We Need To Know Legal Basis For Jihadis' Deaths

Britain's Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has warned he will not hesitate to order the killing of more British alleged terrorists in drone strikes and similar operations if there is evidence they are plotting attacks against the UK or her allies.

It would be odd for most to disagree with this.

If, for example, Mohammed Emwazi - the murderer of hostages once known as Jihadi John - was to find himself in the sights of a drone operator, few would argue that the red button to launch a Hellfire missile should not be pressed.

But it is important for the legal basis of these attacks to be widely understood and entirely open.

Tony Blair and his supporters refused to allow the publication of the legal advice given by the then-attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, that gave legal cover for the war against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

When it was published, in draft form, it showed that the attorney general had shifted his own position on the legality of war against Iraq.

The UK Government has undergone a similar process.

Until this year, it is understood that the British intelligence services were reluctant, to say the least, to get involved in operations that could lead to American drone strikes in Pakistan or Yemen because there were concerns that these extrajudicial executions may be illegal under international law, making British officers vulnerable to possible future prosecutions.

Now the Government’s advice seems to have changed.

Michael Fallon has told Sky News that Reyaad Khan was plotting attacks against memorial events.

Armed Forces Day, VE Day and VJ Day all pre-dated the drone strike in Raqqa that killed Khan and his friend Ruhul Amin - both prominent members of the so-called Islamic State.

The Defence Secretary said there were other plots both in the UK and other countries of which these men were known to have been a part.

Information on such plots is closely guarded - to protect operation security and to protect the success of future prosecutions. This is entirely right.

But something else needs protecting too - the right of members of a democratic state to know what the legal basis of their state killing people on their behalf actually is, in detail. And what, exactly, those who are killed were plotting to do.

Failure to deliver on these rights will severely undermine the moral and political support necessary to take such drastic measures and could, in the end, fuel yet more violence if civilians are killed alongside known terrorists.