| Pakistan Government releases inaccurate figures on drone victims!

Pakistan Government releases inaccurate figures on drone victims ~ Reprieve.

Figures released by the Government of Pakistan today regarding the number of civilian deaths caused by drone strikes are shown to be inaccurate by a report provided to the courts by Pakistan’s authorities earlier this year, it has emerged.

A report submitted to the Peshawar High Court in early 2013 by the Political Agents of North Waziristan – the central Government’s representative in the region – stated that 896 Pakistani civilians had been killed in drone strikes in the area in the last five years.  The court also found that a further 553 civilians were killed in South Waziristan over the same period.  However, according to the Associated Press, the Ministry of Defense today claimed that just 67 civilians have been killed by drone strikes in Pakistan since 2008, and none at all in 2012 or 2013.

The claim of no civilian casualties at all in 2012 is especially problematic, as the relatives of a 67-year-old grandmother killed in an October 2012 drone strike yesterday testified before the US Congress.  Rafiq ur Rehman, a primary school teacher from North Waziristan, told members of Congress how his mother, Mammana Bibi, was killed in the strike, which also injured two of his children who testified with him at the briefing:  Zubair (13) and Nabila (9). There are several other strikes in 2012 which killed civilians and have been widely reported by independent sources: two such strikes were in July 2012, where rescue workers were targeted, killing more than 20 civilians.

These strikes were also profiled in a recent report by human rights organisation Amnesty International.

The claims of no civilian casualties resulting from drone strikes over the course of two years are also reminiscent of CIA Director (and then-counter-terrorism adviser) John Brennan’s 2011 claim that “there hasn’t been a single collateral death” due to the drone programme – a claim which a USAF Colonel with drone expertise said “does not sound to me like reality,” and which President Obama was subsequently forced to abandon.

Today, members of Senate in Pakistan rejected the figures submitted by the government and asked the minister concerned to withdraw his answer in order to verify them; after which the Opposition walked out of the Senate in protest.

Commenting, Shahzad Akbar, Fellow of human rights charity Reprieve and a lawyer for civilian victims of drone strikes including the Rehman family, said: “The latest figures from the Pakistani Government are clearly wrong and the Federal Minister is lying to Parliament.  It is absurd to suggest there has not been a single civilian casualty for two years, especially when some of those victims just yesterday gave evidence to the US Congress. They are also undermined by the far higher figures the Government provided to the Peshawar High Court earlier this year.  The Government needs to correct its mistake, and apologise to my clients, the Rehman family, for the shameful way in which they have ignored their suffering.   It is also interesting to note that a Pakistani minister is giving such a statement after the Prime Minister’s recent visit to the US, where the United States released over $ 1 billion to Pakistan.”

ENDS

Notes to editors

1. For further information, please contact Donald Campbell in Reprieve’s press office: +44 (0) 7791 755 415 / donald.campbell@reprieve.org.uk

2. The Pakistani Government’s figures on drone strikes have been reported by the Associated Press:http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/pakistan-percent-drone-deaths-civilians-20725123

3. The 2013 Peshawar High Court judgement on drones can be found here – see p4 for numbers of civilian casualties:http://www.peshawarhighcourt.gov.pk/images/wp%201551-p%2020212.pdf

4. John Brennan’s comments on civilian casualties from drones can be found here:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/world/asia/12drones.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 

_________________________________________________________________________

DroneEerie1

STOP DRONE WARa

| Please tell me, Mr President, why a US drone assassinated my mother!

Please tell me, Mr President, why a US drone assassinated my mother ~

    • theguardian.com.

      Momina Bibi was a 67-year-old grandmother and midwife from Waziristan. Yet President Obama tells us drones target terrorists

    • The last time I saw my mother, Momina Bibi, was the evening before Eid al-Adha. She was preparing my children’s clothing and showing them how to make sewaiyaan, a traditional sweet made of milk. She always used to say: the joy of Eid is the excitement it brings to the children.

