Report: Obama 'Admin' To Announce 'Low count' Civilian Casualties From Drone Strikes.

Report: Obama 'Admin' To Announce 'Low count' Civilian Casualties From Drone Strikes. (Popsci).

                      An official number, oddly lower than all previous estimates.

Next week, the Obama Administration is expected to announce the civilian death totals from America’s targeted killing campaign by drone. The number will be low. The administration “believes around 100 civilians have died in nearly 500 U.S. drone strikes since 2009,” U.S. officials told NBC.

Reporting on casualties in conflicts, especially ones where everyone involved has a vested interest in some competing version of the truth, is tricky. In 2013, one estimate of the campaign at that point held 3,000 total casualties from drone strikes, with reasonable certainty that at least 700 or so were civilians and children.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a nonprofit that’s covered the casualties of the drone war for years, found between 259 and 636 reported civilian deaths from drone strikes in Pakistan alone. The Bureau also maintains records for strikes in Yemen and Somalia, and notes that children as a percentage of drone strike casualties decreased greatly over time.

Other accounts vary greatly, with the 100-civilians figure from the administration at the lower end. Accompanying the announcement is likely to be a change in policy.

The Daily Beast reports:

According to a source familiar with the discussions, the president may also impose other new rules on drone and other air strikes, including providing more financial reparations to families of civilians killed in drone strikes and requiring other countries with which the U.S. partners to follow the same rules as it does. The source added that the administration is also expected to release a less redacted copy of the presidential policy guidance that governs drone strikes. That means more details about the policy may come to light than currently available.

It’s unlikely that any change will prevent this or future administrations from using drones for targeted strikes entirely. Drones are particularly well-suited as a tool of war against non-state actors like Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS. They are also weapons that can afford to wait. The cameras they carry capture a tremendous amount of detail, enough to differentiate somewhat between the people down below.


With an expectation of transparency on the program, perhaps future drone missions will do better in striking only those who themselves self-identify as agents of malicious violence.

'US drone strikes on Pakistani territory must stop: Army chief General Raheel Sharif.

'US drone strikes on Pakistani territory must stop: Army chief General Raheel Sharif. (ET).

Army chief General Raheel Sharif on Wednesday said US drone strikes on Pakistani territory are regrettable and must stop as they are a threat to the sovereignty and security of the country, Express News reported.

“US drone strikes in Pakistani territory are regrettable and must stop,” said General Raheel while speaking to the media after President Mamnoon Hussain’s address to the joint session of Parliament.

General Raheel Sharif was present at the session marking the start of the new parliamentary year along with the navy and air force chiefs.

Earlier, the army chief warned the recent US drone strike targeting late Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour was detrimental to bilateral relations between the two countries. The army chief’s reaction came during a meeting with the Ambassador of US David Hale at the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, a statement issued by Inter Services Public relations (ISPR) said.

While expressing serious concerns over the drone strike, COAS said such acts of sovereignty violations are detrimental to relations between both countries and are counter-productive for ongoing peace process for regional stability. Read the full story here.

Video - Jimmy Carter Accuses Obama of Violating U.S. Constitution

Video - Jimmy Carter Accuses Obama of Violating U.S. Constitution. (Heritage).

Former President Jimmy Carter sharply criticized President Obama for his handling of foreign policy yesterday, saying it’s often “hard to figure out what his policy is.”

In an interview with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the nation’s 39th president accused Obama of violating the U.S. Constitution with drone strikes that killed Americans.

>>> Drone Strikes: The Legality of U.S. Targeting Terrorists Abroad

On the current threat of ISIS, Carter wasn’t any kinder to Obama. “First of all, we waited too long,” he said. “We let the Islamic State build up its money, capability and strength and weapons while it was still in Syria.”

Last month, the former Nobel Peace Prize winner came out in favor of attacking the Islamic State.


The post Jimmy Carter Accuses Obama of Violating U.S. Constitution appeared first on Daily Signal.

Pakistan - Imran Khan Vows to Block NATO Pakistan Supply Route 'permanently' Over Drones strikes.

