and
social rights; human rights, national security, and counter-terrorism; transnational
corporate accountability; weapons development; and the human rights of marginalized
groups. These projects give students an opportunity to assist in formulating policy,
research, and legal responses to cross-border human rights problems.

iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a
surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling “targeted
killing” of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts.1
This narrative is false.
Following nine months of intensive research—including two investigations in Pakistan,
more than 130 interviews with victims, witnesses, and experts, and review of thousands
of pages of documentation and media reporting—this report presents evidence of the
damaging and counterproductive effects of current US drone strike policies. Based on
extensive interviews with Pakistanis living in the regions directly affected, as well as
humanitarian and medical workers, this report provides new and firsthand testimony
about the negative impacts US policies are having on the civilians living under drones.
Real threats to US security and to Pakistani civilians exist in the Pakistani border areas
now targeted by drones. It is crucial that the US be able to protect itself from terrorist
threats, and that the great harm caused by terrorists to Pakistani civilians be addressed.
However, in light of significant evidence of harmful impacts to Pakistani civilians and to
US interests, current policies to address terrorism through targeted killings and drone
strikes must be carefully re-evaluated.
It is essential that public debate about US policies take the negative effects of current
policies into account.

1 The US publicly describes its drone program in terms of its unprecedented ability to “distinguish ...
effectively between an al Qaeda terrorist and innocent civilians,” and touts its missile-armed drones as
capable of conducting strikes with “astonishing” and “surgical” precision. See, e.g., John O. Brennan,
Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, The Efficacy and Ethics of U.S.
Counterterrorism Strategy, Remarks at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Apr. 30,
2012), available at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-efficacy-and-ethics-us-counterterrorism-
strategy.

v
First, while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US
government, there is significant evidence that US drone strikes have
injured and killed civilians. In public statements, the US states that there have been
2
“no” or “single digit” civilian casualties.” It is difficult to obtain data on strike casualties
because of US efforts to shield the drone
program from democratic accountability,
compounded by the obstacles to
From June 2004 through mid-
independent investigation of strikes in
September 2012, available data
North Waziristan. The best currently
indicate that drone strikes available public aggregate data on drone
killed 2,562-3,325 people in strikes are provided by The Bureau of
Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an
Pakistan, of whom 474-881
independent journalist organization. TBIJ
were civilians, including 176
reports that from June 2004 through mid-
children.
September 2012, available data indicate
- The Bureau of Investigative Journalism that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people
in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were
3
civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ
reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228-1,362 individuals. Where
media accounts do report civilian casualties, rarely is any information provided about
the victims or the communities they leave behind. This report includes the harrowing
narratives of many survivors, witnesses, and family members who provided evidence of
civilian injuries and deaths in drone strikes to our research team. It also presents
detailed accounts of three separate strikes, for which there is evidence of civilian deaths
and injuries, including a March 2011 strike on a meeting of tribal elders that killed some
40 individuals.

2 See Obama Administration Counterterrorism Strategy (C-Span television broadcast June 29, 2011),
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/AdministrationCo; see also Strategic Considerations, infra
Chapter 5: Strategic Considerations; Contradictions Chart, infra Appendix C.
3 Covert War on Terror, THE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM,
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/ (last visited Sept. 12, 2012).

vi