      Last year, she never had that experience. The next day, 24 October 2012, she was dead, killed by a US drone that rained fire down upon her as she tended her garden.

      Nobody has ever told me why my mother was targeted that day. The media reported that the attack was on a car, but there is no road alongside my mother’s house. Several reported the attack was on a house. But the missiles hit a nearby field, not a house. All reported that five militants were killed. Only one person was killed – a 67-year-old grandmother of nine.

      My three children – 13-year-old Zubair, nine-year-old Nabila and five-year-old Asma – were playing nearby when their grandmother was killed. All of them were injured and rushed to hospitals. Were these children the “militants” the news reports spoke of? Or perhaps, it was my brother’s children? They, too, were there. They are aged three, seven, 12, 14, 15 and 17 years old. The eldest four had just returned from a day at school, not long before the missile struck.

      But the United States and its citizens probably do not know this. No one ever asked us who was killed or injured that day. Not the United States or my own government. Nobody has come to investigate nor has anyone been held accountable. Quite simply, nobody seems to care.

      I care, though. And so does my family and my community. We want to understand why a 67-year-old grandmother posed a threat to one of the most powerful countries in the world. We want to understand how nine children, some playing in the field, some just returned from school, could possibly have threatened the safety of those living a continent and an ocean away.

      Most importantly, we want to understand why President Obama, when asked whom drones are killing, says they are killing terrorists. My mother was not a terrorist. My children are not terrorists. Nobody in our family is a terrorist.

      My mother was a midwife, the only midwife in our village. She delivered hundreds of babies in our community. Now families have no one to help them.

      And my father? He is a retired school principal. He spent his life educating children, something that my community needs far more than bombs. Bombs create only hatred in the hearts of people. And that hatred and anger breeds more terrorism. But education – education can help a country prosper.

      I, too, am a teacher. I was teaching in my local primary school on the day my mother was killed. I came home to find not the joys of Eid, but my children in the hospital and a coffin containing only pieces of my mother.

      Our family has not been the same since that drone strike. Our home has turned into hell. The small children scream in the night and cannot sleep. They cry until dawn.

      Several of the children have had to have multiple surgeries. This has cost money we no longer have, since the missiles also killed our livestock. We have been forced to borrow from friends; money we cannot repay. We then use the money to pay a doctor, a doctor who removes from the children’s bodies the metal gifts the US gave them that day.

      Drone strikes are not like other battles where innocent people are accidentally killed. Drone strikes target people before they kill them. The United States decides to kill someone, a person they only know from a video. A person who is not given a chance to say – I am not a terrorist. The US chose to kill my mother.

      Several US congressmen invited me to come to Washington, DC to share my story with members of Congress. I hope by telling my story, America may finally begin to understand the true impact of its drone program and who is on the other end of drone strikes.

      I want Americans to know about my mother. And I hope, maybe, I might get an answer to just one question: why?

      • Editor’s note: Momina Bibi’s age when she died was originally given in the body text and standfirst as 65; this was amended to 67 at 1.30pm (ET) on 25 October

    • Pakistani ribesmen from Waziristan protest against US drone attacks, outside parliament in Islamabad
      Tribesmen from Waziristan protest against US drone attacks, outside Pakistan’s parliament in Islamabad, in 2010. Photograph: T Mughal/EPA
    •  ________________________________________________________________  

    • U.S. Drones: Will I be next? ~ AmnestyInternational, YouTube.

    • On a sunny fall afternoon in October 2012, 68-year-old Mamana Bibi was killed in a drone strike that appears to have been aimed directly at her. Her grandchildren recounted in painful detail to Amnesty International the moment when Mamana Bibi, who was gathering vegetables in the family fields in Ghundi Kala, North Waziristan was blasted into pieces before their very eyes. Nearly a year later, Mamana Bibi’s family has yet to receive even any acknowledgment from US authorities that she was killed, let alone justice or compensation for her death.

      Amnesty International’s investigations into drone strikes in north western Pakistan have shown that some of these drone strikes could amount to war crimes.