Pakistan - Khan Vows to Block NATO Pakistan Supply Route 'permanently' Over Drones strikes.(ET).

PESHAWAR: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan, addressing a protest rally in Peshawar on Saturday, maintained that until US drone strikes stop, the Nato supply route through Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P), will remain blocked too. However, as soon as the rally ended, all those who had gathered for the protest dispersed too.

“We will not allow NATO supplies to pass from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and in any case will stop drone strikes,” Imran told the gathering.

“Before the elections, we promised to bring peace to the country. But without drones being stopped, peace cannot be attained.

“For the first time in the history of Pakistan, a democratic government along with all other parties had agreed that the time for war had ended, and it is time for dialogue,” Imran said referring the the All Parties Conference (APC) in September. 

He reiterated that the drone strike which killed Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) leader Hakimullah Mehsud sabotaged the peace process.
Addressing Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Imran said that the PTI had accepted the election results and Nawaz as the prime minister of the country. “We supported you, we stood by you. We hoped you would start the peace dialogue soon… We hoped that when you would go the US and meet President Obama, you will at least ask him to stop the drone strikes till the peace dialogue is taking place. But when you talked over there, you did not mention the drones at all.

“You have no idea about the devastation in K-P caused by this war,” Imran complained. Nawaz has not yet visited Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa after elections in May.

Awami Muslim League (AML) President and MNA Sheikh Rasheed, who was the first speaker at the protest, said: “We are being killed by dengue, hepatitis, tuberculosis, electricity, gas, inflation as well as drones.”
He also criticised the federal government during his speech.

PTI Vice-Chairman Shah Mehmood Qureshi said that when PTI chief Imran Khan was talking about drones, no one listened to him. “Now even the UN secretary general says that they [drone strikes] are in violation of international laws. They call it war crimes,” he said.

The Ring Road in Peshawar, which is the main supply route for Nato, and the Pak-Afghan border at Torkham was blocked to choke Nato supplies. Security measures were also taken to avoid any untoward situation.

When will the block start?

There was confusing scenes in Peshawar as PTI chief Imran Khan left the rally venue along with other PTI and allied leaders.
In what Imran had termed to be the beginning a blockade till the drone strikes stop, all those who had gathered in Peshawar for the rally and protest, left the rally venue soon after their political leaders.
This lead to confusion on when the actual block was due to begin.
Per a post by PTI Information Secretary Shireen Mazaari on PTI’s official facebook page, the actual block will start on Sunday night.

“From late tomorrow [Sunday] night our party workers along with our allies will stop NATO containers at chosen entry and exit points into KP from both directions indefinitely.”
The post added that the supplies will be stopped at various locations in the province but the main location will be the “Ring Road Toll Plaza near Hayatabad.”


She further clarified that Saturday’s rally was the first step ”in building up to this longer action.”

Related: Fearing for their lives: NATO goods transporters suspend operations

Turkey - Main opposition leader 'glad' Turkish PM wants to sue him over al-Assad comparison.

Turkey - Main opposition leader 'glad' Turkish PM wants to sue him over al-Assad comparison.(HD).

Main opposition leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu has said he is "glad" that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is planning to sue him over his remarks likening him to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

"He is going to refer me to the court, over my accusations. In fact, I am very glad [about it]. Do you know why? Because that way we will shed light into what happened in Uludere," Kılıçdaroğlu told reporters May 18, referring to the military airstrike that killed 34 civilians in the southeastern province of Şırnak in December 2011.

The Republican People's Party (CHP) leader has repeatedly accused the government of trying to cover the facts by stating that civilians were mistaken for outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) militants in the airstrike.

"This was a massacre. We will [seize the opportunity] to give a petition and request that the perpetrators, those who gave the instructions, will appear in front of the court. The best part of the trial will be that a dark event will be brought to light, if the court does its duty," he said.

Kılıçdaroğlu had argued that there was only a "difference in shades" between Erdoğan and al-Assad, speaking at a joint press briefing with the president of the group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Hannes Swoboda, in Brussels on May 15.

