

Pakistani tribesmen hold banners as they march during a protest against U.S. drone attacks in Miranshah, the main town in North Waziristan district, on Jan. 21, 2011. (Thir Khan/AFP/Getty Images)

Last week, in a piece titled “Ethical and Methodological Issues in Assessing Drones’ Civilian Impacts in Pakistan,” Georgetown Prof. Christine Fair took aim at human rights organizations for what she called their “advocacy-driven” investigations into the covert U.S. drone program in Pakistan.

The crux of the author’s argument seemed to be that these reports are methodologically flawed and therefore unreliable.

The author is right on one front. Reprieve is an advocacy organization. We advocate for the U.S. to follow the rule of law and respect human rights. We have never hidden this. But on several other key points, Fair’s piece is inaccurate and misleading.

For example, Fair claims that the constant “buzzing” of drones overhead could not possibly create widespread fear, anxiety and terror among local communities. Several studies and major news outlets must be wrong, she argues, because the drones do not need to fly this low. Just look at the technical specifications the U.S. Air Force provides for the Predator and Reaper drones.

The correct research question in this situation, though, is not whether the drones need to fly that low, but whether they do. And if the testimonies of those living in North Waziristan are not sufficient because (as Fair claims) they may be “influenced,” then what about the words of a New York Times reporter? David Rohde, a journalist who was held captive for several months in the tribal areas, said upon his release: “The drones were terrifying. From the ground, it is impossible to determine who or what they are tracking as they circle overhead. The buzz of a distant propeller is a constant reminder of imminent death.”

Zubair Rehman’s testimony is equally problematic for Fair. According to her, his age at the time of the strike (13) means he is not a reliable witness, despite the fact that he saw his own grandmother killed in a drone strike (he was wounded in the attack). Fair says his testimony that he has seen drones flying overhead in “pairs, sometimes three together” is incorrect. The U.S. government apparently disagrees; the CIA has said that “there are so many drones” in the air over Pakistan that arguments erupt between various operators as to who gets to shoot which target.

And then there are the methodological problems with the author’s research. Take, for example, the article’s claims that these investigations deliberately silence or ignore inconvenient “pro-drone” voices inside Pakistan. For support, she cites a 2010 Pew Poll as evidence that a “sizeable minority” of Pakistanis support drone strikes.

One queries why the author chose to use the 2010 Pew Poll, rather than the more recent one in 2014. The latter showed that only 3 percent of Pakistanis support drone strikes. Even the 2012 Pew poll two years earlier showed a significant increase in anti-drone and anti-American sentiment. The likely reason for the increase between 2010 and 2012? The 2010 poll was conducted before the vast majority of drone strikes occurred. In fact, in the two years between 2010 and 2012, the U.S. conducted 185 drone strikes on Pakistan’s tribal areas. That’s almost two strikes a week for two years, on an area the size of New Jersey.

Fair says human rights organizations can fix their biases by following the lead of good research, such as that conducted by Sebastian Abbott. One thing about Abbott’s research that she fails to mention, though, is that it supports a key finding of the Stanford-NYU report – that a U.S. drone strike March 17, 2011, killed upwards of 40 tribal elders. Moreover, it largely confirms estimates by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism that 20 to 30 percent of those killed in drone strikes are civilians.

In one way, Fair may be right. The March 17, 2011, strike, and others covered in these reports, may be “atypical.” The fact is, we simply do not know. As Fair writes, investigations by Reprieve and others cannot possibly give all the answers – and that is because a veil of secrecy over the strikes makes true clarity and accountability impossible. Only one body knows the true extent of the drone program, and that is the U.S. government.

I hope Fair would join me in saying that it’s time for the U.S. to deliver on its repeated promises of greater transparency. Until then, Americans will continue to be denied the debate they deserve on the drone program: one not shrouded in secrecy, but open to proper public scrutiny.

Jennifer Gibson is staff attorney at Reprieve. An earlier version inaccurately stated that the article was written by Donald Campbell.