State-sanctioned Killings Without Trial: Are
These Cameron’s British Values?
Reyaad Khan, Ruhul Amin and Junaid Hussain – British
jihadis fighting for Isis – may have been planning heinous terrorist
acts: but extrajudicial killings can never be justified
By Gary Younge
September 09, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" - "The
Guardian" -
Three months ago
David Cameron celebrated the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta.
Flanked by the Queen and the archbishop of Canterbury he genuflected
before the pillars of Britain’s legal system.
“Magna Carta is something every person in Britain
should be proud of,”
he said. “Its remaining copies may be faded, but its principles
shine as brightly as ever, in every courtroom and every classroom,
from palace to parliament to parish church.
“Liberty, justice, democracy, the rule of law – we
hold these things dear, and we should hold them even dearer for the
fact that they took shape right here, on the banks of the Thames.”
On Monday he confirmed that he had executed two
British citizens without trial.
Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin were jihadis, from Cardiff and
Aberdeen respectively, fighting for Isis in Syria. They were not
killed in the heat of battle but with
cold calculation. Their assassination was the result of
“meticulous planning”, claims Cameron.
Khan and Amin apparently made a choice to declare
war on both the west and other Muslims and have died in it. It
should worry us all when
young British men opt for that path.
Intelligence agencies claim that Khan and
Junaid Hussain, a Briton killed in a separate airstrike last
month, were planning to attack two major events this year: VE
commemorations at Westminster Abbey in May and an Armed Forces Day
ceremony in June. Such attacks would have been heinous.
But that doesn’t justify state-sanctioned killing,
for three reasons. First, and most important, we are a country
ostensibly governed by the rule of law. People are supposed to be
innocent until proven guilty by a court. These were the very
principles Cameron claimed to “hold dear” just months ago. We know,
most recently from Iraq, not to put too much faith in intelligence
agencies. But if they are capable of pinpointing the whereabouts of
these men in Syria and killing them, then they should be capable of
preventing an attack they “know” is coming and arresting and
apprehending those they “know” are going to do it.
If they had a case they should have made it not to
the military but to the courts. This is not an example of justice
being done, but of justice being avoided.
Even if it were found to be legal, morally it would still be
wrong.
Second, even if they are guilty Britain does not
practise capital punishment.
Fred West murdered at least 12 women and tortured and raped many
others. He went on trial and died in prison.
Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, murdered 13 women and
tried to murder seven others. He went on trial and remains in jail.
Any number of vile crimes are committed by Britons every year – the
state’s response is never killing.
Finally, these short cuts
do not bolster the fight against terrorism but undermine it,
because they violate the very principles of a liberal democratic
state that Cameron claims he’s trying to protect. Britain can now
add extrajudicial killings to torture, rendition and occupation as
tools in defence of “Enlightenment values”.
Cameron insists that these men were “seeking to
orchestrate specific and barbaric attacks against the west”. We’ll
have to take his word. They will never be found guilty; they will
only be found dead.
© 2015 Guardian News and Media Limited
See also -
Human rights group brings legal action
against UK government over drone strike:
Rights Watch (UK) begins proceedings to force government to reveal
legal advice given over attack which killed two British Isis
fighters in Syria
US Special Forces
Unconventional Warfare Operations: overthrowing governments,
sabotage, subversion, intelligence and abduction, FM 3-05.201, Apr
2003