Reapers - Ministers refuse to reveal target of new RAF killer drone missions

[Lyneham Lad]

Article in The Guardian today. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/06/ministers-refuse-to-reveal-target-of-new-raf-killer-drone-missions?CMP=share_btn_link)

Britain is running secret missions involving drones previously used to target and kill terrorist suspects in Iraq and Syria.

The Ministry of Defence is refusing to reveal the nature or location of the operation involving RAF Reapers, which can be armed with Hellfire missiles, leading to calls for greater parliamentary oversight of Britain’s drone programme.

Click the link for the full article.

[Asturias56]

My God! I never knew........ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_in_the_Sky_(2015_film)

[Lonewolf_50]

LynehamLad, thanks for the link. Would you care to comment on what the MoD spokesman had to offer?
An MoD spokesman said: “The location and number of sorties flown outside of Operation Shader is withheld under FoI Exemptions Section 26 – Defence – and Section 27 – International Relations.

“If released, the information would provide the public with greater understanding of the operations of Reaper. However, it could put sensitive and protected individuals on operations at risk, providing the adversary with an advantage.”
What's your take on that?

[just another jocky]

LynehamLad, thanks for the link. Would you care to comment on what the MoD spokesman had to offer?

What's your take on that?

No different from any other classified missions that all our nations have undertaken.

And of course you knew that.

FFS guys, stop asking dumb questions.

[Lonewolf_50]

No different from any other classified missions that all our nations have undertaken.

And of course you knew that.

FFS guys, stop asking dumb questions. I was hoping that the OP would respond.
I am not sure why that fragment of the article is what he quoted. I know how I feel about all that - more or less on par with the MoD official - based on my own experience with Predator and a few Reaper missions when they were very new. (I wasn't flying them; they were supporting our ops). I've also posted (to the point of ad nauseum) how terrible our people (on this side of the pond, and the USAF in particular) are with casual attitudes towards OPSEC violations.
What's the problem of asking for a bit more clarity?

[Lyneham Lad]

I was hoping that the OP would respond.
I am not sure why that fragment of the article is what he quoted. I know how I feel about all that - more or less on par with the MoD official - based on my own experience with Predator and a few Reaper missions when they were very new. (I wasn't flying them; they were supporting our ops). I've also posted (to the point of ad nauseum) how terrible our people (on this side of the pond, and the USAF in particular) are with casual attitudes towards OPSEC violations.
What's the problem of asking for a bit more clarity?

The 'fragment' was the first couple of sentences and gave the flavour of the article. The MoD spokesperson's response is entirely appropriate in this case.

[Melchett01]

Having read the article, it’s difficult to know where to start with such utter nonsense.

[Lonewolf_50]

The 'fragment' was the first couple of sentences and gave the flavour of the article. The MoD spokesperson's response is entirely appropriate in this case. Oh dear, we seem to be in violent agreement.
Where is the fun in that? :E

[SLXOwft]

The FOI request by was Drone Wars UK, I suspect the Observer correspondent is effectively recycling a press release, lazy journalism IMHO.

I neither blame Drone Wars UK for asking nor MoD for politely refusing to answer it, even if it is a deliberate "When did you stop beating your wife?' question. Our armed forces are after all defending a democracy in which opposing views are allowed.

To quote from their website (https://dronewars.net/role-and-aims/)Drone Wars UK: Our Mission, Role and Strategic AimsDrone Wars UK is a small, UK-based, NGO working towards a long-term goal of an international ban on the use of armed drones.
.

[racedo]

I neither blame Drone Wars UK for asking nor MoD for politely refusing to answer it, even if it is a deliberate "When did you stop beating your wife?' question. Our armed forces are after all defending a democracy in which opposing views are allowed.
.

IF there is no proper oversight then how do people know that they are being operated correctly ? in accordance with UK law.

What happens when targeting is incorrect and innocent people are killed ? Does anybody expect Govt will admit to mistake or cover it up.

[Lonewolf_50]

What happens when targeting is incorrect and innocent people are killed ? There's a nice vague platitude. Are you prepared to pay enough tax to afford a zero-defects military for the UK? You appear to demand that level of performance.

[FantomZorbin]

quis custodiet ipsos custodes, as Danny42 would say … 'twas ever thus!

[racedo]

There's a nice vague platitude. Are you prepared to pay enough tax to afford a zero-defects military for the UK? You appear to demand that level of performance.

Nope

But if you do not have controls and oversight then what happens when there is an accident. Operators know they will always be subject to independent review.

When you allow zero review you empower people to do as they wish, without recourse, where anything wrong is always justified or washed over. History has shown giving people power and they abuse and it is not just people in uniform.

[SLXOwft]

Nope

But if you do not have controls and oversight then what happens when there is an accident. Operators know they will always be subject to independent review.

When you allow zero review you empower people to do as they wish, without recourse, where anything wrong is always justified or washed over. History has shown giving people power and they abuse and it is not just people in uniform.