      It is time for the USA to come clean about drone killings in Pakistan: time to investigate those responsible and give Mamana Bibi’s family and others like them justice.

    • ________________________________________________________________________ 

    • DroneEerie1

 

 

STOP DRONE WARa

| Pakistani drone victims’ lawyer accuses US of blocking his visit to Congress!

Pakistani drone victims’ lawyer accuses US of blocking his visit to Congress ~ theguardian.com.

Shahzad Akbar says visa hold-up means he cannot take his clients to Capitol Hill to testify on CIA drone strikes in Pakistan.

The US government is being accused of derailing a congressional hearing that would be the first to hear testimony from survivors of an alleged CIA drone strike by failing to grant the family’s lawyer a visa.

Shahzad Akbar, a legal fellow with the British human rights group Reprieve and the director of the Pakistan-based Foundation for Fundamental Rights, says the state department is preventing him from taking his clients to Capitol Hill next week. The hearing would mark the first time US lawmakers heard directly from drone strike survivors.

Akbar’s clients, Rafiq ur-Rehman, his 13-year-old son, Zubair, and his nine-year-old daughter, Nabila, are from the tribal regions of north Waziristan. The children were injured in the alleged US strike on the village of Tappi last year. Their grandmother – Rehman’s mother, Mamana – was killed.

Rehman and his children have spent months making preparations to visit Washington after being invited by US representatives to testify in the ad hoc hearing on drone strikes.

According to Akbar, his clients’ visas for the trip have been approved, but his has not. He believes the hold-up is political.

“It’s not like my name is scratched because there is some sort of confusion. My name is blocked,” Akbar told the Guardian. “Before I started drone investigations I never had an issue with US visa. In fact, I had a US diplomatic visa for two years.”

This is the third tangle Akbar has experienced with US authorities over a visa since 2011, a year after he began investigating drone strikes. In April, Akbar said he was being prevented from speaking at a human rights conference in Washington because of a delay processing his application. He was eventually granted entry.

Florida congressman Alan Grayson, who helped spearhead the effort to bring the Rehman family to the US, told the Guardian that the state department had not given “a specific reason as to why [Akbar]’s having trouble getting in”.

“I don’t know why the State Department has taken this action, but I think it’s extremely important that when it comes to a national security matter like drone attacks, we hear not only from the proponents of these attacks, but also from the victims,” Grayson said.

“We have a chronic problem in Congress that when the administration is involved in one side of the issue, we rarely hear about the other side of the issue.

“This is true with regard to NSA domestic spying. This is true with regard to proposed military intervention in Syria. And it’s also true with regard to the drone attacks in Pakistan and in Yemen.”

He added: “I think Congress and the American people simply need to hear both sides of the story, and that’s why we invited these witnesses to come and testify.”

Akbar is an internationally-known critic of US drone strikes in Pakistan, representing over 150 survivors of alleged US strikes and their family members in litigation against CIA and government officials in Pakistan.

His most recent request for visa approval began last month. Documents reviewed by the Guardian show he submitted his non-immigrant state department visa application on 26 August, while Rehman and his children submitted theirs on 28 August.

Akbar says he and his clients’ visa interviews were booked through the American Express offices in Islamabad and held in the US embassy there; his on 4 September, his clients’ on 6 September.

Akbar said his interview got off to an atypical start when an American official escorted him to a separate room for questioning. “Normally when you go to the embassy, there are different counters in the big hall and everyone is interviewed at the counter, and this is where the victims – Rafiq and his children – were interviewed, but I was interviewed in a separate room,” Akbar said.

“They got the result within a week and I’m still waiting for my visa.”

Akbar said the woman who interviewed him told him he had been “flagged.”

“She said they know me very well, so they don’t need really to clarify anything. They were aware that I was coming. They were aware of the invitation from the congressman,” Akbar said.

He claimed the woman told him her job was to identify immigration or flight risks, neither of which he was, then said that because his “history” with the US, “my visa has been flagged.”

