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

Article in The Guardian today.

Click the link for the full article.

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

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.

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.

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

Oh dear, we seem to be in violent agreement.
Where is the fun in that? :E

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 Aims

Drone Wars UK is a small, UK-based, NGO working towards a long-term goal of an international ban on the use of armed drones.
.

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.

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.

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

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.

Proper Oversight
 

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.

Clarification
 

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.

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

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.

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

Armed Drones
 

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

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].