Yemen government pays more than $1 million U.S. as compensation to relatives of victims of US drone strike.

The Yemeni government has paid out more than $1 million U.S. to relatives of victims of a U.S. drone strike. Documents verifying the payments show that there was evidence that many casualties were civilians with no Al Qaeda connections.

The documents are signed both by Yemeni court officials as well as relatives of the victims. The payouts all deal with one particular drone strike that hit vehicles in a convoy of vehicles that was part of a wedding party. Fifteen people were killed in the attack with five more reported injured. The attack had been carried out under the auspices of the Joint Special Operations Command(JSOC). The New York Times reported:" ... the Yemen government banned military drone operations after a series of botched drone strikes by JSOC, the last of which was a December 2013 drone strike that killed numerous civilians at a wedding ceremony. Despite a ban on military drone operations the Yemen government allowed CIA drone operations to continue.[3]"  

The documents include many details including the identities of those killed. Among the victims were a father and son who belonged to a Yemeni organization devoted to curbing Islamist militants. While the father survived, the son was killed in the attack. The amounts paid out are many times larger than Yemeni officials earlier reported. The total is more than the US military paid out over an entire year in Afghanistan. US officials have declined to comment either on the strike or any possible role the US might have in the payments. 

Caitlin Hayden, a spokesperson for the National Security Council at the White House, said: “Although we will not comment on specific cases, were non-combatants killed or injured in a U.S. strike, condolence or other ex gratia payments, such as solatia, may be available,” A Yemen expert Gregory Johnsen claimed that it was unlikely that the Yemen government, which is quite short of cash, would make the payments to the families on its own. The payments in this case are far greater than is usual: The U.S. military has in recent years made hundreds of “solatia” payments to compensate victims for errant strikes in war zones, but the payments rarely exceed $5,000 per recipient. 

A 2013 report by ProPublica cited information from the Pentagon indicating that U.S. forces made 219 payments totaling $891,000 in 2012 in Afghanistan. In a speech in May 2013 Obama set out strict guidelines for drone strikes that required that no strikes should be made unless there was “near certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured."

Drones: A killer above the law.

Although this is a UK based article it also applies as the article notes to US use of drones equally. There is little control of their use it would seem and no attempt to even justify them under international law. Mainly they are continually praised for killing Taliban and Taliban leaders--some several times over! The issue of whether they are justified at all or even if theoretically justifiable must be limited by the likelihood of civilian casualties is simply glossed over. Until recently the attacks were not even acknowledged to be US or whomever. Finally the reports out of Pakistan have at least some reported as US drone attacks! Before they were alleged or presumed or some other circumlocution. This is from the Guardian (UK)

A killer above the law?
Britain's use of drones in the war in Afghanistan must be in accordance with international law

Drones lend themselves to secrecy. Used without fanfare in remote and inaccessible areas, they are invisible to all but their potential victims. The military advantages are obvious, but so too are the potential rule-of-law problems. Unless governments voluntarily disclose information, human rights monitors and independent journalists are unable to verify claims that there are limited or no civilian casualties, let alone to weigh them against credible reports that hundreds of innocents have died.

That is the situation in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the CIA is operating a secret drone killing programme about which we have been particularly critical because the US refuses to disclose the programme's legal justification, the safeguards designed to minimise civilian harm, or the follow-up inquiries conducted.

In Afghanistan, where British forces are fighting armed groups and not the troops of another country, the target must have a direct connection to the combat, either as a Taliban or al-Qaida "fighter", or as a civilian who is "directly participating in hostilities". The use of force must be proportionate, meaning that commanders must weigh any expected military advantage against possible harm to civilians. Violation of these requirements could result in a war crime.

But making the case for formal legality is only the beginning. Accountability is an independent requirement of international law. When complete secrecy prevails, it is negated. Secrecy also provides incentives to push the margins in problematic ways.

Two examples will suffice. First, the US, with reported Nato agreement, has already added Taliban-supporting drug traffickers – alleged criminals – to its kill list. Second, in the wake of the December suicide bombing of CIA operatives in Khost, American drone killings have surged dramatically. In a zone of secrecy, there is no way to know if the 90 people reportedly killed in 11 subsequent strikes were legitimate targets or simply retaliatory killings.

Civilians among those killed in North Waziristan drone attacks

These attacks seem to go on and on with little discussion or even publicity. Rather than questioning whether the attacks are lawful or moral the main criticism seems always to be that they may not work and may actually be harmful through creating more Taliban recruits. The fact that such an argument is usually the only one advanced shows the moral bankruptcy of the US, a bankruptcy that is seen as of no significance. On the moral front the US is not too big too fail since it is able to control the moral discourse--or lack of it. This is from antiwar.com..

Civilians Among 17 Killed in Latest US Drone Strikes
Posted By Jason Ditz
An unknown number of civilians were slain today in Pakistan’s North Waziristan Agency, when US drones launched a pair of attacks on a site which left at least 17 people killed and several wounded.

The first drone strike targeted a vehicle which Pakistani officials say was “carrying some miscreants.” The attack killed at least eight people and collapsed a nearby home, which is what precipitated the second attack.

A crowd of civilians gathered around the collapsed building, trying to pull people from the rubble, when a second drone fired missiles into the crowd, killing at least nine people and wounding several others.

“Miscreants” aside, it was unclear if any of those killed were militants of any significant faction, and Pakistani officials say there was no evidence any high-value target at the site. The area is controlled by a nominally “Taliban” militant faction which currently has a peace deal with the Pakistani government.