A State Department spokeswoman said “two agents” were reviewing questions concerning Akbar’s visa submitted by the Guardian but did not respond with answers before publication.

“I keep checking and they still tell me that it’s in administrative process,” Akbar said. “They say they cannot tell me how long it will take.” A state department information sheet indicates the total wait time for a non-immigrant visa in Islamabad, including the appointment interview and processing, should not exceed 13 days. Akbar began the process one month ago.

Akbar believes another government agency may be blocking his visit. “We brought litigation, civil litigation and civil charges, against CIA officials in Pakistan for their role in drone strikes. I think it’s pretty clear that I have been blacklisted because of that.”

 

The Rehman family had been invited to Congress to describe the afternoon of 24 October, when their village was hit by four missiles, allegedly fired by drones that had been buzzing overhead for days.

Nabila was playing outside when the munitions struck. She tried to run but was burned by the blast. She and Zubair were hospitalized for injuries they sustained. Zubair required surgery to remove the shrapnel from his leg.

Their father, who was finishing work when the attack happened, returned home to find a smoking crater, bleeding children and dead cattle. Scattered in a field a considerable distance from the blast site were the remains of his 67-year-old mother.

Initial reports citing unnamed security officials claimed as many as four “militants” were killed in the attack. North Waziristan is well-known for its militant population and has been a consistent target of the CIA’s drone campaign.

But Rehman says his mother – the wife of a retired headmaster – was the only person killed in the strike, and maintains there were no fighters present when the missiles were fired. Akbar said he was able to make contact with Rehman a week after the strike and, as a result, managed to collect a substantial body of evidence indicating it was unlawful.

“There is no evidence of any militant killed,” Akbar said. He said the only people injured were children; a total of nine, three seriously. Neither US nor Pakistani officials have disclosed the names or any other details of the militants they claim were the targets.

Akbar said Rehman and his children agreed to travel to the US on the condition he would join them as their lawyer, and they are now considering abandoning the trip. “This was a big plunge for these people,” he said.

Robert Greenwald, a US filmmaker, was introduced to the Rehman family through Akbar while working on an forthcoming documentary, Unmanned, examining US drone strikes. On Tuesday, Greenwald’s organization, Brave New Films, released a one-minute video featuring Rehman and his children, that called on the state department to allow Akbar to accompany his clients on their trip to the US.

“It’s very, very upsetting that the efforts of the state department may really stop something that’s pure democracy,” Greenwald told the Guardian.

Shahzad Akbar drones Pakistan

Shahzad Akbar, right, has represented more than 150 survivors of alleged US drone strikes and their family members. Photograph: Anjum Naveed/AP
_________________________________________________________________________

STOP DRONE WARa

| Conman-in-Chief: Top 45 Lies in Obama’s Speech at the UN!

Top 45 Lies in Obama’s Speech at the U.N. ~

davidswanson, War Is A Crime .org.

 

1. President Obama’s opening lines at the U.N. on Tuesday looked down on people who would think to settle disputes with war. Obama was disingenuously avoiding the fact that earlier this month he sought to drop missiles into a country to “send a message” but was blocked by the U.S. Congress, the U.N., the nations of the world, and popular opposition — after which Obama arrived at diplomacy as a last resort.

2. “It took the awful carnage of two world wars to shift our thinking.” Actually, it took one. The second resulted in a half-step backwards in “our thinking.” The Kellogg-Briand Pact banned all war. The U.N. Charter re-legalized wars purporting to be either defensive or U.N.-authorized.

3. “[P]eople are being lifted out of poverty,” Obama said, crediting actions by himself and others in response to the economic crash of five years ago. But downward global trends in poverty are steady and long pre-date Obama’s entry into politics. And such a trend does not exist in the U.S.

