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...

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.

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

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"...

As for the first part - again:

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.

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

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 :)

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.

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

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.