Action on Drones - suggested letter

You can find the text of the suggested letter online at www.for.org.uk/act/campaign, and you can find out about your MP at www.theyworkforyou.com.

It would really help this campaign if you could copy any replies you get to Sam Walton, programme manager. Alternatively do get in touch if you need any advice, want more information, or would like to arrange a speaker about Drones for Local Quaker Meeting.

Contact details:
Telephone: 020 7663 1067
Email: disarm@quaker.org.uk  
 

Suggested letter for your MP

I am writing as I have a number of specific concerns about the current use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones, by British forces in Afghanistan as well as the future development of such systems. This issue has been brought to my attention by the good work of The Fellowship of Reconciliation, England, in their 2010 report, ”Convenient Killing: Armed Drones and the ‘Playstation’ Mentality” (for.org.uk/files/drones-conv-killing.pdf).

1. In December 2010 the Prime Minister David Cameron told journalists that more than 124 insurgents had been killed by British drone strikes since the RAF had began operating Reaper drones in October 2007.

a. Were all of these 124 insurgents (and any who have subsequently been killed) directly participating in hostilities against UK or ISAF forces in Afghanistan at the time they were killed?

b. How many, if any, of the identities of those killed in UK drone strikes are known to the MoD/UK forces?  

c. Can you confirm whether any individuals, not classified as insurgents, have been killed by British UAVs? If so, how many?

2. Anonymous UK defence sources have reportedly said that British Reaper drones have taken part in attacks on so-called ‘high-value targets’ in Afghanistan. Can you confirm whether UK drones have been used to target individuals in this way? If so can you outline:

a. the legal justification for undertaking such attacks? In particular, the decision to kill rather than capture? 

b. how individuals are identified for such attacks and, if an attack on an individual takes place, what the procedure is for verifying that the person attacked was identified accurately?

c. the step-by-step procedure for such an attack, outlining the levels of escalation in the decision making process and the level of seniority of the decision maker?

3. Current British military unmanned aerial vehicles such as Reaper, Hermes and Watchkeeker are remotely piloted. However defence companies such as BAE Systems are developing drones such as Mantis and Taranis that are not remotely piloted but fly autonomously following pre-programmed missions. The push by scientists and military companies to greater autonomy of weapon systems is of great concern to many people. As the authors of recent MoD Joint Doctrine Note The UK Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems put it:

“The pace of technological development is accelerating and the UK must establish quickly a clear policy on what will constitute acceptable machine behaviour in future; there is already a significant body of scientific opinion that believes in banning autonomous weapons outright, countered by an acceptance in other areas that autonomy is inevitable. There is a danger that time is running out...”
What regulatory processes does the government have in place to ensure that the development of autonomous weapons systems in the UK does not lead to their eventual deployment in combat?

I appreciate that I have asked you a number of detailed questions but feel sure you will understand that with growing public disquiet surrounding the use of armed UAVs, these key questions need to be fully answered.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,