Written by Leila Leibert
Reading this week’s passages provided a glimpse into how institutions determine what is considered a threat as well as how little accountability and questioning follows once those decisions are made. What struck me most was Azmat Khan’s investigation into U.S. airstrikes, built on more than 1,300 of the Pentagon’s confidential civilian casualty assessments and visits to more than 100 casualty sites. Particularly, how the records repeatedly point to a pattern of confirmation bias. The incriminating lens in which seemingly normal activity, such as ordinary family routines, distorted real enemy activity from the innocent daily realities of civilians stood out most. People streaming toward a fresh bombing site were assumed to be ISIS fighters rather than rescuers, and in Ramadi, an “unknown heavy object” dragged into a building was discovered to have been an innocent child. The military’s own investigation estimated 7 to 24 civilian deaths, while Khan’s reporting found that more than 120 villagers were killed. Yet not a single record included a finding of wrongdoing or disciplinary action, and the families left affected were left largely unnoticed. I found his reporting revealed what happens when corrections are never made, the current methodologies of these investigations, and the stakes are human lives.
The Reuters podcast “Drone Wars” left me wondering how political leaders could hold machines accountable as warfare becomes more autonomous. Khan’s reporting suggests the problem began much earlier, and in many cases, the command that approved a strike was also responsible for examining it. The Times, by contrast, did what military officials admitted they had not done: analyzed the assessments in aggregate to uncover patterns of failure. As we turn toward an AI-driven future, the harder question is how targeting systems built on assessments like these will be diligenced for bias, and whether their errors will ever be corrected or simply just iterated upon.
This “due diligence” carried into this week’s reporting on Germany. Euronews reported the deportation of 81 Afghan men on a flight coordinated with Qatar, with the Interior Ministry stating that all of them had criminal records and were legally required to leave. Each was given up to €1,000, a legal loophole, since German courts can block removals if returnees face destitution, a detail that says a great deal about the conditions awaiting them. Likewise, Politico described Afghans who had been promised resettlement left in limbo in Pakistan as German migration policy continues to harden. In both cases, decisions about who is safe enough to welcome and who should be removed leave little room for the voices of those affected to be heard.
Across these readings, the Times piece on church asylum offered a different picture providing readers a look into ways communities have fought to protect these groups. As the state moved to deport refugees, communities of faith opened their doors and sheltered them. It left me wondering what happens when the only accountability left comes not from governments, but from journalists like Khan and congregations willing to take people in and provide a voice to their stories.
