This article is from the source 'guardian' 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.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/09/government-refusing-to-engage-with-drone-strikes-inquiry

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Government 'refusing to engage' with drone strikes inquiry Government 'refusing to engage' with drone strikes inquiry
(about 2 hours later)
Harriet Harman has criticised the Ministry of Defence for refusing to provide detailed explanations of its actions to the parliamentary inquiry on targeted killings.Harriet Harman has criticised the Ministry of Defence for refusing to provide detailed explanations of its actions to the parliamentary inquiry on targeted killings.
Harman is chair of the joint committee on human rights, which has launched an inquiry into the deaths of British citizens in drone strikes in Syria, including Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin, as well as Mohammed Emwazi and Junaid Hussain, who were killed in joint US-UK operations.Harman is chair of the joint committee on human rights, which has launched an inquiry into the deaths of British citizens in drone strikes in Syria, including Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin, as well as Mohammed Emwazi and Junaid Hussain, who were killed in joint US-UK operations.
In early November the committee sent the government a detailed list of questions about the decision-making processes that led to the strikes, which took place before MPs voted in favour of military action against Islamic State targets in Syria. The questions included whether the UK operated a “kill list” of individuals whose death had already been approved by senior politicians. Related: How UK government decided to kill Reyaad Khan
In early November the committee sent the government a detailed list of questions about the decision-making processes that led to the strikes, which took place before MPs voted in favour of military action against Islamic State (Isis) targets in Syria. The questions included whether the UK operated a “kill list” of individuals whose death had already been approved by senior politicians.
Harman originally asked for a response by 19 November, but eventually received a memo from the Ministry of Defence on 3 December. A defence spokesman explained to the Guardian that the delay was due to the complexity of marshalling multiple government departments for a single response.Harman originally asked for a response by 19 November, but eventually received a memo from the Ministry of Defence on 3 December. A defence spokesman explained to the Guardian that the delay was due to the complexity of marshalling multiple government departments for a single response.
Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, warned in a letter accompanying the memo that the inquiry’s topic “very quickly begins to encroach into some highly classified, national security sensitive issues”, and this would limit the amount of information the inquiry could expect to receive.Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, warned in a letter accompanying the memo that the inquiry’s topic “very quickly begins to encroach into some highly classified, national security sensitive issues”, and this would limit the amount of information the inquiry could expect to receive.
But Harman responded that the memo “does not even begin to answer any of the detailed questions we asked”, Harman wrote in a response to Fallon, published today.But Harman responded that the memo “does not even begin to answer any of the detailed questions we asked”, Harman wrote in a response to Fallon, published today.
She added that the committee cannot properly do its work if the government “refuses to engage” and asked the government for a more detailed response by Friday, 11 December.She added that the committee cannot properly do its work if the government “refuses to engage” and asked the government for a more detailed response by Friday, 11 December.
The correspondence reveals that MPs and peers on the committee have visited RAF Waddington, the UK’s only drone base, in the course of the inquiry. Harman wrote: “We were indeed impressed by the professionalism of the crew we met and we learnt a lot about some important matters which are central to our inquiry, including the nature of the decision making process and some of the oversight and supervision that is built into it.”The correspondence reveals that MPs and peers on the committee have visited RAF Waddington, the UK’s only drone base, in the course of the inquiry. Harman wrote: “We were indeed impressed by the professionalism of the crew we met and we learnt a lot about some important matters which are central to our inquiry, including the nature of the decision making process and some of the oversight and supervision that is built into it.”
On Wednesday the inquiry held its first evidence session – a previous hearing scheduled for last month was cancelled after the government refused to allow its legal advisers to give evidence. Confusion remains over whether the strikes took place in a legal battleground or not.On Wednesday the inquiry held its first evidence session – a previous hearing scheduled for last month was cancelled after the government refused to allow its legal advisers to give evidence. Confusion remains over whether the strikes took place in a legal battleground or not.
Sir David Omand, former head of GCHQ and chair of the Birmingham University drone policy commission, pointed out that the government had presented two different legal justifications for the strike – one to parliament, in which Cameron said it was to defend the UK and one to the UN, in which the UN ambassador wrote that the strike had been conducted in defence of Iraq. If you start modifying the boundaries of international law, everybody else gets to modify it
Related: Ruhul Amin and Reyaad Khan: the footballer and the boy who wanted to be first Asian PM Sir David Omand, former head of GCHQ and chair of the Birmingham University drone policy commission, pointed out that the government had presented two different legal justifications for the strike – one to parliament, in which Cameron said it was to defend the UK, and one to the UN, in which the UN ambassador wrote that the strike had been conducted in defence of Iraq.
Omand said: “I had to read the prime minister’s statement several times to try and square it with the letter to the UN”, but he was satisfied that the justification made to the UN meant it was in a state of armed conflict that is legally different to the US’s controversial practice of conducting strikes beyond traditional battlefields.Omand said: “I had to read the prime minister’s statement several times to try and square it with the letter to the UN”, but he was satisfied that the justification made to the UN meant it was in a state of armed conflict that is legally different to the US’s controversial practice of conducting strikes beyond traditional battlefields.
He warned that if the UK was to start conducting this kind of strike it would be on a “slippery slope”, and “the Americans have demonstrated just how far down you can go”.He warned that if the UK was to start conducting this kind of strike it would be on a “slippery slope”, and “the Americans have demonstrated just how far down you can go”.
However Jennifer Gibson of legal charity Reprieve, who also gave evidence, argued that the PM had been clear that the strikes that targeted the Britons in Syria were “a new departure” for the UK.However Jennifer Gibson of legal charity Reprieve, who also gave evidence, argued that the PM had been clear that the strikes that targeted the Britons in Syria were “a new departure” for the UK.
She added: “If you start modifying the boundaries of international law, everybody else gets to modify it … When you start thinking about finding grey areas, you also need to think about whether you want every other state to start using those grey areas.”She added: “If you start modifying the boundaries of international law, everybody else gets to modify it … When you start thinking about finding grey areas, you also need to think about whether you want every other state to start using those grey areas.”
Defence secretary Michael Fallon will give evidence to the inquiry next week.Defence secretary Michael Fallon will give evidence to the inquiry next week.