I agree there should be a formal (statutory) means of review. It must be on a basis that ensures what is done is legal, holds the executive and responsible VSOs to account. IMHO it musto protect operators from being scapegoated, if something does go wrong, when they are following lawful orders and are not negligent in implementing them. It also has to ensure OPSEC - it may not be just risk to the RPVs or risk of losing track of targets, there may also be clandestine boots on the ground. Answering FOI requests from an organization that wants a complete ban isn't the way - however, that organization highlighting a lack of oversight, real or perceived, is legitimate

Personally, I have qualms about some uses of armed RPVs and even more so about autonomous AI. I do, however, accept that others will disagree - it is for democratic processes to settle on an agreed consensus. Preferably I think there should be an international convention on what constitute legitimate uses of RPVs and AI controlled military equipment. The current international laws are subject to wide and often conflicting interpretations. If the UK and US don't put their houses in order it is more difficult to justify condemnation of misuse by others. To quote Daniel Reisner, the former head of the IDF's international law division (ILD) in the Military Advocate General's Office, 'What we are seeing now is a revision of international law, if you do something for long enough, the world will accept it. The whole of international law is now based on the notion that an act that is forbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries. ... International law progresses through violations.' (full article regarding legal advice to the IDF regarding operations in Gaza 2009-10 at https://www.haaretz.com/1.5069101) We are now in the realms of how many collateral deaths make an attack legal or illegal - I am glad that I am not in a chain of command that has to take decision on that basis.

This is not an attack on the operators, some of whom are/have been members of this forum - they are acting in accordance with current domestic law, their own government's interpretation of international law, and the high standards of their respective services.

[SLXOwft]

Just to be clear when I said 'justify condemnation of misuse by others' I was thinking of certain governments unlikely to subject to the Western interpretation of the rule of law.

[Surplus]

As long as the independent review isn't carried out by Shysters like Philip Joseph Shiner.

[racedo]

Just to be clear when I said 'justify condemnation of misuse by others' I was thinking of certain governments unlikely to subject to the Western interpretation of the rule of law.

Iraq war was justified to be legal by West because a few lawyers found lawyer speak to justify it. The designation of military prisoners as "Armed combatants" hence Geneva convention doesn't apply was another. Gitmo and interrogation techniques deemed not torture were another.

It is difficult to have faith in Democracy when billionaires (and business) buy the candidate they want and everything gets justified from there. Any attempt to allow true democracy hasn't a hope because people with money don't like it. OTOH other types of Govt don't feel you with hope either.

Governments setting strict limits and oversight is up to them NOT any other body but sadly few will do it.

I can see the day when AI used to take out people because of what they discussing because it is deemed contrary to the safety of the state as interpreted by AI. Give it 10 years.

[racedo]

As long as the independent review isn't carried out by Shysters like Philip Joseph Shiner.

People like Shiner exist because of lack of oversight and control. He was a symptom of what is wrong.

[Bob Viking]

Just so I can get it straight in my head, what exactly do people have against armed drones?

Do they believe it is fine for a manned jet to drop a bomb but not fine for a drone with live uplinks and several people watching over the screens to drop a bomb?

Do they really understand what a Reaper is and can do or have they been watching too many Terminator movies?!

BV

[MPN11]

Well put, BV. I guess some people will only be happy if the target is interviewed face to face, deemed guilty, and then once the interviewer is at a safe distance a bomb is dropped on the guilty person[s].

[Fitter2]

Racedo
People like Shiner exist because of lack of oversight and control. He was a symptom of what is wrong.

I beg to disagree. There are places for lawyers of conscience to press for proper adherence to the rules of war. Shiner and co were judged by their own oversight body to have flagrantly transgressed their own rules. It would be nice if our adversaries also observed the rules of war, and it is frustrating (but not an excuse for illegal actions) when they don't.

With regard to the original post, there is oversight from the Secretary of State for Defence and HofP Select Committee, who can legitimately ask questions and receive classified information under need to know. Journalists and PPruNe posters may wish to know, but as been pointed out 'The Public Interest' and 'what the public are interested in' are not necessarily the same.

[alfred_the_great]

Racedo


I beg to disagree. There are places for lawyers of conscience to press for proper adherence to the rules of war. Shiner and co were judged by their own oversight body to have flagrantly transgressed their own rules. It would be nice if our adversaries also observed the rules of war, and it is frustrating (but not an excuse for illegal actions) when they don't.

With regard to the original post, there is oversight from the Secretary of State for Defence and HofP Select Committee, who can legitimately ask questions and receive classified information under need to know. Journalists and PPruNe posters may wish to know, but as been pointed out 'The Public Interest' and 'what the public are interested in' are not necessarily the same.

actually, no they can't.

RPAS, much like UKSF, have been moved into a "neither confirm nor deny" space.

I know people flying them, and they're good people, but members of the public do need to know if we're suddenly conducting kinetic strikes across a country when that hasn't been debated through properly.

If the Goverment and MoD were so sure of their footing, then I assume they'd be entirely happy in putting forward a mature, reasoned and solid policy position in public...

[Just This Once...]

