'In the Frame: UK media coverage of drone targeted killing' by Joanna Frew for
Drone Wars UK comments
In September 2015, for the first time, the British government used one of its drones to hunt and pre-emptively kill a British national in a country with which it was not at war. In the Frame details the findings of a comprehensive examination of mainstream UK media coverage of drone targeted killing between August 2015 and July 2018. Articles about the killing of eight British ISIS members as well as about the policy itself, were used to collate data on the frequency of legal discussion on UK targeted killing, reporting on the use of a ‘kill list’ by the RAF, and commentary on the threshold for the use of force.
Data was collated from four mainstream UK news outlets – the BBC, Daily Mail, Guardian and Times. The killing of Reyaad Khan, in Sept 2015, received almost 39% of the total coverage and many of the policy discussions stemmed from his killing. This is not surprising given the questionable legal justifications for his death, which generated a lot of attention. News stories on policy, although comprising only 21% of the total articles, tended to include a high content of legal commentary throughout the three year period, while legal commentary on individual strikes (the remaining 40% of articles) receded. Attention also waned regarding the possible ‘kill list’. Commentary on the threshold for the use of force was almost entirely absent from the data set.
Based on these findings, 'In the Frame' concludes that:
- An easy narrative for targeted killing has been constructed: Government communication of the early killings of Khan and Emwazi developed a simple narrative or ‘frame’ to support the targeted killing of individuals.
- A focus on individuals detracted from policy: The focus on the notoriety of individual British ISIS members detracted from and hampered public policy debate.
- ‘Quasi-secrecy’ has been useful: The ‘quasi-secrecy’ with which media speculation of a ‘kill list’ was met saw apparent confirmation two years later generate little press interest, suggesting the creeping normalisation of such a practice.
- We are sleep-walking in to a new era: Without serious engagement in the ethical dimension of drone warfare, we risk sleep-walking in to a new era in which international human rights norms risk being eroded.
The report recommends that government publish its policy on drone targeted killing and answer questions on the existence of a kill list as a matter of urgency, allowing parliamentary scrutiny and public debate to take place. It should also commit to end targeted killing outside areas of conflict and engage in multilateral efforts to adopt a drone code of conduct.
The report notes
Drone Wars UK is a small British NGO established in 2010 to undertake research and advocacy around the use of armed drones. We believe that the growing use of remotely-controlled, armed unmanned systems is encouraging and enabling a lowering of the threshold for the use of lethal force as well as eroding well established human rights norms. While some argue that the technology itself is neutral, we believe that drones are a danger to global peace and security. We have seen over the past decade that once these systems are in the armoury, the temptation to use them becomes great, even beyond the constraints of international law. As more countries develop or acquire this technology, the danger to global peace and security grows. ...
In the Frame is being published at a time when the UK appears to be winding up its military action against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and it is imperative that the ethics and legality of drone targeted killing, and in particular, the UK’s policy on such operations, are given much more serious attention before the UK’s armed drones are deployed elsewhere. Although detailed legal arguments about pre-emptive targeted killings within and without an international armed conflict are complex and open to interpretation, currently the broad-brush message given to the public is that such targeted killings are not only necessary but perfectly acceptable. This bodes ill for the future.
