Drone victim’s family, Yemen…its legally acceptable for US to kill civilians by armed drone (image NODV, Yemen)
As the years go by the US and UK hypocrisy on armed drones grows ever more incredible. Despite the growing case of attacks by white extremists in America and the UK and governments saying they have full confidence in their drone programmes, there have been no drone attacks on US or British soil targeting these particular “suspects”. Drones are reserved for Muslims, predominately non-white with the majority strikes carried out well clear of the major cities designed to hit Tribal Areas near Afghanistan/ Pakistan border or desert areas in Yemen. Whites that are killed by drones tend to be so called “accidental” cases such as hostages with Al Qaeda or the Taliban, white “collateral damage” or Brits and Americans fighting abroad that are not named targets but are in the location of a signature drone strike.
Drone victims, Yemen, no accountability from US and UK govts for drone strikes
(Image NODV, Yemen)
While there is very little accountability from UK and US govts regarding their use of armed drones which kill many civilians, there are as expected restrictions likely to be placed on individuals using unarmed drones. On the one hand, the Armed Forces have designed a RAF Predator Drone and Remote Operator playset aimed at 4 to 9 year olds to encourage the idea of militarism and remote controlled murder but should an adult wish to use an unarmed drone in the UK not under the military, they will likely be placed on a register in future. See following,
“a licensing regime or the use of digital identity chips in the drones are some of the options that were raised by industry and police representatives, leading to the following recommendation:
We have already recommended the creation of an online database through which commercial RPAS pilots can provide details of their flights to inform other airspace users. We heard compelling arguments as to why the leisure use of RPAS presents risks to the general public and other airspace users. Therefore, in the long term, we foresee the need for a system which can track and trace all RPAS, especially those flying below 500ft, irrespective of whether they are flown by commercial or leisure pilots. This will be essential not only to manage the increased traffic in the sky, but also to enforce existing and future laws governing RPAS use.”
See following link,
Governments are in fact terrified of customized drones being turned on them. Back in 2013,I warned that in the future we would see small personal drones being turned into weapons, I stated,
“will personal drones be the future of assassination, targeted killing? Governments have had the upper hand on drone technology in recent years but is that about to be challenged? What will governments think of drones then? There is an old saying, “what goes around, comes around” and that day may not be too far off!”
See “Drones: I predict personal drones will be used for targeted killing, what goes around comes around.”
Civilians who use personal drones, like this “flying gun” are in future likely to be registered, and drone chipped (Image Washington Times)
Recently I posted a video where an American citizen, Austin Houghwout an 18-year-old mechanical engineering student customized a drone to act as a remote controlled aerial weapon, a “flying gun”. US campaigners (whether we like it or not) fight very hard to maintain their right to bear arms. As the Second amendment states “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” (ratified by Thomas Jefferson, 1791). So it could be argued that the owner was expressing his right to bear arms albeit remotely. After all a person may have to defend themselves against a white extremist in a shopping mall.
However as the Washington Times highlights after the video went viral on YouTube the owner is now being investigated by Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) though he does not appear to have broken any rules. As Peter Sachs, an attorney and drone advocate, told ABC
“there are countless ways that drones can be useful. Using one as a remote-controlled weapon is not one of them, and I question the judgment of anyone who would attempt to do so,”
SPOT ON… unfortunately this is not legally applied to the CIA who do exactly that, I question the judgement of governments on drones every single day, as do the victims!
Anti-drone systems are currently being developed and will no doubt be used against personal drone owners but will there be development to take out the larger armed drones too?
“Anti-drone systems are starting to take off”
Carol Anne Grayson is an independent writer/researcher on global health/human rights and is Executive Producer of the Oscar nominated, Incident in New Baghdad . She is a Registered Mental Nurse with a Masters in Gender Culture and Development. Carol was awarded the ESRC, Michael Young Prize for Research 2009, and the COTT ‘Action = Life’ Human Rights Award’ for “upholding truth and justice”. She is also a survivor of US “collateral damage”.