The 'solid policy position' would be in no doubt whatsoever - you just don't get legal authority without it and RAF Reaper crews would not dream of taking a shot without absolutely everything nailed in place. The Reaper system captures everything in forensic detail and everything is up for scrutiny.

In matters such as this the sensitivities are usually at the request of another nation(s). The UK cannot reveal information it does not own or control.

[alfred_the_great]

I've no doubt it's legal - my question revolves around it being right...

[Just This Once...]

Jus ad bellum
Jus in bello.

It will be legal, it will be just, it will be proportionate, it will only be used to advance the stated aim.

As with all conflicts, it will never be 'right'. Taking lives should always be uncomfortable - if you think what you are doing is 'right' then in truth you have it all wrong.

[alfred_the_great]

Jus ad bellum
Jus in bello.

It will be legal, it will be just, it will be proportionate, it will only be used to advance the stated aim.

As with all conflicts, it will never be 'right'. Taking lives should always be uncomfortable - if you think what you are doing is 'right' then in truth you have it all wrong.

if it's all those things, then there's no problem about debating it in public then.

Im afraid I simply don't trust our government(s) (of any colour) to use force on behalf of the country without parliamentary oversight - which doesn't exist.

And theres a hell of a difference between a no-notice hostage rescue scenario and a years long attribution of forces to "fight" an "enemy"...

[Just This Once...]

if it's all those things, then there's no problem about debating it in public then.

Im afraid I simply don't trust our government(s) (of any colour) to use force on behalf of the country without parliamentary oversight - which doesn't exist.



As for the first part - again:

In matters such as this the sensitivities are usually at the request of another nation(s). The UK cannot reveal information it does not own or control.

As for the second, the Reaper crews share your distrust of the government-of-the-day, so they make sure everything is above board and subject to forensic scrutiny. Nobody wants to be thrown to the legal wolves in the years to come once new administrations cycle through, collective amnesia strikes and revisionist history sets in.

Reaper ops are a petri dish under a microscope. They are the least-likely form of combat to deviate from the dotted line. Everything is recorded, monitored and shared - there is no where to hide and everything to lose.

[alfred_the_great]

Ah, so the UK’s Armed Forces aren’t actually sovereign. Excellent.

[CISAtSea]

So let me see. The UK MOD (And I am being deliberately specific here) is directed in its mission by HMG. So we now want HMG oversight on how they implement those directions. I assume, to make sure that they were listening properly.

What we are missing here is just to hold a referendum on each and every flight and then everything will be alright :)

[Just This Once...]

Ah, so the UK’s Armed Forces aren’t actually sovereign. Excellent.

I thought you were ex-military, presumably ex-RN?

If you are then surely you understand how classification amongst nations actually work. For example:

- If the RN used a piece of French military equipment that that the French wished to remain out of the public eye would the RN then release it?
- If the RN received intelligence from Bahrain would you expect the RN to publish it?
- If the RN provided berths for Canadian personnel that the Canadian government would rather keep discrete, would the RN publish the matter?
- If the RN rearmed in the US to provide discrete support for a UK-only op, would the RN just broadcast it?
- If the RN made a hurried port visit for bunkering and provisions in a South American port that publicly provided no formal support would the RN just invite the media?
- If the RN operated in waters that were high risk and with a capable adversary, would it broadcast its positions?

If the MoD steps away from Sovereign territory and makes use of only Sovereign controlled forces, equipment, support, logistics etc then yes, we are actually Sovereign. For everything else there is reality.

[Lonewolf_50]

JTO: nice post, reminds me of a few "quiet cooperation" ops from years ago.

[alfred_the_great]

I thought you were ex-military, presumably ex-RN?

If you are then surely you understand how classification amongst nations actually work. For example:

- If the RN used a piece of French military equipment that that the French wished to remain out of the public eye would the RN then release it?
- If the RN received intelligence from Bahrain would you expect the RN to publish it?
- If the RN provided berths for Canadian personnel that the Canadian government would rather keep discrete, would the RN publish the matter?
- If the RN rearmed in the US to provide discrete support for a UK-only op, would the RN just broadcast it?
- If the RN made a hurried port visit for bunkering and provisions in a South American port that publicly provided no formal support would the RN just invite the media?
- If the RN operated in waters that were high risk and with a capable adversary, would it broadcast its positions?

If the MoD steps away from Sovereign territory and makes use of only Sovereign controlled forces, equipment, support, logistics etc then yes, we are actually Sovereign. For everything else there is reality.

still serving.

If the UK allows rendition to take place, is that reality?

my fundamental problem is that we entered into a "war" nearly 20 years ago, and all it's done is cost us blood and treasure. We originally signed up for Afghanistan and now we find ourselves in West Africa - is that correct? When did we, as a country, agree to that? Why do we thrash Reaper crews when we've never been able to explain in policy why it's appropriate? How often have we had the discussion- in public - if the costs we are bearing are worth it?

or are we just going to run people into the ground because we don't have the balls to have a discussion about it? I note that I've deployed multiple times (and will again) to an operation that is not a formal Defence Task - whilst ignoring actual requirements.