This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/world/europe/britain-isis-syria-drone-strike.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Britain ‘Wouldn’t Hesitate’ to Carry Out More Drone Strikes in Syria, Minister Says Britain ‘Wouldn’t Hesitate’ to Carry Out More Drone Strikes in Syria, Minister Says
(about 9 hours later)
LONDON — Undeterred by criticism of a lethal drone strike against terrorism suspects in Syria, the British defense secretary said on Tuesday that his country would not hesitate to carry out similar raids against militants suspected of plotting attacks against Britain and its allies. LONDON — Brushing aside objections to its lethal drone strike last month in Syria, the British government said on Tuesday that it would not hesitate to carry out similar attacks against militants suspected of plotting assaults against Britain and its allies.
British lawmakers rejected a motion to allow air attacks in Syria two years ago, and an announcement on Monday that the military had targeted people suspected of being Islamic State members prompted concerns that the country’s leadership had disregarded the vote and was shifting toward a more aggressive policy regarding extrajudicial killings. The British military drone strike, which happened on Aug. 21 and which officials said killed three men suspected of being Islamic State jihadists, including a Briton who had been specifically targeted, has stirred debate both about the government’s embrace of extrajudicial killings and its stepped-up involvement in the Syrian conflict.
Michael Fallon, the British defense secretary, on Tuesday sought to justify the military action, revealed a day earlier by Prime Minister David Cameron in a statement to Parliament. Mr. Cameron said that Britain had conducted an armed drone strike inside Syria for the first time on Aug. 21, killing three people suspected of being Islamic State members, including two British citizens. In 2013, British lawmakers rejected a motion to allow air attacks against Syrian targets. Now, the drone strike has prompted criticism that the government disregarded the intent of that vote and that it is on shaky ground in approving the killing of Britons abroad without a full legal process.
“We wouldn’t hesitate to do it again if we know that there is an armed attack that is likely,” Mr. Fallon told the BBC on Tuesday. “If we know who is involved in it, then we have to do something about it.” The issue is particularly delicate because the government is expected to ask lawmakers soon to reconsider their vote on authorizing airstrikes in Syria, on the principle that the target would be the Islamic State rather than the Syrian government, and that it is illogical to keep attacking the group in Iraq but not in Syria.
He added that there were a number of terrorists in Syria “who are actively involved in planning attacks on our streets, who have been planning attacks on the streets of Australia, and on the streets of the United States.” On Tuesday, Michael Fallon, the British defense secretary, gave an unabashed defense of the drone killings, insisting they were legal and hinting that further such strikes could happen.
“So it is more than just the individuals who have been the subject of this strike,” he said. “We wouldn’t hesitate to do it again if we know that there is an armed attack that is likely,” Mr. Fallon told the BBC. “If we know who is involved in it, then we have to do something about it.”
Asked whether Britain had identified more than two or three people suspected of being terrorists, Mr. Fallon replied “yes,” but he declined to say whether there was a British “kill list” of drone targets. He said there were a number of terrorists in Syria “who are actively involved in planning attacks on our streets, who have been planning attacks on the streets of Australia, and on the streets of the United States.”
In his statement to Parliament on Monday, Mr. Cameron said that a British man, Reyaad Khan, had been identified as a terrorist threat and was killed in an operation in which two associates, including another Briton identified as Ruhul Amin, also died. This involved “more than just the individuals who have been the subject of this strike,” Mr. Fallon said. That comment prompted the British news media to speculate about a possible British “kill list” that might include Mohammed Emwazi, an Islamic State member often referred to as “Jihadi John” because of his role in the killings of Western hostages on video. British officials have not confirmed the existence of a list.
Mr. Cameron justified the action on the grounds that Mr. Khan, 21, and another Briton, Junaid Hussain, had sought “to orchestrate specific and barbaric attacks,” including terrorism in Britain. Mr. Hussain was killed in an American drone strike on Aug. 24, according to United States officials. The Briton specifically targeted in the drone strike was Reyaad Khan, whom officials described as a terrorist threat. One of the other two killed in the strike was another Briton, whom officials identified as Ruhul Amin.