The statement had sparked a rift between the CHP and the European Socialist group. The veteran Austrian politician had asked Kılıçdaroğlu to retract his statement and their meeting was subsequently canceled, with both sides claiming to be the ones who had taken the decision.

Erdoğan told reporters in Washington that he would not be answering Kılıçdaroğlu's accusations, but would rather refer him to court. "Because of my background, I would know very well how to answer him with the same language, but I don't want to sink to such a low level," Erdoğan said May 17.

Meanwhile, the CHP has sent an official letter calling on Swoboda to resign from his presidency of the European Socialist group. "You have joined hands with those who have performed bloody scenarios. If you want to be referred to with dignity in the future, you should resign from the chair that you occupy," the letter reads.Read the full story here.

Pakistan - Imran Khan: "Religious parties directly involved in terrorism, religious parties have killed and are killing the innocent people."

Pakistan - Imran Khan: "Religious parties directly involved in terrorism, religious parties have killed and are killing the innocent people."(ET).

PESHAWAR: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan during his political gatherings in Buner, Charssada, Nowshera, Mardan and Swabi has promised to set up an Islamic welfare state and block the Americans drone attacks after coming into power here on Saturday.

Imran heaped scorn at the likes of Jamiat Ulema Islam-Fazl chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman in his speech before a huge gathering in Nowshera. He accused Fazl of exploiting religion for his personal interests and supporting terrorists in the country.

For years, Fazlur Rehman remained silent on the American drone attacks on the tribal belt of the country, according to the PTI leader.

“All the religious parties are directly involved in terrorism,” Imran said.

“The religious parties have killed and are killing the innocent people,” he claimed.

Calling out his name, Imran said, “Maulana sahib, quit your double standard policy now and don’t use Islam for your personal interests.”

Imran made it clear that he believes in the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and added that those who support the Qadianis are neither Muslims nor can they be protected under the set-up of an Islamic state.

In Swabi, Imran Khan told the gathering about how the former government had deceived the common people and had gone about making clandestine deals with foreign countries while compromising the country’s’ sovereignty. He said that even the Americans had gotten wind of the double standard policies pursued by the outgoing government.

Politicians came in for a bout of severe tongue lashing during his political campaign.He strongly criticised Nawaz Sharif and Asfandyar Wali accusing them of looting the country during the past five years.Hmmmm....Wow a Pakistani politician who speaks the truth about 'Religion and Terrorism'....... Fascinating. Read the full story here.

Obama's Department of Justice Did NOT Disclaim Murder of Americans by Drone.

Obama's Department of Justice Did NOT Disclaim Murder of Americans by Drone.(Washington’s Blog).As we noted Friday, Attorney General Holder’s statement that the president will not assassinate non-combatant Americans on U.S. soil with a drone left a huge loophole, and raised more questions than it answered.
Later that day, top constitutional and military law expert Jonathan Turley agreed:

