RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Greenwald writes: "Days after the Times article, most large western media outlets continued to describe completely unknown victims of U.S. drone attacks as 'militants' - even though they (a) had no idea who those victims were or what they had done and (b) were well-aware by that point that the term had been 're-defined' by the Obama administration into Alice in Wonderland-level nonsense."

Glenn Greenwald. (photo: Salon)
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: Salon)


On Media Outlets That Continue to Describe Unknown Drone Victims as "Militants"

By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept

18 November 14

 

t has been more than two years since The New York Times revealed that “Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties” of his drone strikes which “in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants…unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.” The paper noted that “this counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths,” and even quoted CIA officials as deeply “troubled” by this decision: “One called it ‘guilt by association’ that has led to ‘deceptive’ estimates of civilian casualties. ‘It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants. They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.’”

But what bothered even some intelligence officials at the agency carrying out the strikes seemed of no concern whatsoever to most major media outlets. As I documented days after the Times article, most large western media outlets continued to describe completely unknown victims of U.S. drone attacks as “militants”—even though they (a) had no idea who those victims were or what they had done and (b) were well-aware by that point that the term had been “re-defined” by the Obama administration into Alice in Wonderland-level nonsense.

Like the U.S. drone program itself, this deceitful media practice continues unabated. “Drone strike kills at least four suspected militants in northwest Pakistan,” a Reuters headline asserted last week. The headline chosen by ABC News, publishing an AP report, was even more definitive: “U.S. Drone in Northwest Pakistan Kills 6 Militants.” In July, The Wall Street Journal‘s headline claimed: “U.S. Drone Strike Kills Five Militants in Pakistan’s North Waziristan.” Sometimes they will turn over their headlines to “officials,” as this AP report from July did: “Officials: US drone kills 7 militants in Pakistan.”

Since its 2012 report, the Times itself has tended to avoid the “militant” language in its headlines, but often lends credence to dubious official claims, as when it said this about a horrific U.S. drone strike last December on a Yemeni wedding party that killed 12 people and wounded at least 15 others, including the bride: “Most of the dead appeared to be people suspected of being militants linked to Al Qaeda, according to tribal leaders in the area, but there were also reports that several civilians had been killed.” Other U.S. media accounts of that strike were just as bad, if not worse. The controversies over the definition of “militant” are almost never mentioned in any of these reports.

A new article in The New Yorker by Steve Coll underscores how deceptive this journalistic practice is. Among other things, he notes that the U.S. government itself—let alone the media outlets calling them “militants”—often has no idea who has been killed by drone strikes in Pakistan. That’s because, in 2008, George W. Bush and his CIA chief, Gen. Michael Hayden, implemented “signature strikes,” under which “new rules allowed drone operators to fire at armed military-aged males engaged in or associated with suspicious activity even if their identities were unknown.” The Intercept previously reported that targeting decisions can even be made on the basis of nothing more than metadata analysis and tracking of SIM cards in mobile phones.

The journalist Daniel Klaidman has noted that within the CIA, they “sometimes call it crowd killing…. If you don’t have positive ID on the people you’re targeting with these drone strikes.” The tactic of drone-killing first responders and rescuers who come to the scene of drone attacks or even mourners at funerals of drone victims—used by the Obama administration and designated “terror groups” alike—are classic examples. Nobody has any real idea who the dead are, but they are nonetheless routinely called “militants” by the American government and media. As international law professor Kevin Jon Heller documented in 2012, “The vast majority of drone attacks conducted by the U.S. have been signature strikes—those that target ‘groups of men who bear certain signatures, or defining characteristics associated with terrorist activity, but whose identities aren’t known.’”

