A review of classified US intelligence records has revealed that the CIA could not confirm the identity of about a quarter of the people killed by drone strikes in Pakistan during a period spanning from 2010 to 2011.

According to a purportedly exclusive report by NBC News that mirrors findings of an April analysis by McClatchy, between September 3, 2010 and October 30, 2011 the agency’s drone program over Pakistan routinely designated those killed as “other militants,” a label used when the CIA could not determine affiliation, if any.

The review by NBC News paints both a confusing and troubling picture of the CIA’s reported drone strike success, which three former Obama administration officials feared could have missed or simply ignored mistakes.

Of the 14 months worth of classified documents reviewed, 26 out of 114 attacks designate fatalities as “other militants,” while in four other attacks those killed are only described as “foreign fighters.”

Even more irregular are the cases when entry records conflict on the number of those killed, with one such example indicating a drone attack had killed seven to 10 combatants, and another estimating 20 to 22 fatalities.

By comparison, McClatchy’s April review of drone strikes revealed that at least 265 of up to 482 people that the CIA killed during a 12-month period ending in September 2011 were not senior al-Qaeda leaders, but were instead “assessed” as Afghan, Pakistani and “unknown extremists.” Corroborating media accounts show that US drones killed only six top al-Qaeda leaders during the same period.

One key term in analyzing drone strike records are what are known as “signature” strikes, when drones kill suspects based on behavior patterns but without positive identification, versus “personality” strike, which is when drone targets are known terrorist affiliates whose identities are verified.

At a Thursday congressional committee hearing on a proposed ban on abortion at 20 weeks in Washington, D.C., Christy Zink, a mother of two, testified how the measure would harm women who require late-term abortion care due to fetal abnormalities and other potentially fatal complications.

Zink knows the harm such restrictions can inflict on women faced with this choice because she was one of them. At 21 weeks, her doctors informed her that her fetus had no brain function and would very likely not survive the pregnancy; it was an abnormality that could not have been detected earlier in her pregnancy, as she told the committee:

Our son’s condition could not have been detected earlier in my pregnancy. Only the brain scan could have found it. The prognosis was unbearable. No one could look at those MRI images and not know, instantly, that something was terribly wrong. If the baby survived the pregnancy, which was not certain, his condition would result in numerous surgeries to remove more of what little brain matter he had in order to diminish what would otherwise be a state of near-constant seizures.

I am here today to speak out against the so-called Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Its very premise—that it prevents pain—is a lie. If this bill had been passed before my pregnancy, I would have had to carry to term and give birth to a baby who the doctors concurred had no chance of a life and would have experienced near-constant pain. If my son had survived the pregnancy—which was not certain—he might have never left the hospital. My daughter’s life, too, would have been irrevocably hurt by an almost always-absent parent.

The decision I made to have an abortion at almost 22 weeks was made out of love and to spare my son’s pain and suffering.

In response to Zink’s testimony, Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, expressed “sympathy” for Zink, then accused her of “ripping apart” her fetus:

Ms. Zink, having my great sympathy and empathy both. I still come back wondering, shouldn’t we wai t… and see if the child can survive before we decide to rip him apart? So, these are ethical issues, they’re moral issues, they’re difficult issues, and the parents should certainly be consulted. But it just seems like, it’s a more educated decision if the child is in front of you to make those decisions.

pacino wrote:actual scandal:

A review of classified US intelligence records has revealed that the CIA could not confirm the identity of about a quarter of the people killed by drone strikes in Pakistan during a period spanning from 2010 to 2011.

According to a purportedly exclusive report by NBC News that mirrors findings of an April analysis by McClatchy, between September 3, 2010 and October 30, 2011 the agency’s drone program over Pakistan routinely designated those killed as “other militants,” a label used when the CIA could not determine affiliation, if any.

The review by NBC News paints both a confusing and troubling picture of the CIA’s reported drone strike success, which three former Obama administration officials feared could have missed or simply ignored mistakes.

Of the 14 months worth of classified documents reviewed, 26 out of 114 attacks designate fatalities as “other militants,” while in four other attacks those killed are only described as “foreign fighters.”

Even more irregular are the cases when entry records conflict on the number of those killed, with one such example indicating a drone attack had killed seven to 10 combatants, and another estimating 20 to 22 fatalities.

By comparison, McClatchy’s April review of drone strikes revealed that at least 265 of up to 482 people that the CIA killed during a 12-month period ending in September 2011 were not senior al-Qaeda leaders, but were instead “assessed” as Afghan, Pakistani and “unknown extremists.” Corroborating media accounts show that US drones killed only six top al-Qaeda leaders during the same period.

One key term in analyzing drone strike records are what are known as “signature” strikes, when drones kill suspects based on behavior patterns but without positive identification, versus “personality” strike, which is when drone targets are known terrorist affiliates whose identities are verified.

TenuredVulture wrote:I've been thinking about the PRISM thing, and several things come to my mind.

1. I believe that in some respects, the fact that all this has come to light is evidence that at least some people in the Obama administration do take openness seriously.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I've been thinking about the PRISM thing, and several things come to my mind.

1. I believe that in some respects, the fact that all this has come to light is evidence that at least some people in the Obama administration do take openness seriously.

Except that they'll prosecute the ever-living #$!&@ out of whoever leaked its existence.

thephan wrote:1) The data sets are ridiculous. This is a "big data" problem, the the disparity of the data and data type make it fairly impossible to work with. It would be much more useful in a targeted way to view a group of persons of interest. That would require a different identification process so that specific attention could be applied to the overwhelming data.

TenuredVulture wrote:It's what happens to the false positives that's one reason to be concerned.

pacino wrote:not WASHINGTON?! guess i just dont see the smoking gun here. two employees pissed they were called out saying that 'washington' wanted it.

now, they couldnt say who in Washington, but of course not. that would mean the person could respond and defend themselves.

when zero orgs were denied the exemption when they all should've been denied it, that's the true scandal.

drsmooth wrote:gee I've never heard of people being blamed for something looking to put blame off on someone else, someplace else, higher up

/sarcasm

Werthless wrote:Probabilistically speaking, you can develop pretty good algorithms for fraud, although you will typically get a high degree of false positives.

Bucky wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:It's what happens to the false positives that's one reason to be concerned.

AHEM, we prefer you refer to them as 'other militants'. TIA.