We previously discussed how Attorney General Eric Holder wrote a letter confirming that the President would have authority to kill citizens on U.S. soil without a charge or conviction. His answer triggered a principled filibuster by Sen. Rand Paul and another embarrassment to Democratic Senators who, again, chose personality over principle in staying silent. Now, Holder has issued a new statement. No, President Obama still claims the right to kill U.S. citizens on his sole authority. However, Holder now says that, if the citizen is “not engaged in combat on American soil,” the President cannot vaporize him.The answer leaves the constitutional claim of Obama even more confused and conflicted. Does this mean we have a third category now under the policy: citizen, citizen terrorist, and citizen non-combatant terrorist?
In his prior letter, Holder answered a question about whether the President was claiming the right to kill citizens on U.S. soil. This follows the release of a memo showing that Holder’s description of the policy at Northwestern University Law School was narrower than the actual policy described within the Administration. A memo leaked to the press shows that the Administration has adopted a virtual limitless definition of imminence: “The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”
Last week, Holder said “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.”
***
It is not clear what Holder means by “engaged in combat” since the Administration memo shows that the Administration is using an absurdly broad definition of “imminent” threat under the kill list policy. Since the Administration has continued to assert that terrorists are engaged in a war against the U.S., the terse reply of Holder seems designed to preserve later flexibility.
Moreover, there is nothing in the constitutional claim of the Administration that reflects such a limitation. Deciding on where to kill a citizen would be an discretionary policy under the sweeping presidential authority described by the Administration. As noted in earlier columns (here and here and here), it is astonishing how citizens, including so many liberals and civil libertarians, Obama is saying that his appointment of a non-binding committee satisfied due process and relieves any need for judicial review. Moreover, if the President has the inherent authority to kill a citizen in Canada, it is not clear why such inherent authority would not exist a few hundred yards away in Detroit. The Administration has said that it can use the unilateral power when it considers a capture to pose undue risk to its personnel.
What is particularly striking is that we have a president who is asserting the right to kill any citizen but the Administration has classified memos on that authority and the Attorney General will only give a Senator a terse two line conclusory statement on scope. The Administration appears to believe that there is little need to explain the details on killing citizens, such as how it defines “combat.” Obviously, if there is a war occurring in the United States, a president has the right to put down insurrection or attacks on the federal government. These strikes concern targeting terrorists. One can easily foresee this or a future president insisting that an alleged terrorism conspiracy is a form of combat.
It would seem an obvious thing to explain how they define combat and whether an alleged terrorist would fall into it. Does this mean that there will be a category of non-combatant terrorists for domestic strikes? How is that defined? It seems like a hole big enough to fly a drone through.Since police can already use lethal force to stop an attack in progress, the answer leaves more questions than it answers in my view. For a citizen it would mean that he or she can be killed abroad on the basis of the Administration’s wildly broad definition of “imminent” but domestically would fall under a different “combat” definition. Where is the line between an “imminent” threat and “combat” drawn? Does Holder mean there is a different meaning to imminence when someone steps over the border? We already have the definition of “imminent” and the Administration’s new definition of “imminent.” Is this yet a third option?

Today, former constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald weighs in:

As Law Professor Ryan Goodman wrote yesterday in the New York Times, “the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has acted with an overly broad definition of what it means to be engaged in combat.” That phrase – “engaged in combat” – does not only include people who are engaged in violence at the time you detain or kill them. It includes a huge array of people who we would not normally think of, using common language, as being “engaged in combat”.
Indeed, the whole point of the Paul filibuster was to ask whether the Obama administration believes that it has the power to target a US citizen for assassination on US soil the way it did to Anwar Awlaki in Yemen. The Awlaki assassination was justified on the ground that Awlaki was a “combatant”, that he was “engaged in combat”, even though he was killed not while making bombs or shooting at anyone but after he had left a cafe where he had breakfast. If the Obama administration believes that Awlaki was “engaged in combat” at the time he was killed – and it clearly does – then Holder’s letter is meaningless at best, and menacing at worst, because that standard is so broad as to vest the president with exactly the power his supporters now insist he disclaimed.
The phrase “engaged in combat” has come to mean little more than: anyone the President accuses, in secrecy and with no due process, of supporting a Terrorist group. Indeed, radically broad definitions of “enemy combatant” have been at the heart of every War on Terror policy, from Guantanamo to CIA black sites to torture. As Professor Goodman wrote:

“By declining to specify what it means to be ‘engaged in combat’ the letter does not foreclose the possible scenario – however hypothetical – of a military drone strike, against a United States citizen, on American soil. It also raises anew questions about the standards the administration has used in deciding to use drone strikes to kill Americans suspected of terrorist involvement overseas . . .
“The Obama administration’s continued refusal to do so should alarm any American concerned about the constitutional right of our citizens – no matter what evil they may or may not be engaged in – to due process under the law. For those Americans, Mr. Holder’s seemingly simple but maddeningly vague letter offers no reassurance.”