Coll also describes the critical work of Noor Behram, a photojournalist who has spent years traveling to drone strike scenes in North Waziristan to document—as a 2011 Guardian profile put it—”that far more civilians are being injured or dying than the Americans and Pakistanis admit”; that “the world’s media quickly reports on how many militants were killed in each strike” even though “reporters don’t go to the spot, relying on unnamed Pakistani intelligence officials”; and that “for every 10 to 15 people killed, maybe they get one militant.” Coll describes the propagandistic process that continues to shape U.S. media reports on these strikes:

I picked up a photo that showed Behram outdoors, in a mountainous area, holding up a shredded piece of women’s underwear. He said it was taken during his first investigation, in June, 2007, after an aerial attack on a training camp. American and Pakistani newspapers reported at the time that drone missiles had killed Al Qaeda-linked militants. There were women nearby as well. Although he was unable to photograph the victims’ bodies, he said, “I found charred, torn women’s clothing—that was the evidence.”

Since then, he went on, he has photographed about a hundred other sites in North Waziristan, creating a partial record of the dead, the wounded, and their detritus. Many of the faces before us were young. Behram said he learned from conversations with editors and other journalists that if a drone missile killed an innocent adult male civilian, such as a vegetable vender or a fruit seller, the victim’s long hair and beard would be enough to stereotype him as a militant. So he decided to focus on children.

There’s simply no doubt that U.S. media outlets have continuously and repeatedly—and falsely—described innocent civilians killed by U.S. drone attacks as “militants.” Just last month, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism documented that “fewer than 4% of the people killed have been identified by available records as named members of al Qaeda,” directly contrary to “John Kerry’s claim last year that only ‘confirmed terrorist targets at the highest level’ were fired at.”

It’s certainly true that reporting is extremely difficult in those places where U.S. drone strikes are most common. But that’s all the more reason to exercise caution when making claims about who the victims are. Instead, these media outlets reflexively adopt the extremely dubious claims of U.S. officials and those of allied governments (such as Yemen and Pakistan) about the identity of the victims. That practice, standing alone, is indefensible enough as pro-government stenography, but the fact that it continues even two years after the Times revealed that the U.S. government has formally adopted a completely propagandistic definition of “militant” makes this behavior willfully misleading.

All of this has achieved the desired effect. Any time you discuss U.S. drone attacks, you inevitably will be told that the U.S. government is killing “terrorists” and “militants”—even though the people making that claim have absolutely no idea who the government is actually killing. It’s easy to dismiss that mindset as supreme irrationality and authoritarianism—what kind of person runs around claiming their government is killing “terrorists” and “militants” when they have no idea who the victims are?—but they’re just adopting the formula for how the U.S. government and media have consciously chosen to propagandize on this issue.

Coll’s article also discusses an oft-ignored aspect of drone warfare: its psychologically terrorizing effects on the targeted population. A joint 2012 report from the law schools of Stanford University and NYU, “Living Under Drones,” documented that “U.S. drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury”—specifically, they “hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities.” Coll’s article similarly notes:

Being attacked by a drone is not the same as being bombed by a jet. With drones, there is typically a much longer prelude to violence. Above North Waziristan, drones circled for hours, or even days, before striking. People below looked up to watch the machines, hovering at about twenty thousand feet, capable of unleashing fire at any moment, like dragon’s breath. “Drones may kill relatively few, but they terrify many more,” Malik Jalal, a tribal leader in North Waziristan, told me. “They turned the people into psychiatric patients.”

The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff just released their annual “counterterrorism” report and it defined “terrorism” this way:

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence, often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs, to instill fear and coerce governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are usually political.

There is, to put it generously, enormous doubt about the legality of both “signature strikes” and the targeting of rescuers and mourners. The UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns, has even said some U.S. drone attacks may constitute “war crimes.” Given their intended effects—both physical and psychological—on entire populations, there is a very compelling case to make that continual, sustained drone warfare in places such as Pakistan and Yemen meet the U.S.’s formal definition of “terrorism” found in its latest strategy document.