4. “Together, we have also worked to end a decade of war,” Obama said. In reality, Obama pushed Iraq hard to allow that occupation to continue, and was rejected just as Congress rejected his missiles-for-Syria proposal. Obama expanded the war on Afghanistan. Obama expanded, after essentially creating, drone wars. Obama has increased global U.S. troop presence, global U.S. weapons sales, and the size of the world’s largest military. He’s put “special” forces into many countries, waged a war on Libya, and pushed for an attack on Syria. How does all of this “end a decade of war”? And how did his predecessor get a decade in office anyway?

5. “Next year, an international coalition will end its war in Afghanistan, having achieved its mission of dismantling the core of al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11.” In reality, Bruce Riedel, who coordinated a review of Afghanistan policy for President Obama said, “The pressure we’ve put on [jihadist forces] in the past year has also drawn them together, meaning that the network of alliances is growing stronger not weaker.” (New York Times, May 9, 2010.)

6. “We have limited the use of drones.” Bush drone strikes in Pakistan: 51. Obama drone strikes in Pakistan: 323.

7. “… so they target only those who pose a continuing, imminent threat to the United States where capture is not feasible.” On June 7, 2013, Yemeni tribal leader Saleh Bin Fareed told Democracy Now that Anwar al Awlaki could have been turned over and put on trial, but “they never asked us.” In numerous other cases it is evident that drone strike victims could have been arrested if that avenue had ever been attempted. A memorable example was the November 2011 drone killing in Pakistan of 16-year-old Tariq Aziz, days after he’d attended an anti-drone meeting in the capital, where he might easily have been arrested — had he been charged with some crime. This weeks drone victims, like all the others, had never been indicted or their arrest sought.

8. “… and there is a near certainty of no civilian casualties.” There are hundreds of confirmed civilian dead from U.S. drones, something the Obama administration seems inclined to keep as quiet as possible.

9. “And the potential spread of weapons of mass destruction casts a shadow over the pursuit of peace.” In reality, President Obama is not pursuing peace or the control of such weapons or their reduction and elimination in all countries, only particular countries. And the United States remains the top possessor of weapons of mass destruction and the top supplier of weapons to the world.

10. “[In Syria, P]eaceful protests against an authoritarian regime were met with repression and slaughter. … America and others have worked to bolster the moderate opposition.” In fact, the United States has armed a violent opposition intent on waging war and heavily influenced if not dominated by foreign fighters and fanatics.

11. “[T]he regime used chemical weapons in an attack that killed more than 1,000 people, including hundreds of children.” Maybe, but where’s the evidence? Even Colin Powell brought (faked) evidence.

12. “How should we respond to conflicts in the Middle East?” This suggests that the United States isn’t causingconflicts in the Middle East or aggravating them prior to altering its position and “responding.” In fact, arming and supporting brutal governments in Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Israel, etc., is behavior that could do a great deal of good simply by ceasing.

13. “How do we address the choice of standing callously by while children are subjected to nerve gas, or embroiling ourselves in someone else’s civil war?” That isn’t a complete list of choices, as Obama discovered when Russia called Kerry’s bluff and diplomacy became a choice, just as disarmament and de-escalation and pressure for a ceasefire are choices. Telling Saudi Arabia “Stop arming the war in Syria or no more cluster bombs for you,” is a choice.

14. “What is the role of force in resolving disputes that threaten the stability of the region and undermine all basic standards of civilized conduct?” Force doesn’t have a role in civilized conduct, the most basic standard of which is relations without the use of force.

15. “[T]he international community must enforce the ban on chemical weapons.” Except against Israel or the United States.

16. “… and Iranians poisoned in the many tens of thousands.” This was good of Obama to recognize Iran’s suffering, but it would have been better of him to recall where Iraq acquired some of its weapons of mass destruction.

17. “It is an insult to human reason — and to the legitimacy of this institution — to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack.” Really? In the absence of evidence, skepticism isn’t reasonable for this Colin-Powelled institution, the same U.N. that was told Libya would be a rescue and watched it become a war aimed at illegally overthrowing a government? Trust us?

18. “Now, there must be a strong Security Council Resolution to verify that the Assad regime is keeping its commitments, and there must be consequences if they fail to do so.” Meaning war? What about the U.N.’s commitment to oppose war? What about the United States’ violation of its commitments to destroy the chemical weapons sitting in Kentucky and Colorado? “Consequences” for the U.S. too?

19. “I do not believe that military action — by those within Syria, or by external powers — can achieve a lasting peace.” Yet, the U.S. government is shipping weapons into that action.

20. “Nor do I believe that America or any nation should determine who will lead Syria … Nevertheless, a leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy to lead a badly fractured country.” The Syrians should decide their own fate as long as they decide it the way I tell them to.

21. “[N]or does America have any interest in Syria beyond the well-being of its people, the stability of its neighbors, the elimination of chemical weapons, and ensuring it does not become a safe-haven for terrorists.” That’s funny. Elsewhere, you’ve said that weakening Syria would weaken Iran.

22. “[W]e will be providing an additional $340 million [for aid].” And vastly more for weapons.

23. “We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil…” That first remarkably honest sentence is only honest if you don’t think about what “free flow” means. The second sentence points to a real, if slow, trend but obscures the fact that only 40% of the oil the U.S. uses comes from the U.S., which doesn’t count much of the oil the U.S. military uses while “ensuring the free flow.” Nor is switching to small domestic supplies a long-term solution as switching to sustainable energy would be.

24. “But when it’s necessary to defend the United States against terrorist attacks, we will take direct action.” In Libya? Syria? Where does this make any sense, as U.S. actions generate rather than eliminate terrorism? Michael Boyle, part of Obama’s counter-terrorism group during his 2008 election campaign, says the use of drones is having “adverse strategic effects that have not been properly weighed against the tactical gains associated with killing terrorists … . The vast increase in the number of deaths of low-ranking operatives has deepened political resistance to the US programme in Pakistan, Yemen and other countries.” (The Guardian, January 7, 2013.) Why is Canada not obliged to bomb the world to “defend against terrorist attacks”?

ObLies1

25. “Just as we consider the use of chemical weapons in Syria to be a threat to our own national security …” We who? How? Congress just rejected this ludicrous claim. Ninety percent of this country laughed at it.

26. “[W]e reject the development of nuclear weapons that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region, and undermine the global non-proliferation regime.” By Israel which has done this, or by Iran which all evidence suggests has not?

27. “We deeply believe it is in our interest to see a Middle East and North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous,” we just choose to work against that deep belief and to sell or give vast quantities of weapons to brutal dictatorships and monarchies.

28. “Iraq shows us that democracy cannot be imposed by force.” This could have been true had the U.S. attempted to impose democracy.

29. “Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.” Iran’s what?

30. “Arab-Israeli conflict.” That’s a misleading way of naming the conflict between the government of Israel and the people it ethnically cleanses, occupies, and abuses — including with chemical weapons.

31. “[A]n Iranian government that has … threatened our ally Israel with destruction.” It hasn’t. And piling up the lies about Iran will make Iran less eager to talk. Just watch.

32. “We are not seeking regime change.” That’s not what Kerry told Congress, in between telling Congress just the opposite. Also, see above in this same speech: “a leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy….”

33. “We insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and UN Security Council resolutions.” Among Iran, the U.S., and Israel, it’s Iran that seems to be complying.

34. “We are encouraged that President Rouhani received from the Iranian people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course.” More moderate than what? Threatening to destroy Israel and creating nukes?

35. “[T]heir own sovereign state.” There’s nowhere left for Palestine to create such a separate state.

36. “Israel’s security as a Jewish and democratic state.” Both, huh?

37. “When peaceful transitions began in Tunisia and Egypt … we chose to support those who called for change” … the minute everyone else was dead, exiled, or imprisoned.

38. “[T]rue democracy as requiring a respect for minority rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly, and a strong civil society. That remains our interest today.” Just not in our own country and certainly not in places that buy some of the biggest piles of our weapons.

39. “But we will not stop asserting principles that are consistent with our ideals, whether that means opposing the use of violence as a means of suppressing dissent,” and if you don’t believe me, ask the Occupy movement — Happy Second Birthday, you guys!  I SHUT YOU DOWN, bwa ha ha ha ha.

40. “This includes efforts to resolve sectarian tensions that continue to surface in places like Iraq, Syria and Bahrain.” One liberated, one targeted, and one provided with support and weaponry and former U.S. police chiefs to lead the skull cracking.

41. “[A] vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill.” All criminal outrages should have a vacuum of leadership. “Who would bomb countries if we don’t do it?” is the wrong question.

42. “Some may disagree, but I believe that America is exceptional — in part because we have shown a willingness, through the sacrifice of blood and treasure, to stand up not only for our own narrow self-interest, but for the interests of all.” When was that? The United States certainly comes in at far less than exceptional in terms of per-capita humanitarian aid.  Its humanitarian bombing that Obama has in mind, but it’s never benefitted humanity.

43. “And in Libya, when the Security Council provided a mandate to protect civilians, America joined a coalition that took action. Because of what we did there, countless lives were saved, and a tyrant could not kill his way back to power.” The White House claimed that Gaddafi had threated to massacre the people of Benghazi with “no mercy,” but the New York Times reported that Gaddafi’s threat was directed at rebel fighters, not civilians, and that Gaddafi promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.” Gaddafi also offered to allow rebel fighters to escape to Egypt if they preferred not to fight to the death. Yet President Obama warned of imminent genocide. What Gaddafi really threatened fits with his past behavior. There were other opportunities for massacres had he wished to commit massacres, in Zawiya, Misurata, or Ajdabiya. He did not do so. After extensive fighting in Misurata, a report by Human Rights Watch made clear that Gaddafi had targeted fighters, not civilians. Of 400,000 people in Misurata, 257 died in two months of fighting. Out of 949 wounded, less than 3 percent were women. More likely than genocide was defeat for the rebels, the same rebels who warned Western media of the looming genocide, the same rebels who the New York Times said “feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda” and who were “making vastly inflated claims of [Gaddafi’s] barbaric behavior.” The result of NATO joining the war was probably more killing, not less. It certainly extended a war that looked likely to end soon with a victory for Gaddafi.

44. “Libya would now be engulfed in civil war and bloodshed.” No, the war was ending, and Libya IS engulfed in bloodshed. In March 2011, the African Union had a plan for peace in Libya but was prevented by NATO, through the creation of a “no fly” zone and the initiation of bombing, to travel to Libya to discuss it. In April, the African Union was able to discuss its plan with Libyan President Muammar al-Gaddafi, and he expressed his agreement. NATO, which had obtained a U.N. authorization to protect Libyans alleged to be in danger but no authorization to continue bombing the country or to overthrow the government, continued bombing the country and overthrowing the government.

45. [S]overeignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit wanton murder.”  Says a man who reads through a list of potential murder victims on Tuesdays and ticks off the ones he wants murdered.

_________________________________________________________________________

UN grim reaper2

unfair

| America’s selective grief: Remember All the Children, Mr. President!

Remember All the Children, Mr. PresidentBILL QUIGLEY, CounterPunch.

Remember the 20 children who died in Newton Connecticut.

Remember the 35 children who died in Gaza this month from Israeli bombardments.

Remember the 168 children who have been killed by US drone attacks in Pakistan since 2006.

Remember the 231 children killed in Afghanistan in the first 6 months of this year.

Remember the 400 other children in the US under the age of 15 who die from gunshot wounds each year.

Remember the 921 children killed by US air strikes against insurgents in Iraq.

Remember the 1,770 US children who die each year from child abuse and maltreatment.

Remember the 16,000 children who die each day around the world from hunger.

These tragedies must end.

Bill Quigley is a human rights lawyer and law professor at Loyola University New Orleans and Associate Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights

______________________________________________________________________


candles2

DroneEerie1