And while it is tempting to try to ignore such people, they have a disproportionate impact to their numbers because most people don’t have the life experience that would enable them to easily judge between the competing claims “transparency reforms are important” and “transparency reforms are meaningless.” Our starting point is that many Americans, compared to Europeans, are politically disengaged, alienated from political engagement most of the time. Sadly, it is not, apparently, a no-brainer, because there are people who claim that transparency reforms are meaningless.
You might think that if a key reason that it’s been difficult to do anything politically in the United States about the drone strike policy has been the apparent public support for the policy among people who do not know that the strikes have not been “narrowly targeted” on “top level terrorist leaders” and who do not know that civilian casualties have not been extremely rare, then if there were a proposed transparency reform that could force the administration to disclose information that would likely contribute greatly to knowledge among the general public that these two key claims are not true, it should be a no-brainer that critics of the policy should vigorously support this reform. By keeping key information secret, the administration has been able to avoid having its two key claims in defense of the policy refuted in media that reach the broad public.
US DRONE STRIKE TRANSPARENCY DISCREPANCIES FREE
Join thousands of others who rely on our journalism to navigate complex issues, uncover hidden truths, and challenge the status quo with our free newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox twice a week:įorcing the administration to publish information is crucial, because in the court of poorly informed public opinion, the administration has gotten away with two key claims that the record of independent reporting strongly indicates are not true: 1) US drone strikes are “narrowly targeted” on “top-level terrorist leaders,” and 2) civilian casualties have been “extremely rare.” Poll data shows that majority public support of the drone strike policy is significantly based on belief in these two false claims if the public knew that either of these claims were not true, public support for the policy would fall below 50 percent. But it’s not likely to become law unless there’s some public agitation for it (you can participate in the public agitation here.) It could be offered in the House as an amendment on the intelligence authorization, or as a freestanding bill. “This provision could be offered as an amendment in the Senate to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). have called for the publication of such basic information. Sarah Knuckey, director of the Project on Extrajudicial Executions at New York University School of Law and a special adviser to the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, calls this provision “an important step toward improving transparency,” and notes that, “Various UN officials, foreign governments, a broad range of civil society, and many others, including former US Department of State legal adviser Harold Koh.
The US Senate Intelligence Committee recently took an important step by passing an intelligence authorization that would require for the first time – if it becomes law – that the administration publicly report on civilian casualties from US drone strikes.
This article was first published on Truthout.
0 kommentar(er)
