What a load of tripe, is this really the best use of this lot to produce this? It simoly fails to grasp the fact that the Rules of Engagement (RoE) are no different for RPAS than they are for manned aircraft. If the target meets RoE then why does it matter if it is launched from a manned or unmanned aircraft? There is absolutely no difference as these aircraft are not automated or autonomous in any way and there is always a human pulling the trigger just like a gun or cannon on a tank or ship or a torpedo or missile from a sub.
There is some plainly ridiculous hand-wringing in here as well. The worst I have read so far is:
In 2015, a UK drone killed two British citizens - Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin - in Syria without Parliament’s approval. Speaking before the House of Commons, the Prime Minister admitted that the strike marked “a new departure” and that “this [was] the first time ... that a British asset has been used to conduct a strike in a country where we are not involved in a war.”7 The Government has denied that this strike signified a new policy of ‘targeted killing’, though this position continues to be challenged.
It makes no difference if they are British or not. It makes no difference if it was from a RPAS (or drone if you must) or not. What really matters is whether the strike met the RoE. Indeed this whole alarmist report should be exactly on that, the RoE and the avoidance of CIVCAS, rather than the use of RPAS. That would be a useful exercise rather than the comic that has been produced.
Harrrrumph...