Obama: US was not 'cavalier' over

hostage drone killings

Accidental deaths of American and Italian hostages overshadows
presidents talk to intelligence chiefs as former adviser calls on officials
to release further details

Pa
kistan said on Friday the deaths of Weinstein and Lo Porto demonstrates the risk and unintended
consequences of unmanned aircraft. Photograph: Khaled Abdullah/Reuters

Dan Roberts in Washington and Alan Yuhas in New York-Friday 24 April

2015

Barack Obama has insisted the US was not cavalier in its assessment of
the risks to civilians as the accidental deaths of two hostages in a drone
strike against al-Qaida overshadowed a planned pep talk for intelligence
chiefs.
Today, like all Americans, our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the
families of Dr Warren Weinstein and Giovanni Lo Porto, the president told a

group of intelligence officers gathered to celebrate the 10th anniversary of

the office of the director of national intelligence.
We are going to review what happened, he added. We are going to
identify the lessons that can be learned and any improvement and changes
that can be made and I know those of you who are hear continue to share
our determination to continue to do everything we can to prevent the loss
of innocent lives.
But the president appeared keen to reassure those who may blame
themselves for the incident that he felt their pain too.
I was asked by somebody: How do you absorb news like we received the
other day? and I told the truth: its hard.
We all grieve when we lose an American life; we all grieve when any
American life is taken. We dont take this work lightly and I know that each
and everyone of you understand the magnitude of we do and the stakes
that are involved. These arent abstractions; we are not cavalier. And we
understand the solemn responsibilities that are given to us.
Meanwhile one of the architects of Obamas legal rationale for drone strikes
called on the administration to release the full details behind the CIAs
decision to attack two sites in Pakistan resulting in the accidental deaths of
the two hostages.
I left the administration in January 2013 and know nothing about how this
recent case unfolded, Harold Koh, a former legal adviser to the State
Department, told the Guardian in an email, but yes, plainly, the Obama
administration should release the factual record regarding the January 2015
strikes that killed two hostages.
A controversial figure for his role in devising the US justification for the
targeted killing of an American member of al-Qaida, Koh is now a law
professor at New York University.
As Obama grapples with his role in the deaths revealed on Thursday

of Weinsteinand Lo Porto, both killed by drones in Pakistan this January, his

administration faces renewed questions about signature strikes and what
could be fundamental flaws in its legal justification for them.
The factual record Koh refers to could be the difference between legal
strikes and violations of the administrations rules or worse, said
Christopher Swift, a professor of national security studies at Georgetown
University.
Swift and many others agree the strikes appear legal. This looks like its in
the realm of a horrible mistake rather than the violations of the Geneva
Conventions, he said. Its not the platform; its whether it was unlawful
killing.
If its completely accidental, as it appears, then its a horrible tragedy; its
not necessarily an unconstitutional undertaking. Theres no clear law thats
going to tell you right or wrong here.
But he noted that it was exceedingly difficult to judge the legality of such
strikes because of the secrecy surrounding operations. Obama has ordered
the episode declassified, but Swift noted that all the facts are subject to
the CIAs black highlighter.
We have hundreds of hours of surveillance prior to the strike and we have
continuous surveillance in the days afterward, he said. It doesnt look like
the administration knew the particular identities of the people they were
hitting, so to the extent there was a failure it seems less a matter of the
legal justification as it is on the intelligence side.
On Thursday, the White House conceded it did not specifically know whom
it had targeted in the al-Qaida compounds where US drones killed
Weinstein and Lo Porto, as well as American-born militants Adam Gadahn
and Ahmed Farouq and two others.
The admission suggests that signature strikes lethal strikes launched
without necessarily knowing who is in the crosshairs have continued
despite the presidents 2013 announcement that new rules would govern
strikes. The order mandates that the CIA can authorize strikes only if it

knows with near certainty that the terrorist target is present.

Before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians
will be killed or injured the highest standard we can set, Obama said in a
2013 speech.
A Guardian analysis of what drone strike data is available found that,
although only 41 men were targeted between January 2006 and November
2014, an estimated 1,147 people had been killed by strikes.
According to estimates by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 415
strikes have killed at minimum 2,500 people, 423 of whom were civilians,
and at maximum nearly 4,000 people, including 962 civilians.
Koh has defended the administrations standards in the past, saying in
2010: Our procedures and practices for identifying lawful targets are
extremely robust. The administration follows rules of distinguishing
between civilians and combatants rigorously and in accordance with all
applicable law, he said.
In theory, the rule should have curbed signature strikes, which by definition
cannot justify the killing of a high-value target since they do not
necessarily target a specific person. Instead the administration deems
some people associated forces of al-Qaida targets by dint of their
behavior or other details gleaned through surveillance where they
congregate, who they meet, etc and it is here that facts become key.
Its the idea that anyone in al-Qaida is going to be caught up in the same
circumstances [as its leaders], said Mary Ellen OConnell, a professor of
international law at Notre Dame. That they might in some point in the
future be part of an attempt to attack.
The CIA had fallen back to signature strikes, OConnell said: Not knowing
who the people were they were killing doesnt meet their own criteria of
facts, and facts must be present to kill even under their own very loose set
of rules.
Another argument made by the Department of Justice (DoJ) also raises
lawyers hackles: that associated forces and high-value targets both

constitute an imminent threat to the US. The administration laid out this
argument in a 2013 white paper justifying the killing, without trial, of
American al-Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki.
The DoJ memorandums approach to imminence makes a mockery of the
concept, Swift said. If you dont have imminence, youd have to show that
youd have due process, he continued, adding that while the
administration could have a legitimate due process procedure, secrecy
clouds the process from public view.
A former chairwoman of the Use of Force Committee of the International
Law Association, OConnell takes issue with the entire scope of the drone
program.
They cobbled together its own set of international law rules, especially for
the al-Awlaki case, she said. They didnt want to live in the real house of
rules, so they built their own house of cards, and now theyve started to
knock it down.
The Weinstein family released a statement to Buzzfeed addressing the issue
of whether a ransom was paid to his captors. Over the three and a half
year period of Warrens captivity, the family made every effort to engage
with those holding him or those with the power to find and rescue him,
they wrote. This is an ordinary American family and they are not familiar
with how one manages a kidnapping.
Obamas talk to US intelligence chiefs also came after two years of public
criticism following surveillance revelations to the Guardian by NSA
whistleblower Edward Snowden, but Obama said he trusted them to do
right thing and was committed to persuading the public of their value.
Our first job is to make sure that we protect the safety of the American
people but there is not a person who I talk to who is involved in the
intelligence community who doesnt understand that we have to do so
while upholding our values and our ideals, and our laws, and our
commitment to democracy, the president said.

This is hard stuff. Everyone here is committed to doing it the right way. I
am absolutely committed to making sure the American people understand
all that we do to make sure we do it right.
Posted by Thavam