To many in Britain, the Aug. 21 strike appeared to bring the country’s policy on such killings closer to that of the United States, which targeted and killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born jihadist preacher, in a 2011 drone strike. On Monday, Prime Minister David Cameron justified the action on the grounds that Mr. Khan, 21, and another Briton, Junaid Hussain, had sought “to orchestrate specific and barbaric attacks,” including terrorism in Britain. Mr. Hussain was killed in an American drone strike on Aug. 24, according to United States officials.
Mr. Cameron told lawmakers on Monday that Jeremy Wright, the attorney general, had justified the action on the basis of self-defense, and that the British government quickly came under pressure to publish the legal advice it received. Many see the British strike as a clear step toward bringing the country’s policy on such killings close to that of the United States, which targeted and killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a jihadist preacher and American citizen, in a 2011 drone strike.
Speaking to ITV News, Dominic Grieve, a conservative lawmaker and former attorney general, said that the decision to kill Mr. Khan might be challenged in the courts on human rights grounds. “It’s extremely alarming that the U.K. has apparently been conducting summary executions from the air,” said Kate Allen of the human rights group Amnesty International, adding that this appeared to be “following the United States down a lawless road of remote-controlled summary killings from the sky.”
In a statement issued on Monday, Kat Craig, legal director of the abuses in counterterrorism team at Reprieve, a group that campaigns for human rights, argued that “what we are seeing is the failed U.S. model of secret strikes being copied wholesale by the British government.” On Monday, Mr. Cameron said that Jeremy Wright, the attorney general, had justified the action as self-defense. On Tuesday, Mr. Cameron’s office said that the advice had been given several months ago, but that it did not plan to publish it.
“Ministers repeatedly promised Parliament and the public that there would be no military operations in Syria without Parliamentary approval,” Ms. Craig said. “The fact that David Cameron has bypassed Parliament to commit these covert strikes is deeply worrying, as is his refusal to share what legal advice he was given.” Legal experts, including Dominic Grieve, a lawmaker from Mr. Cameron’s Conservative Party and a former attorney general, believe that the decision to kill Mr. Khan might be challenged in the courts on human rights grounds.
Opposition lawmakers have also called for the release of more information about the specific threats the targets posed. Simon Behrman, law lecturer at the University of East Anglia, argued that, to justify killings as self-defense, a threat must be about to materialize with no other means of stopping it other than force.
Mr. Cameron said on Monday that Mr. Khan had been involved in directing “terrorist attacks right here in Britain, such as plots to attack high-profile public commemorations, including those taking place this summer,” but the biggest events to mark the end of World War II had already taken place by the time Mr. Khan was killed. “It seems the U.K. government was arguing this yesterday, although the questions of just how imminent the alleged attack was, and whether there were other means for stopping it, are very vague here,” he said.
Mr. Fallon declined to give more detail, but he reiterated that the targets posed a serious threat. Alternatively, the government might be trying to apply a pre-emptive self-defense doctrine, arguing that it is legitimate to strike first when you think that someone is planning an attack, even if it is not necessarily imminent. “The legal grounds for this are very weak,” Mr. Behrman added.
“These were terrorists who had been planning a series of attacks on the streets of our country, some involving public events,” Mr. Fallon said. “There are other terrorists making similar plans, and we have to do what we can to keep our streets safe.” Whether or not there is a legal case against the government, lawmakers want more scrutiny. “We need to understand whether the self-defense case stands up in this,” a Conservative lawmaker, Crispin Blunt, chairman of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, told the BBC.
Since a general election in May, the British government had been expected to make another attempt to obtain the approval of lawmakers for military action in Syria, something Mr. Fallon said was likely “at some point.” He described the current restrictions, which limit Britain’s ability to strike jihadist targets to Iraq, as an “absurdity.” Angus Robertson, leader of the Scottish National Party in the British Parliament, called for assurances “that we are not seeing the beginnings of something the likes of which the United States is pursuing — which is a much more general use of drones, frankly, to take out in an extrajudicial manner opponents of all hues.”
Such concerns have been heightened because only limited information was released about the threat posed by those who were killed. Mr. Cameron said that Mr. Khan was involved in directing “terrorist attacks right here in Britain, such as plots to attack high-profile public commemorations, including those taking place this summer.” But the biggest events to observe the anniversary of the end of World War II had taken place by the time Mr. Khan died.