Correction: This post initially claimed that the bride was among those killed in the so-called “Wedding Strike” in Yemen in December 2013. In fact, the bride was injured but not killed.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+17 # handskhan 2014-11-19 00:35
What is the difference between the innocent being killed by drones and those killed in 9/11 attack?
Both are cowardly attacks and most inhuman.
 
 
+19 # lewagner 2014-11-19 01:11
And both were planned and ordered by neo-cons.
 
 
+15 # futhark 2014-11-19 02:57
Quoting lewagner:
And both were planned and ordered by neo-cons.


...planned, ordered, and executed by neocons.
 
 
+12 # guidoS 2014-11-19 06:14
Quoting futhark:
Quoting lewagner:
And both were planned and ordered by neo-cons.


...planned, ordered, and executed by neocons.

...planned, ordered, executed, and covered-up by "neo-cons" and their sycophants.
 
 
0 # John S. Browne 2014-11-19 22:54
#

But, do all of you understand that "neocons" are not all "Republicans" and/or "conserv- atives", and that they are now made up of "Democrats" and "liberals" as well? They are not only neocons, they are neoliberals. The neocons are neoliberals, and most of the so-called "Democrats" and "liberals" are also neoliberals. Neoliberalism is corporate- fascism. They're all fascists. They, almost to a person, in other words almost every single one of them, support this U.S. government terrorism and really believe the mass- insanity that it's all "legitimate" & "justified", and believe in turning the U.S. itself into a totalitarian "national '(in)security'" militarized police state.

Due to this and to other things that are happening to me right now [seeking to falsely make me look like a so-called "unprivileged (aka, 'has-no-rights' ) enemy belligerent" due to my nothing but non-violent stand for the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, for human rights and civil liberties, and for tenant rights], I feel so oppressed right now that I can barely function; just as the evil behind all of this wants people like myself to feel so we'll give up, bow down, and be too scared to take any further action(s) in defense of our rights and duties under the rule of law. And, as a result, I am of course tempted to "throw in the towel"; because, due to my serious physical disabilities, I can't handle all of this oppression, and all of the stress and anxiety that goes along with it.

(Cont'd)
 
 
+1 # John S. Browne 2014-11-19 22:55
#

Just as the PTB want right now, I am so freaked out that I don't know which end is up. And, if I feel that way, imagine how the populations under the constant literal buzzing of drones feel, not knowing when a mass-murderous attack taking out mostly innocent civilians is going to happen, and whether or not they are going to be some of its victims. It is obviously terrorism to subject entire populations to this mass-murderous insanity. How would we feel if drone strikes were being carried out in the U.S., that took out mostly innocent civilians? We'd be psychological basket cases as a result of it, too; just as the populations feel everywhere that the U.S. government and military are carrying out drone strikes.

#
 
 
+2 # jazzman633 2014-11-20 11:37
I can relate to everything you say. The military-indust rial machine grinds on (and grinds up young bodies), because every defense plant is in some Congresscritter 's district, and if we don't fight the terrorists there, they'll attack us here.

This is just bass-ackwards, which is responsible for the Through the Looking Glass feeling: The proximate cause of much Muslim terrorism is the US, because we're constantly invading them and creating chaos which allows their most extreme religious elements (and in some countries, that's all there are) to prevail.

This has historically been the main cause of terrorism: get rid of the occupiers. Instead, the assholes in charge just make it worse. The US WILL be going back into Mideast ground combat, soon and in significant numbers - you heard it here first.
 
 
+2 # dickbd 2014-11-19 16:24
It seems to me that the 9/11 attacks were less cowardly. At least, the attackers gave their own lives. Not so with our "brave" drone pilots and those who give them their orders.
 
 
+13 # kando@ltidewater.net 2014-11-19 07:17
When I was a grade-schooler, I remember reports of the "heroic advance" of Hitler's armies, on Stalingrad "to imminent victory". According to then-Radio Budapest 1, the German army was always victorious. We all know the rest of the story...
Nothing new under the sun: The media tends to be subject to Gleichschaltung , with reporters not falling in line being hunted by the Gestapo of the day.
 
