Legal and moral questions about drone strikes in Syria
|
Version 0 of 1. With reference to your article (Experts query whether drone strike on British jihadis was legal, 8 September), article 51 of the UN charter is not a blank cheque for countries to engage in military action on the grounds of “self-defence”. As the final article of chapter 7 of the UN charter, it first of all refers to an attack by one state against another state, and nowhere refers to “imminent” or “planned” attack, but only to an actual, physical military attack against a state. What article 51 makes provision for is that a state that has already been attacked by another state may respond militarily in self-defence until such time as the security council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Article 51 further requires the state in question to report “immediately” to the UN security council so that it can take appropriate action to restore international peace and security. Did the prime minister report the drone attack that killed Reyaad Khan immediately to the security council on 21 August in accordance with article 51 of the UN charter? I doubt it.Dr Timmon WallisLondon • Another day, another war crime. After Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, we have mounted an illegal attack in Syria (Cameron: I approved drone killing of UK jihadis in Syria, 8 September). It is contrary to international law to mount an armed attack on another sovereign state. Point 6 of the 1970 declaration on principles of international law states: “No state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state.” Furthermore, if we were now to bomb Syria, as Mr Cameron urges, this would be an illegal act of war.Jim McCluskeyTwickenham, Middlesex • The wave of “concern” over the welfare of Isis terrorists doesn’t do justice to this huge operational success of our British armed forces. This is especially given the fact that they face heinous terrorists who avowedly rape and enslave women and butcher people, having decapitated fellow Britons in the most gruesome manner. The defence secretary was absolutely right to assert that this campaign will last for as long as needed to hunt down Isis terrorists. Upholding the rule of law, in an agonisingly meticulous manner, is distinctly ingrained in our British national identity and collective psyche. However, it’s hardly conceivable that Isis terrorists would have lost any sleep pondering our human rights. If anything, we need to do considerably more to confront such vile terrorist ideology and all those who preach, harbour or act upon it. Suggesting that our armed forces and intelligence services cannot be trusted to reach tactical and operational decisions in their fight against Isis terrorists is not only misguided and baseless, it also needlessly belittles their sacrifices and valiant efforts. We are all at one in asserting that terrorist ideology and terrorism has no place in Britain. During these testing times, our brave service men and women deserve nothing less but our united support and the appreciation of a deeply grateful nation.Dr Lu’ayy al-RimawiExecutive officer, Home Office (2001-06), visiting fellow, Islamic legal studies programme, Harvard Law School (2014) • Rafael Behr decontextualises the targeted killing of Reyaad Khan (Death penalty by drone strike is a challenge for liberal minds, 9 September). Since parliament voted on 30 August 2013 against military intervention in Syria (a vote David Cameron pledged to “respect”), we have had the admission in July this year that UK personnel embedded with coalition forces have conducted airstrikes in Syria, further admissions from military sources that at least two SAS squadrons are operative in Syria, and now the targeted killing of Reyaad Khan. Parliament’s vote against intervention means it is impossible to justify the drone killings under a war paradigm. Article 51 of the UN charter relates to a right of self-defence for member states “if an armed attack occurs”. It is difficult to see how this can be made to fit with the admission that the targeted strikes were prepared over months or the conclusion of the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions that reliance on the exceptional self-defence argument as a basis for targeted killings “would diminish hugely the value of the foundational prohibition contained in article 51”. Cameron’s contempt for parliament, and the public, extends to refusing to publish the legal or evidential basis for the killings. The west’s belief that, in the name of a capitalism that masquerades as democracy, it can determine other nations’ histories through force of arms is as much “a self-reinforcing moral universe in which their crusade is the virtuous cause” as any other. And thus will the liberals line up to excuse Cameron’s targeted killings.Nick MossLondon • The moment any country says “You are entitled to due process, but, er, not so much you” is the moment we need to worry about our democracy. Every UK citizen is entitled to due process, not just the chosen few we agree with. I am deeply troubled by the numbers of people who do not seem to understand this.Elena NewleyCardiff • It’s not only the public that hasn’t seen the intelligence the prime minister says justifies Britain’s Syria drone strikes (Editorial, 9 September). Neither has the intelligence and security committee of parliament. The ISC has had no members since the 2015 general election. On 9 September, seven of the nine members were finally announced. Parliament needs to hurry up with the other two. The ISC has even more to do now.Dr Alex MayManchester • When Admiral Sir Arthur Wilson commented on the adoption of the submarine by the Royal Navy in 1901, he apparently described this innovation as “underhand, unfair and damned un-English”. A century on, this may sound both quaint and naive, but I wonder what would he have said about drone strikes were he alive today?Jeremy MuldowneyYork • David Cameron should be aware that the extrajudicial killing of three IRA members in Gibraltar in 1988 resulted in a significant escalation of violence and bloodshed in Northern Ireland rather than contributing to a peaceful end to the Troubles.Ted WatsonBrighton • How would we feel if the leader of an unnamed power decided to use a drone against its citizens who happened to be in our country? What should we conclude? That it was illegal? It amounted to a declaration of war? It gave us the right to respond in kind?Rev John NightingaleBirmingham • Have I got this right? Reyaad Khan was executed without trial on 21 August for plotting attacks on 10 May and 27 June which did not happen?Vicky WoodcraftWelwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire |