At NPR, Anyone Killed by the US is a Militant

[cross posted at NPR Check]

NPR may struggle mightily with what to call torture - "the problem is that the word torture is loaded with political and social implications for several reasons, including the fact that torture is illegal under U.S. law and international treaties the United States has signed" - but when it comes to human beings killed by the US military, be they civilians or irregular forces, there's no hesitation: they are militants plain and simple.

This morning David Greene introduces another drone attack story by claiming that the "US has struck again at militants near the border with Afghanistan. The American airstrikes yesterday killed at least 45 militants...." Greene then turns things over to Julie McCarthy who says, "The details of the assault on the remote tribal area of South Waziristan - known as Pakistan's badlands - are still emerging, but local media report that dozens of militants were killed when three drone missiles were fired on Taliban fighters as they gathered for a funeral of fellow militants."

There are a few problems with Greene and McCarthy's reporting. Despite the heavy civilian toll of past drone attacks, Greene asserts as fact that "at least 45 militants" were killed. So where is the evidence? How does he know any of them were "militants." McCarthy notes that details "are still emerging," but that doesn't stop her from claiming that "local media report that dozens of militants were killed," that they were "Taliban fighters," and that it was a "funeral of fellow militants." So what local media is McCarthy referring to, and just how were the dead identified as "Taliban fighters"?

It's interesting to look at other reports of the same attack. According to the BBC

"At least 43 people have died in missile strikes by a US drone aircraft in a militant stronghold of Pakistan, a Taliban spokesman has told the BBC."

Pretty basic journalistic practice. "People" get killed, and the allegations are sourced. The Guardian goes even further noting that "one local security official, who could not be identified as he was not authorised to speak to media, said that more than 60 had died of whom 'half are civilians'." Civilians? What do you know, another detail that NPR somehow missed.

In addition to the factual vagaries of the report, Greene and McCarthy's casual attitude about unmanned killing machines and attacks on a funeral is really disturbing. So now it's acceptable military practice to bomb funerals? It's telling that when the word is torture NPR is concerned about "the fact that torture is illegal under U.S. law and international treaties," but when they are using language favorable to the US military there is no such concern.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"So now it's acceptable military practice to bomb funerals? "

When I woke up this morning to reports of the two drone bombings, the second the mourners at the funeral for a leader killed in the first attack, one of my firs thoughts was asking myself that same question. My very first thought was that, as always, any dead are bad guys. Sheesh.

It was reported as if it were the most natural and acceptable thing in the history of warfare to bomb funerals.

Dictionary Updates

Yup. Hey if someone else killed them, they'd be "innocent civilians"...

Naturally our fighting stenographer corp is working at redefining things to shed a favorable light on events when we indiscriminately kill civilians.

So you should be prepared to add the following to your dictionaries.

Children = Militants in Training

Mothers = Militant Factories

Cats and Dogs - Militant Support Infrastructure (well not so much cats of course)

Help Corrente ...

... keep the heat on!

Subscribe to make a monthly payment and keep the hamsters who keep the mighty servers turning in kibble.

No PayPal Account required! Thank you!

Recent comments

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.