Sadaullah Wazir says he was relaxing in his front yard when the missile struck, hurling him against the wall and mangling his legs so badly that they had to be amputated. Three of his relatives died. Now the 17-year-old and his family want justice from America, which they say was behind the attack.
Detailed accounts by casualties such as Wazir rarely make it outside the tribal regions. He and other tribesmen recently travelled to Islamabad, the capital, to meet with lawyers who are planning to sue the CIA for damages, possibly adding a new layer of scrutiny to the agency's covert war inside Pakistan.
American officials do not acknowledge that war or discuss who is being killed in drone-fired missile attacks on al Qaida and Taliban targets, which have surged this year to average about two a week. But they have said privately that the strikes are highly precise and harm very few innocents. Some locals agree about their accuracy, especially when compared to bombing runs by Pakistani jets.
But some international law experts are questioning their legality. In June, Philip Alston, the independent UN investigator on extrajudicial killings, urged the US to lay out rules and safeguards, publish figures on civilian casualties and prove they have tried other ways to capture or incapacitate suspects without killing them. US officials say the strikes are key to weakening al Qaida and other militants who mount attacks in Afghanistan, just across the border. ``The CIA's counterterrorism operations are precise, lawful, and effective,' said CIA spokesman George Little, responding to questions about threatened lawsuits.
The drone war is shadowy and rife with ambiguities. US forces cannot operate in Pakistan the way they do in Afghanistan, so the pilotless aircraft introduced in 2004 are among the few weapons available. Pakistan formally protests the strikes but is widely believed to allow the attacks, and even to provide intelligence for some of them. The US has never publicly acknowledged killing or wounding a non-combatant, or paid any compensation, and it isn't known whether the US or Pakistan track or investigate civilian deaths.
The tribal regions are remote and off limits to foreigners, and journalists work there under severe constraints, so accounts of innocent victims cannot be independently verified. Still, their stories stoke Pakistani public outcry, and are used by militant groups to rally support.
Defining a Taliban collaborator can be tricky. Poor villagers are said to harbour militants for payment, and even without such blandishments, tribal custom obliges villagers to feed and shelter travellers. A recent study by the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, an American advocacy group, quoted a villager as saying he was forced to give militants lunch, and the next day his home was hit by a missile that killed his only son.
In March, State Department legal adviser Harold Koh outlined for the first time America's legal justification for the drone strikes. Without mentioning Pakistan, he said the US was acting in self-defence after being attacked on September 11 and was operating within the laws of war that call for attacks to be limited to military targets and not to be carried out if there is excessive risk to civilians. ``Drone operations are essential,' Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer, said in June.