Indeed, as both Law Professor Kevin Jon Heller and Marcy Wheeler noted, Holder, by deleting the word “actively” from Paul’s question (can you kill someone not “actively engaged in combat”?), raised more questions than he answered. As Professor Heller wrote:

“‘Engaged in combat’ seems like a much broader standard than ‘senior operational leader’. which the recently disclosed White Paper described as a necessary condition of killing an American citizen overseas. Does that mean the President can kill an American citizen inside the US who is a lower-ranking member of al-Qaeda or an associated force? . . . .
“What does ‘engaged in combat’ mean? That is a particularly important question, given that Holder did not restrict killing an American inside the US to senior operational leaders and deleted ‘actively’ from Paul’s question. Does ‘engaging’ require participation in planning or executing a terrorist attack? Does any kind of direct participation in hostilities qualify? Do acts short of direct participation in hostilities – such as financing terrorism or propagandizing – qualify? Is mere membership, however loosely defined by the US, enough?”

Particularly since the Obama administration continues to conceal the legal memos defining its claimed powers – memos we would need to read to understand what it means by “engaged in combat” – the Holder letter should exacerbate concerns, not resolve them. As Digby, comparing Bush and Obama legal language on these issues,wrote yesterday about Holder’s letter: “It’s fair to say that these odd phrasings and very particular choices of words are not an accident and anyone with common sense can tell instantly that by being so precise, they are hiding something.”
At best, Holder’s letter begs the question: what do you mean when you accuse someone of being “engaged in combat”? And what are the exact limits of your power to target US citizens for execution without due process? That these questions even need to be asked underscores how urgently needed Paul’s filibuster was, and how much more serious pushback is still merited. But the primary obstacle to this effort has been, and remains, that the Democrats who spent all that time parading around as champions of these political values are now at the head of the line leading the war against them.Read the full story here.

UN expert to probe reported Israeli, US and British drone attacks.

UN expert to probe reported Israeli, US and British drone attacks.(TOI).United Nations expert is launching an independent investigation into drone attacks in Africa and the Middle East, including tackling Israel’s reported use of unmanned aerial vehicles.
The United Nations special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights, British lawyer Ben Emmerson, said Thursday that he would probe the use of lethal force by drones in places where the the US, British and Israeli militaries are active.
According to foreign media reports, Israel has used drones in the past to carry out strikes against terrorists in the Gaza Strip. Israel does not admit to using drones in military strikes and is not expected to cooperate with the probe, according to Haaretz.
Emmerson said the investigation followed complaints by a number of UN members regarded civilian casualties from drone deaths, and would look at creating an international standard for their use.
“The plain fact is that this technology is here to stay, and its use in theaters of conflict is a reality with which the world must contend,” he said. “It is therefore imperative that appropriate legal and operational structures are urgently put in place to regulate its use in a manner that complies with the requirements of international law.”
The main focus of the investigation will be 25 reported drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and the Palestinian territories, he said. Emmerson listed the US, UK, Pakistan and Yemen as countries he expected to cooperate with the probe, but did not mention Israel or the Palestinian Authority.
The probe does not have official backing from UN chief Ban Ki-moon or UN human rights czar Navi Pillay, according to Foreign Policy blog Turtle Bay, but Emmerson launched it after receiving complaints from member states China, Russia and Pakistan.
He is expected to present his findings to the UN General Assembly in the fall.Read the full story here.

Pentagon Lists 110 Potential Drone Bases in U.S.

