Journalism in the Public Interest

Boy’s Death in Drone Strike Tests Obama’s Transparency Pledge

Strike in Yemen allegedly killed a 10-year-old boy. Despite months of promises of new transparency around drone strikes, the administration won’t comment.

A U.S. Air Force MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle sits in a shelter at a base in Iraq in this Oct. 15, 2008 handout photo. (Tech. Sgt. Erik Gudmundson/U.S. Air Force/Reuters/Handout)

On June 9, a U.S. drone fired on a vehicle in a remote province of Yemen and killed several militants, according to media reports.

It soon emerged that among those who died was a boy – 10-year-old Abdulaziz, whose elder brother, Saleh Hassan Huraydan, was believed to be the target of the strike. A McClatchy reporter recently confirmed the child’s death with locals. (Update: The London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism today reported that there was "strong evidence" it was a U.S. drone strike, but it could not confirm the fact.)

It’s the first prominent allegation of a civilian death since President Obama pledged in a major speech in May “to facilitate transparency and debate” about the U.S. war on al Qaida-linked militants beyond Afghanistan. He also said “there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured” in a strike.

So what does the administration have to say in response to evidence that a child was killed?


National security spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden would not comment on the June 9 strike or more generally on the White House position on acknowledging civilian deaths. She referred further questions to the CIA, which also declined to comment.  

The president’s speech was the capstone on a shift in drone war policy that would reportedly bring the program largely under control of the military (as opposed to the CIA) and impose stricter criteria on who could be targeted. In theory, it could also bring some of the classified program into the open. As part of its transparency effort, the administration released the names of four U.S. citizens who had been killed in drone strikes.

An official White House fact sheet on targeted killing released along with the speech repeated the “near-certainty” standard for avoiding civilian casualties. Secretary of State John Kerry reiterated it a few days later, when he told an audience in Ethiopia: “We do not fire when we know there are children or collateral — we just don't do it.”

But White House press secretary Jay Carney said in late May that “this commitment to transparency…does not mean that we would be able to discuss the details of every counterterrorism operation.”

The new White House statements don’t address what happens after a strike, even in general terms.

CIA Director John Brennan offered one of the few public explanations of how casualties are assessed during his nomination hearing in February. Before his confirmation, Brennan was the White House counterterrorism adviser, and is considered to be the architect of Obama’s drone war policy.

He told senators that, “analysts draw on a large body of information — human intelligence, signals intelligence, media reports, and surveillance footage — to help us make an informed determination about whether civilians were in fact killed or injured.”

Brennan also said the U.S. could work with local governments to offer condolence payments. As we’ve reported, there’s little visible evidence of that happening.

At the hearing, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked Brennan if the U.S. should acknowledge when it “makes a mistake and kills the wrong person.”

“We need to acknowledge it publicly,” Brennan responded. Brennan also proposed that the government make public “the overall numbers of civilian deaths resulting from U.S. strikes.”

Neither overall numbers nor a policy of acknowledging casualties made it into Obama’s speech, or into the fact sheet. Hayden, the White House spokeswoman, would not say why.

The government sharply disputes that there have been large numbers of civilian deaths but has never released its own figures. Independent counts, largely compiled from news reports, range from about 200 to around 1,000 for Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia combined over the past decade.

Researchers agree that the number of drone strikes and civilian deaths have dropped during the past year. (Before Obama’s speech, an administration official attributed this partly to the new heightened standards.) The London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which generally has the highest tally of civilian dead, has found there were between three and 16 civilians reportedly killed in about 30 drone or other airstrikes in Yemen and Pakistan so far this year. No strikes have been reported in Somalia.

“Official” statistics might not be much help without knowing more about how they were compiled, said Sarah Holewinski, head of the advocacy group Center for Civilians in Conflict.

That’s because it’s still not clear how the U.S. distinguishes between civilians and “militants,” or “combatants.”

In so-called signature strikes, operators sometimes fire on groups of people who appear to be engaged in militant activity without necessarily knowing their identities. The newly instituted drone rules reportedly roll back the military’s ability to use signature strikes, but the CIA can keep firing in Pakistan under the old rules at least through the end of the year.

