Joe Biden Could Face War Crimes Charges After Killing Innocent Children in Kabul Drone Strike

Fact checked
Joe Biden could face war crimes charges after killing innocent children in Kabul

Joe Biden could face war crimes charges after his administration killed several children in Kabul, during a potentially illegal drone strike.

According to a bombshell New York Times investigation, Biden also targeted an innocent man who worked for a U.S. organization. If true, the airstrike would constitute a violation of international law governing targeted killings in wartime – in other words, a war crime.

The airstrike, which took place on August 29, was hailed by Biden as an attack on a potential ISIS-K terrorist who had been driving an explosive-filled vehicle that was to be detonated at the airport in Kabul.

It was the second drone strike, following one on Aug. 28 in Nangarhar province against suspected ISIS militants.

RELATED: More Kids Droned By Obama Than By All Nobel Prize Winners Combined

The Times investigation reveals that the U.S. killed “the wrong person” in a report accompanied by security camera footage that shows the target, Zemari Ahmadi, innocently filling water canisters for his family. reports: Astonishingly, the Times reports that “[m]ilitary officials said they did not know the identity of the car’s driver when the drone fired.” But in the wake of an August 26 suicide bombing that killed 13 U.S. servicemembers as well as scores of Afghan civilians, they believed that he posed an imminent danger based on “how they interpreted his activities that day.”

The Times reported:

Times reporting has identified the driver as Zemari Ahmadi, a longtime worker for a U.S. aid group. The evidence, including extensive interviews with family members, co-workers and witnesses, suggests that his travels that day actually involved transporting colleagues to and from work. And an analysis of video feeds showed that what the military may have seen was Mr. Ahmadi and a colleague loading canisters of water into his trunk to bring home to his family.

Although U.S. officials said that at that point they still knew little about Mr. Ahmadi’s identity, they had become convinced that the white sedan he was driving posed an imminent threat to troops at the airport.

[A]n examination of the scene of the strike, conducted by the Times visual investigations team and a Times reporter the morning afterward, and followed up with a second visit four days later, found no evidence of a second, more powerful explosion.

Experts who examined photos and videos pointed out that, although there was clear evidence of a missile strike and subsequent vehicle fire, there were no collapsed or blown-out walls, no destroyed vegetation, and only one dent in the entrance gate, indicating a single shock wave.

The Times reported that as many as ten civilians may have been killed in the Aug. 29 airstrike, including seven children.

At a Pentagon press conference on August 30, Major General William Taylor told reporters that the vehicle was “known to be an imminent ISIS-K threat.” He also said that there had been “secondary explosions” that “indicated the presence of a substantial amount of explosive material.” Taylor also said the U.S. was investigating reports of civilian casualties. When a reporter asked questions about whether the military had a “high degree of confidence” that the explosion was caused by explosives, Taylor insisted there had been explosions of material that “was going to be used in a high profile attack.”

RELATED: Obama Becomes First Nobel Peace Prize Winner To Bomb 7 Countries

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said on August 30 that Biden was not personally authorizing the strikes, but had delegated responsibility for them. And she said on August 31, citing CENTCOM, “the vehicle that was the target also had explosives in it,” and that terrorists were killed, even though there were reports of civilian casualties under investigation.

International law permits the use of such targeted killings, under restricted circumstances. The target must be an enemy combatant; the target generally must pose an imminent or ongoing threat; and the attack must minimize the risk to non-combatants.

Much of the debate around targeted killings has concerned whether a terrorist can still be killed when not actively involved in acts of terror, and merely going about civilian life. Generally, such killings are permissible — within strict parameters, as described above.

Mistaken identity, by itself, is not proof that international law has been violated. However, if there is no genuine attempt to identify the target, such a killing may violate international law.

In the days after the August 26 suicide bombing, the Biden administration faced intense political scrutiny, and critics have suggested that Biden was keen on carrying out an airstrike to save face during what was otherwise a humiliating, and deadly, retreat.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.