Pentagon Lists 110 Potential Drone Bases in U.S.(SN).The Department of Defense has identified 110 sites in the United States that could serve as bases for military unmanned aerial systems (UAS), or drones. A new report to Congress lists each of the 110 sites “and the UAS likely to fly at that location.” See “Report to Congress on Future Unmanned Aircraft Systems Training, Operations, and Sustainability,” Department of Defense, April 2012 (pp. 9-12).
The newly disclosed DoD report was first reported by InsideDefense.com.
The actual or potential drone bases are located in 39 of the 50 states, from Fort McClellan in Alabama to Camp Guernsey in Wyoming, as well as Guam and Puerto Rico.
Currently, the DoD and the military have “88 active certificates of authorization (COAs) at various locations around the country” that permit them to fly UASs outside of restricted military zones, the report to Congress said. COAs are issued by the Federal Aviation Administration.
But “The rapid increase in fielded UAS has created a strong demand for access within the NAS [National Airspace System] and international airspace. The demand for airspace to test new systems and train UAS operators has quickly exceeded the current airspace available for these activities,” the report said.
The Senate Armed Services Committee, evidently receptive to this demand, said in its report on the FY2013 defense authorization act that integration of drones into domestic airspace should be accelerated. See “Senate: Drones Need to Operate ‘Freely and Routinely’ in U.S.,” Secrecy News, June 8, 2012.
The website Public Intelligence previously identified 64 U.S. drone site locations.
See also “Revealed: 64 Drone Bases on American Soil” by Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai, Wired Danger Room, June 13:
“UAS will not achieve their full potential military utility unless they can go where manned aircraft go with the same freedom of navigation, responsiveness, and flexibility,” the new DoD report to Congress said.
A bill “to protect individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles” (HR 5925) was introduced in the House of Representatives on June 7 by Rep. Austin Scott. A companion bill (S.3287) has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Rand Paul.Hmmmm.........Obama Blames “Founding Fathers” For Making It Difficult For Him To “Bring Change”But......"I will keep plotting".Read the full story here.

Karzai: "An agreement has been reached with NATO that no bombardment of civilian homes for any reason is allowed".

Karzai: "An agreement has been reached with NATO that no bombardment of civilian homes for any reason is allowed".(Nation).KABUL - Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday said NATO had agreed not to carry out air strikes on residential areas even in self-defence, apparently contradicting comments made by senior coalition commanders. NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) ordered an end to air strikes on homes except as a last resort to ensure the defence of troops, Lieutenant General Curtis Scaparrotti, deputy commander of US forces, said on Monday. The order came after General John Allen, the head of the coalition force, flew to Logar province, south of Kabul, to apologise over the deaths of civilians, including women and children, in an air raid last week. But at a news conference on Tuesday, the Afghan leader said the agreement did not allow air strikes even in self-defence. "An agreement has been reached with NATO that no bombardment of civilian homes for any reason is allowed," he said. "We consider this an absolutely disproportionate use of force and an illegitimate use of force. "Even when they are under attack they cannot use an airplane to bomb Afghan homes." NATO says the air strike on Wednesday targeted insurgents in a residential home but Afghan officials say 18 civilians died in the attack and Karzai expressed outrage and cut short a visit to Beijing. It was the second time within a month that Allen had to admit civilian deaths in NATO air strikes that have strained relations between Karzai and the US, which leads international forces in the fight against Taliban insurgents. Scaparrotti said Monday the new guidance would not prevent coalition troops from defending themselves. He said that "if they're in a situation where there are no other options, of course they'll have availability of air-delivered munitions".Read the full story here.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman: "If US apologizes to Pakistan, we'll apologize to Turkey".

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman: "If US apologizes to Pakistan, we'll apologize to Turkey".(HD).Israel does not have to apologize for the killing of nine Turkish activists on a Gaza-bound flotilla in 2010 unless the United States apologizes for the killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers in a mistaken drone strike last November, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said during a recent speech. “The Pakistanis asked the U.S. to apologize, and the Americans said, ‘No way.’ So when [the U.S.] comes to us and pressures us to apologize over the Mavi Marmara, because of this or that constraint, sometimes even to best friends you must say, ‘No,’" Lieberman was quoted as saying by the Jerusalem Post. "Otherwise, no one will respect you," he added. The Israeli minister said his country’s stance on the Mavi Marmara had not changed and defined the Israeli use of force as "a legitimate right for self-defense." "We were right," Lieberman said. "And you don't apologize over something right, regardless of the pressure." During a conference in Tel Aviv last week, a top U.S. official underlined the importance of fixing Israeli-Turkish ties and "hinted that Israel should apologize." A NATO cross-border air raid accidentally killed 24 Pakistani soldiers on Nov. 26, 2011.Hmmmm........."all military-age males in a strike zone are combatants".Read the full story here.