An administration official told ProPublica last year that when a strike is made, “if a group of fighting-age males are in a home where we know they are constructing explosives or plotting an attack, it's assumed that all of them are in on that effort.”

The new White House fact sheet contradicts that, stating: “It is not the case that all military-aged males in the vicinity of a target are deemed to be combatants.”

From the outside, in a strike like the recent one in Yemen, it’s impossible to know how these things were determined.  McClatchy reported that the target, Saleh Hassan Huraydan, had “largely unquestioned” ties to al Qaida. Yemeni officials said he arranged to bring money and fighters from Saudi Arabia to Yemen.  

As for Huraydan’s young brother, “They may not have realized who was in the car. Or they may have realized it and decided collateral damage was okay,” Holewinski says.

The same questions dog the death of another boy that the administration has acknowledged: the 16-year-old son of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric tied to terror attacks. Awlaki and his son were killed in separate strikes in Yemen in the fall of 2011. The boy, Attorney General Eric Holder has said, was “not specifically targeted.”

Clearly, the definition of “militant” isn’t sufficiently broad.  Holder can fix this in a jiff.  And anybody who disagrees, well, the NSA has a list of everybody you care about…not that you were specifically targeted, it’s just a coincidence.

Note, for example, that the “fact sheet” nicely dodges that by pretending the contested word was “combatant.”  It avoids the word “militant,” which they’ve consistently used to obscure the effects of the strikes.

David Lloyd-Jones

July 1, 2013, 10:27 p.m.

Enquiring minds wanna know: do the parents get 75 bucks US—or thirty pieces of silver?


killing innocent children whether by an individual or a nation is murder! Trying to demphasize the horror of such monstrous activity by saying it’s nothing just collateral damage is gross hypocrisy, something the US is a master at.

Steven M. Stringham

July 2, 2013, 8:24 p.m.

It would appear that the head count for both soldiers and civilians in the two misbegotten and trumped up wars in Iraq and Afghanistan our current president inherited from the previous gang of criminals we were foolish enough to elect has passed its expiration date. Oh.  That’s right. We shouldn’t dwell on past mistakes. It’s not very productive, or much fun.  And, it’s certainly much too hard to do when journalists and readers have such short attention spans.  Maybe it’s just a collective penchant for a new rush of outraged indignation every day or two so no one gets too bored with their trivial, information saturated lives.  Go ahead, keep right on trashing a perfectly decent man trying to work this country out of the self-destructive morass of willful ignorance, this “ideocracy”,  it has become.

Yes, there have been drone strikes that went wrong.  Innocents have been killed. Should we collectively ignore it? No.  Should we wage war with some restraint when reality on the ground leaves us few good choices?  Sadly, yes. Do we worry that we may have gone done a road that should not be taken? Yes, knowing that risks inhabit nearly every road taken.  “What if” is poor nourishment for the soul.  Stop whining and get on with living in a better world.

But Mr. Stringam only squeeky wheels get the grease!

How would Michele and Barack feel if it were Malia and Sasha who were mistakenly killed?  What would Michele and Barack say when told their deaths were innocent mistakes?  Or in the words of General Clapper to Congress in answering if NSA collected US citizens communication:  he said something along the lines of, “No, not wittingly”.

Obama, on his first day, ordered the total shut down of Guantanamo Bay. To this day, prisoners cleared for release are still engaged in sustained hunger strikes in an effort to get out of there.

Obama was severely bothered by the first drone strike under his presidency. Since then, the CIA has sharply increased extrajudicial killings via ‘signature strikes’ where virtually no cause beyond a hunch is needed to execute random civilians.

If we are paying attention, we should realize that our Commander-In-Chief is anything but. He has no authority over our armed forces. When he goes on TV, the fiery, inspirational leader who was elected president is nowhere to be found. In his place is a man who is obviously listless and defeated, just waiting for his job to be over.

So now I’m curious. Who is really in charge of our armed forces?

This article is part of an ongoing investigation:
The Drone War

The Drone War

ProPublica is covering the U.S.' expanding – and often secret – targeted killing program.

Get Updates

Our Hottest Stories