 
+12 # ritawalpoleague 2014-11-19 08:27
Thank you, kando@ltidewater.net. You rattled my old brain, and as I read your comment, I recalled sitting on the back wooden steps of the apartment building where we lived in Chicago when I was a three year old, and, for the first time, creating my own prayer, based on the night prayer I said with mama each and every night: The 3 year old prayer I suddenly said, as a plane flew overhead:

Please, God, bless all the children who have not had enough to eat today, and all the people and children who are going to die in the war today."

Yep, kando, evil killing ain't nothin' new, and, dear brilliant journalist brother Glenn Greenwald, as you so well know and have said here, the use of journalists as 'Alice in Wonderland' cheerleaders for warmongers ain't nothin' new either.

Time we the dumbed down sheeple wake up to what endless warmode, including Oh Bomb Ah's droning, is all about: greed and need for power over all, a.k.a. evil.
 
 
+10 # fredboy 2014-11-19 08:06
I wonder if the civilian victims of the Revolutionary War and Civil War were rubber stamped as 'militants'?

If Washington and the rest of our founders were 'insurgents'?

And if the infants and toddlers killed in all conflicts will be forever labeled 'terrorists'?
 
 
+11 # phrixus 2014-11-19 10:10
My takeaway from this is that Obama is basically murdering unknown people in foreign countries.

If that doesn't qualify as a war crime it definitely should. Despicable.
 
 
+2 # cordleycoit 2014-11-19 10:21
We are all militants. Obama, the cheap Chicago hack, is insatiable in his blood lust.
 
 
+5 # Doubter 2014-11-19 12:33
What's this business of raining death indiscriminatel y on unknown innocents half way around the world just for fun and games?
As long as we continue to allow our government to get away with this despicable policy we are allowing them to incriminate us and make us accomplices to their horrific idiotic criminal activity. Enough!
(but then, this is not anything near to being our government anymore. It is corporatism run amok with the people being just one more item to be controlled. Screw the bastards)
 
 
+4 # wantrealdemocracy 2014-11-19 14:28
If we stand quietly by and allow this awful carnage to take place in our attempt to bring democracy (that we have none of at home) to the people of the Middle East, we are, with our government, guilty of war crimes

It is our duty as citizens of the United States to change our government. I think it is too late to do this by voting. Our choices are limited to bad and worse. We need to mandate that our 'Representative s' vote to truly represent the opinion of the people in each Congressional district and state. Polls show that people want the wars to end and those funds directed to meet our domestic needs to get people to work rebuilding our failing infrastructure. There is no need of 'austerity' cuts in our badly needed domestic programs. The people want the rich to pay their fair share. And forget 'free' trade which forces jobs off shore for cheaper labor and better profits for the corporations. The people rank many issues above big profits for the wealthy.
 
 
-1 # intheEPZ 2014-11-20 05:46
"We need to mandate that our 'Representative s' vote to truly represent the opinion of the people in each Congressional district and state. "
--but the opinions of people are clearly up for sale, witness the midterm elections which gave leadership positions in the Senate to the Keystone Pipeline gang and solidified the insanity in the House. 2016 will sew it all up: more neocon Supremes, judges at all levels bought and owned by the corporate state. Already, even though we have laws, they are ignored wholesale by the power elite. I have no answers, but many people have lived through the dissolution of "civilization" many times before. And no doubt about it, our "democracy" is gone, and our "civilization" going fast. Take care of your neighbors. Courage.
 
 
-1 # yankee2 2014-11-21 10:49
Describing every person slaughtered in a self-defined combat zone is a lot like calling everyone who opposes American policies a terrorist... both are BIG LIES, calculated to secure the support of American taxpayers. Of course since it's ALL a lie, Americans have not actually lent their support to ANY military aggression. We are in fact nothing more than dupes in American politics, and especially foreign policy.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN