 |
The British drone strike that killed a number of Isis fighters,
including two British citizens, has raised questions, including how David
Cameron’s government arrived at its decision to kill its target, the British
jihadi Reyaad Khan. The Guardian (UK) looks at some of the questions raised by
the military action.
How was the decision
made?
The decision to launch a military strike to kill a British
national, Reyaad Khan, was made in the spring by the National Security Council.
The NSC is the UK’s main forum for discussion of intelligence issues. It meets
once a week and is normally attended by the prime minister. It was a momentous
decision on various levels: to kill a British citizen, to do this using a drone
and to do it in Syria, a country with which the UK is not at war.
The NSC was briefed on the activities of several prominent British
members of Isis, including Khan, Junaid Hussein and Ruhul Amin. Approval was
given for further strikes if necessary.
Who made the decision?
We know for sure that David Cameron and the attorney general,
Jeremy Wright QC, attended the meeting. Michael Fallon, the defence secretary,
was eligible to attend and almost certainly did so – Cameron told MPs on Monday
that Fallon issued the authorisation for the attack on Khan.
Also eligible to attend NSC meetings are Philip Hammond, the
foreign secretary, General Sir Nicholas Houghton, chief of the defence staff,
Robert Hannigan, director of GCHQ, Alex Younger, chief of MI6, Andrew Parker,
head of MI5, and Sir Kim Darroch, the government’s national security adviser
and newly appointed ambassador to Washington.
The government has only said that “senior members” of the
committee attended the meeting that approved the strike on Khan.
What are drones?
Drones, formally known as unmanned aerial vehicles, are widely
used by the US in conflict zones from Somalia to Afghanistan. The advantage for
the US and the UK is that, unlike planes, they can remain stationary over a
target for hours at a time. The other is that, being unmanned, there is no risk
to US and UK pilots.
Khan, Amin and a third Isis fighter were killed when their vehicle
was hit by a Hellfire missile fired from a UK Reaper drone while they were travelling
outside the main Isis stronghold of Raqqa in Syria. Hussein was killed a few
days later in a US drone strike.
Chris Cole, who heads the campaign group Drone Wars, said the UK
has 10 Reaper drones. They normally carry four missiles, but the payload
varies. Their range is not known – it partly depends on how big a load they are
carrying – but they can fly at least 620 miles (1,000km) and remain airborne
for 16-20 hours.
According to Cole, based on freedom of information responses from
the Ministry of Defence, RAF Reapers launched 130 strikes in Iraq up to 30 June
this year.
The MoD does not disclose where in the Middle East the UK Reapers
are based: speculation centres on Jordan and Kuwait. They are piloted by RAF
crews working for intelligence and reconnaissance units. The crews operate the
drones from RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire and the US airbase at Creech in
Nevada.
Is there now a UK ‘kill
list’?
In the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq invasion, the US issued playing
cards to its troops showing pictures of most-wanted Iraqis, as part of its
“kill or capture” strategy. But the term “kill list” did not come into common
use until 2012, when the New York Times revealed the existence of a list held
by the Obama administration of al-Qaida targets in Yemen with connections to
the US.
Since then, the Pentagon’s kill list has expanded considerably –
but it does not grade terrorists and suspected terrorists along the lines of
“most wanted”. Instead, it takes the form of a spreadsheet, listing the names
and personal details of targets. The US administration prefers the term
“disposition matrix” to describe it.
The UK had long insisted that it has not maintained a similar
list. That is why it is such a departure for the UK to have approved the
killing of Khan and, to all intents and purposes on Tuesday, confirmed its own
list of targets.
What is the legal basis
for killing UK nationals abroad?
Legal advice would be sought from the attorney general, who would
have consulted other government lawyers.
Wright has maintained a very low profile. He was made Queen’s
counsel when he was appointed as attorney general last summer. The political
pressure on him to provide more detail about his legal advice to the prime
minister on the Syrian drone strikes is likely to intensify in the coming days.
Doubts were quickly expressed about Cameron’s defence of the
legality of the drone strikes. Under Article 51 of the UN charter, every
country has the right of self-defence. “Under the right of self-defence, any
armed attack [against the UK] would have to be imminent or actual,” Phillipe
Sands QC, professor of law at University College London, said.
And under the so-called Caroline test, relating to a 19th-century
case and referred to by legal commentators on Tuesday, the need for pre-emptive
self-defence must be “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means,
and no moment for deliberation”.
Cameron said Khan had been plotting to attack public
commemorations. Downing Street later pointed to two events in the public domain
about specific plots, on VE Day in May and Armed Forces Day in June.
How could there be an ‘imminent threat’ when the killings were
carried out after the named events?
This is the key question. Cameron referred to Khan and Hussein
planning an attack, but in its briefing to reporters later, Downing Street
referred to events that had happened long before they were killed.
The counter-argument from the government would be that while the
plots against VE Day in May and Armed Forces Day were already in the public
domain, officials are aware of other plots that were not discussed publicly.
There could still be legal challenges. When the US killed an
American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, the American Civil Liberties Union and the
Center for Constitutional Rights mounted a legal challenge, arguing it was an
unconstitutional action. Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, also an American citizen,
was killed in another drone strike two weeks later, although the US insisted he
was not the target.
Did Hussein and Khan coordinate
their plots?
Some Isis members do work in tandem while others operate
individually.
Is the UK working more closely with the US on tackling Isis
threats?
Cameron confirmed that the US had been responsible for a drone
strike on Hussein. Until this announcement, reports from the US had only said
the Pentagon was likely to have been behind the attack.
The US and UK have been closely sharing intelligence since the
second world war, with the UK the main beneficiary in being allowed to tap into
the mammoth American intelligence-gathering operations.
The US could easily have carried out the killing of Khan on its
own. The UK may have pressed to carry out the attack itself for political
reasons. The drone attacks against Khan and Hussein are not separate but part
of the same operation.
Why is the UK being so
transparent about it?
It is unusual for the UK, unlike the US, to offer so much detail
about intelligence-led military strikes. So why now?
Given the sensitivity of carrying out an airstrike inside Syria
without the approval of parliament, Cameron may have wanted to wait for the
return of the Commons after the summer recess.
He could have had other motives such as wanting to be seen to do
something to combat Isis.
Source:
Image: Reyaad Khan (left) and Ruhul Amin. Photograph: YouTube/PA
No comments:
Post a Comment