Transparency – Page 5 – Drone Wars UK

UK MoD releases two presentations on British drones to Drone Wars UK

30/08/2013Chris Cole

We have received today two presentations, delivered by senior military officers at the Unmanned Aerial Systems UK Conference in June 2012, released in response to our Freedom of Information request. Regular readers may remember that this conference, due to be held in the centre of Bath, was moved within secure military premises due to planned protests.

The first presentation, ‘Information Dominance and UK Approach to Unmanned Systems’, was given by Air Vice-Marshal Mark Green, Director Joint Air Capability. See here for the full text which can be read in conjunction with the slides – click image right. Read more →

After five years of British drone strikes, five basic facts we are simply not allowed to know

28/05/2013Chris Cole

Defence Minister Philip Dunne inspects new Reaper Ground Control Station at RAF Waddington Dec 2012

Five years ago this week the first British drone strike took place somewhere in Afghanistan. Like the more than 380 British drone strikes since, details of that first strike remain shrouded in secrecy.

Although we don’t know the exact day (all the MoD reported at the time was that it had taken place ‘in the past week’), subsequent MoD reports have dated UK drones strikes back to late May 2008. The location of the strike, why it occurred and, if anyone was killed, who they were, all remain secret.

In the five years since, the Ministry of Defence has refused to answer many questions about its use of armed drones. Freedom of Information requests and questions asked by MPs in the House of Commons have been repeatedly refused on security grounds or that to answer would endanger our relationship with another state (no prizes for guessing who that is). Read more →

Yet more drone secrets

18/01/2013Chris Cole

“What is needed is a clear understanding of the issues involved so that informed decisions can be made.”
The UK Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems, MoD 2011

In 2011 the MoD published its policy document on the use of armed unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as drones. Exploring some of the moral, ethical and legal issues, the document accepted that there were serious issues with the use of armed drones, not least the growing autonomy and the fact that drones may simply “make war more likely.” While arguing that these concerns “must be” tempered” by the fact that drones “prevents the potential loss of aircrew lives,” the document went on to call for a proper debate on the issues and argued “what is needed is a clear understanding of the issues involved so that informed decisions can be made.”

In the two years since that document was written, the development and use of armed drones has continued to grow. There have now been more than 350 British drones strikes in Afghanistan and the number of British armed Reaper drones in service is about to double. Work to increase the autonomy of drones has also continued and earlier this week BAE Systems announced that its experimental autonomous combat drone, Taranis, will make its first flight sometime in the next couple of months.

Researchers, campaigners and MPs trying to get to grips with the implications of the growing use of drones however are being constantly frustrated by the secrecy surrounding their use. Despite the MoDs call for more informed debate, requests for information are being refused point-blank. The latest example was the refusal yesterday (17th Jan) of MoD Minister Philip Dunne to answer a question about the accuracy of British drone strikes from Tom Watson.

Drone strikes are constantly reported as being “pinpoint accurate” – the phrase has almost become a cliché – yet there are serious questions about the accuracy of Hellfire missiles.

The accuracy of each missile or bomb is measured by its ‘Circular Error Probability’ – that is the dimension of a circle of which 50% of missiles or bombs will hit. In the case of the GBU-12 laser guided bomb, the CEP is 6 metres in good weather – hardly ‘pinpoint’. The CEP of Hellfire is not public as far as we know.

While the MoD’s 2011 policy document on drones calls for better understanding , we know from a 2011 internal MoD briefing the MoD has also stressed the need for a “communication strategy” to win over public opinion in support of armed drones. When occasional piece of information are provided by the MoD we have to decide whether it is objective, or if it is primarily part of a ‘communication strategy’ meant to persuade us of the efficacy of using armed drones. And what’s worse, it appears that part of this persuasion strategy is simply not to reveal information that may put the use of drones in a bad light.

Over the past few years we have seen plenty of examples of the disastrous consequences when certain groups claim the privilege of exemption from scrutiny and accountability – bankers and their profligate ‘sub-prime’ loans policy, MPs and their expenses, being just two that jump to mind.

