The Civilian Impact of Drones: Unexamined Costs, Unanswered Questions

Since 2008, the US has dramatically increased its lethal targeting of alleged militants through the use of weaponized drones—formally called unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) or remotely piloted aircraft (RPA). Novel technologies always raise new ethical, legal, and practical chal- lenges, but concerns about drone strikes have been heightened by their role in what might colloquially be termed “covert drone strikes” outside the established combat theater of Af- ghanistan. Airstrike campaigns in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia are conducted with a degree of government secrecy enabled by the fact that there are few supporting US ground troops and/or CIA agents in these countries. Political and public debate has fed on a growing catalogue of news reports and books, which themselves are based primarily on leaks by unnamed government officials. Accounts are sometimes conflicting and leave basic details unclear. US drone operations have been ac- knowledged by the Obama Administration in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. However, the government has declined to clarify the division of responsibilities between the CIA and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), and the various policies and protocols governing civilian protection in the strikes. This report does not focus on possible drone operations elsewhere in Africa or in the Philippines, as public information is not corroborated, and the extent of US involvement is disputed. This report details two strains of concern stemming from US covert drone operations. The first and most often cited is secrecy, which has implications for accountability in the use of force; second, the inherent limits of using drone platforms outside of full-scale military operations, which has implications for civilian protection and harm response

In Search of Answers: U.S. Military Investigations and Civilian Harm

For the families and communities of civilians killed and injured by the U.S. military, it can be very difficult to find out why their relative was harmed, and what – if anything – the military may do to acknowledge, explain, or compensate their loss. The military can never fully remedy the death of a loved one or the destruction of a family’s livelihood. Yet effective military investigations into civilian harm can help answer important questions for affected civilians, provide a basis for appropriate redress, promote accountability, and allow the military to learn valuable lessons for avoiding or mitigating similar harm in the future. The U.S. military has the capability to investigate thoroughly. Military leaders have publicly acknowledged the value of investigating allegations of civilian harm, and official military doctrine clarifies the benefits of investigations. However, over the last eighteen years, examples of good practice in investigating civilian harm have been overshadowed by the inconsistency – and, too often, inadequacy – of the overall record of military investigations. Impacted civilians and civil society organizations, both in the United States and in countries where the U.S. carries out military operations, have repeatedly called for more thorough and transparent investigations. This report seeks to move the practice forward, by thoroughly analyzing the U.S. military’s standards and procedures for investigations into civilian harm. It aims to identify both the factors that are most important to ensure effective investigations and the obstacles or challenges that may prevent a successful investigation. The report also makes recommendations to improve investigations of civilian harm

Public Acknowledgement and Investigations of U.S. “Targeted Killings” and Drone Strikes

The United Nations, local and international human rights organizations, and journalists have investigated and reported numerous cases in which there is credible evidence of harm to Yemeni, Pakistani, and other civilians from U.S. strikes carried out in secret, often using drones. The families of those individuals are still seeking redress and accountability, and the continued refusal of your administration even to officially acknowledge their losses compounds their sufferin

Possible Changes to U.S. Policies on the Use of Force in Counterterrorism Operations

We write today to express our deep concern regarding reports that the administration is considering weakening current policy standards for the use of force in counterterrorism operations

NGO Statement on Reported Changes to U.S. Policy on Use of Armed Drones and Other Lethal Force

The Trump administration’s failure thus far to release and explain the changes it has made to a previously public policy is a dangerous step backwards. Transparency around the use of lethal 2 force is critical to allowing independent scrutiny of the lawfulness of operations and to providing accountability and redress for victims of violations of international law. Transparency also helps governments identify and address civilian harm. It enables the public to be informed about some of the most important policy choices the government makes in its name – ones that involve life and death decisions. While transparency can enhance the legitimacy of government actions, secrecy, by contrast, heightens existing concerns and creates new ones

In Search of Answers: U.S. Military Investigations and Civilian Harm

For the families and communities of civilians killed and injured by the U.S. military, it can be very difficult to find out why their relative was harmed, and what – if anything – the military may do to acknowledge, explain, or compensate their loss. The military can never fully remedy the death of a loved one or the destruction of a family’s livelihood. Yet effective military investigations into civilian harm can help answer important questions for affected civilians, provide a basis for appropriate redress, promote accountability, and allow the military to learn valuable lessons for avoiding or mitigating similar harm in the future. The U.S. military has the capability to investigate thoroughly. Military leaders have publicly acknowledged the value of investigating allegations of civilian harm, and official military doctrine clarifies the benefits of investigations. However, over the last eighteen years, examples of good practice in investigating civilian harm have been overshadowed by the inconsistency – and, too often, inadequacy – of the overall record of military investigations. Impacted civilians and civil society organizations, both in the United States and in countries where the U.S. carries out military operations, have repeatedly called for more thorough and transparent investigations. This report seeks to move the practice forward, by thoroughly analyzing the U.S. military’s standards and procedures for investigations into civilian harm. It aims to identify both the factors that are most important to ensure effective investigations and the obstacles or challenges that may prevent a successful investigation. The report also makes recommendations to improve investigations of civilian harm

The Civilian Impact of Drones: Unexamined Costs, Unanswered Questions

Since 2008, the US has dramatically increased its lethal targeting of alleged militants through the use of weaponized drones—formally called unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) or remotely piloted aircraft (RPA). Novel technologies always raise new ethical, legal, and practical chal- lenges, but concerns about drone strikes have been heightened by their role in what might colloquially be termed “covert drone strikes” outside the established combat theater of Af- ghanistan. Airstrike campaigns in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia are conducted with a degree of government secrecy enabled by the fact that there are few supporting US ground troops and/or CIA agents in these countries. Political and public debate has fed on a growing catalogue of news reports and books, which themselves are based primarily on leaks by unnamed government officials. Accounts are sometimes conflicting and leave basic details unclear. US drone operations have been ac- knowledged by the Obama Administration in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. However, the government has declined to clarify the division of responsibilities between the CIA and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), and the various policies and protocols governing civilian protection in the strikes. This report does not focus on possible drone operations elsewhere in Africa or in the Philippines, as public information is not corroborated, and the extent of US involvement is disputed. This report details two strains of concern stemming from US covert drone operations. The first and most often cited is secrecy, which has implications for accountability in the use of force; second, the inherent limits of using drone platforms outside of full-scale military operations, which has implications for civilian protection and harm response

Public Acknowledgement and Investigations of U.S. “Targeted Killings” and Drone Strikes

The United Nations, local and international human rights organizations, and journalists have investigated and reported numerous cases in which there is credible evidence of harm to Yemeni, Pakistani, and other civilians from U.S. strikes carried out in secret, often using drones. The families of those individuals are still seeking redress and accountability, and the continued refusal of your administration even to officially acknowledge their losses compounds their sufferin

Possible Changes to U.S. Policies on the Use of Force in Counterterrorism Operations

We write today to express our deep concern regarding reports that the administration is considering weakening current policy standards for the use of force in counterterrorism operations

NGO Statement on Reported Changes to U.S. Policy on Use of Armed Drones and Other Lethal Force

The Trump administration’s failure thus far to release and explain the changes it has made to a previously public policy is a dangerous step backwards. Transparency around the use of lethal 2 force is critical to allowing independent scrutiny of the lawfulness of operations and to providing accountability and redress for victims of violations of international law. Transparency also helps governments identify and address civilian harm. It enables the public to be informed about some of the most important policy choices the government makes in its name – ones that involve life and death decisions. While transparency can enhance the legitimacy of government actions, secrecy, by contrast, heightens existing concerns and creates new ones