To brand the entire technology as 'immoral' is unfair. The drone debate must be approached with reason, not hijacked by the same type of short-sighted, hysterical activists whose blind, misguided ideology focuses more banning every type of human development which, with refinements, could actually aid some of their own overarching aims. Most people partner drones with the 'War on Terror' in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, but the technology actually dates back to 1917 when the Hewitt-Sperry Automatic Airplane made its maiden flight in the United States.
Some of you may remember how David Cameron's victory lap in a still-jubilant Tripoli was marred by the release of an embarrassing cache of faxes. The faxes revealed the true price of Blair's infamous 'deal in the desert' with Gaddafi in 2004: a joint US-UK-Libyan operation to kidnap my client and his pregnant wife.
Miranda's arrest and Rusbridger's revelations should alarm those members of public who still believe that the British government acts in the best interests of democracy and freedom. It is evident that, in the words of Kirsty Hughes of Index on Censorship, "it seems that the UK government is using, and quite likely misusing, laws to intimidate journalists and silence its critics".
When people visit the IMAX or the South bank centre they may be dimly aware of being overlooked by a lovely red brick Victorian building. The lettering on the front identifies its original purpose: The Royal Waterloo Hospital for Children and Women. Few will realize that they are passing one of London's most sinister landmarks.
Unless our governments acknowledge the problems inherent in continued and violent western interventionism, unless they can accept that the war on terror results in radicalisation, 'blowback' and yet more innocent deaths, and until they admit that negotiation is the only viable long-term solution, we are all condemned to remain trapped in this ghastly cycle of violence.