The MoD’s culture of secrecy and its refusal to accept scrutiny and public accountability is another disaster waiting to happen. It is not enough for the MoD to write about the need for public debate and understanding in policy documents on the one hand, and then refuse information to allow such understanding on the other. There is a great deal of public interest in the use of armed drones and the MoD must release information that would allow such debate and understanding to happen.

-//-

To sign Drone Campaign Network’s petition calling for an end to secrecy surrounding UK use of drones click here

Transatlantic pressure for transparency on drone strikes

06/03/2012Chris Cole

Our post last week analysing the available information about UK drone strikes in Afghanistan was covered by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, as well as The Daily Mail (which interestingly included criticism of some strikes by a retired British Major General) and The Independent. Perhaps surprisingly the US drone lobby group AUVSI, also highlighted our report on their twitter page

The Ministry of Defence, responding to this coverage stated on their Defence News Blog:

The drone wars website reporting on a discrepancy between RAF operational updates and the recent Freedom of Information (FOI) request is effectively comparing ‘apples and oranges’. The operational updates are a completely different product to the FOI output, offering on a weekly basis a non-repetitive summary of a wide variety of air activity deemed to be of interest to the wider public.

With this in mind there should be no surprise that there are differences in these distinctly differing products. It should be noted that the RAF operational updates have never purported to provide a comprehensive record of theatre air activity, but rather have been designed to provide a snapshot of weekly activity, with output subjective in their content.

Our report did not suggest that there was a “discrepancy”‘ between the RAF Operational Updates and the actual number of drone strikes that had taken place. Rather we were highlighting the (little) public information on strikes that was available and again calling for more information to be made public.

By co-incidence, our request for an internal review of the MoD’s decision not to release information we requested about UK drone strikes received a response this week. The review upheld the decision not to release information, and stated:

“There is public interest in assuring public confidence in and understanding of operational issues associated with UAV weapon launches in Afghanistan. However, the public interest in release is outweighed by the risk to the lives of UK service personnel and those of our allies…. I find that the balance of the public interest lies strongly in withholding this information….” (See full letter here).

We disagree that the public interest lies so strongly on the side of complete nondisclosure. We would argue that some information could, and should, be made public about the more than 250 UK drone strikes that have now taken place. Evidence of the lack of danger to UK service personnel come from the fact that the RAF regularly releases information about UK drone strikes. However this information is not released in a methodical way that would allow proper public understanding and accountability. As we have said previously, public accountability over the growing use of UK drones is not an optional extra but is a requirement of international law. We shall be appealing to the Information commissioner.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic pressure for more transparency about drone strikes has focused on the legal justification for ‘targeted killing’ – in particular the assassination of Anwar al-Alwaki who held American citizenship – and the Justice Department memo that apparently authorised his execution.

Responding to this pressure the US Attorney General Holder made a speech on the issue at last night at a university law school in Chicago. The text of the speech has been helpfully made available by the lawfare blog, with their commentary on relevant passages here.

The speech did not go down well with the Washington Post which said it was “long on generalities and short on specifics” and demanded in its editorial that ‘It’s time to release the drone memo‘.

The Courthouse News Service gave a good overview of the speech and also reports that on the same day as the speech, Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Shapiro submitted a brief (in response to an ACLU suit demanding more information) that denied knowing whether a U.S. predator drone had killed al-Awlaki, though it admitted “that DOD has carried out lethal operations, including against foreign nationals, using drones and other means.” As the courthouse News Service reports states:

That irony was not lost on the ACLU. “If the attorney general can discuss the targeted killing program at a law school, then the administration can surely release the legal memos it uses to justify its claimed killing authority, and also defend its legal justifications in court.”

Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project said in the statement. “The targeted killing program raises profound legal and moral questions that should be subjected to public debate, and constitutional questions that should be considered by the judiciary.”

Exactly. It’s hardly rocket science is it?