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/politics/2015/dec/16/uk-justified-killing-suspected-terrorists-drones-fallon

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

Version 0 Version 1
Drone strikes on suspected terrorists justified, says Michael Fallon Drone strikes on suspected terrorists justified, says Michael Fallon
(about 3 hours later)
Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, has said that the UK would be justified in targeting suspected terrorists with drone strikes in Libya without first informing parliament. Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, has said the UK would be justified in targeting suspected terrorists with drone strikes in Libya without first informing parliament.
Related: Government 'refusing to engage' with drone strikes inquiryRelated: Government 'refusing to engage' with drone strikes inquiry
During a parliamentary hearing on targeted killings, Fallon argued that the government would have been justified in launching a pre-emptive drone strike if it had known that plans to attack British holidaymakers on the beach in Tunisia were being concocted in an Isis training camp in Libya. During a parliamentary hearing on targeted killings, Fallon argued that the government would have been justified in launching a pre-emptive drone strike if it had known that plans to attack British holidaymakers on the beach in Tunisia were being concocted in an Islamic State training camp in Libya.
“There’s no political authority in Libya and no other way of preventing it. We would have been justified in doing it and having to explain afterwards,” he added. Earlier he had said he did not “want to be drawn” on the possibility of action in Libya.“There’s no political authority in Libya and no other way of preventing it. We would have been justified in doing it and having to explain afterwards,” he added. Earlier he had said he did not “want to be drawn” on the possibility of action in Libya.
Fallon made the comment during an appearance at the joint committee on human rights, which has launched an inquiry into the targeting of Cardiff-born Reyaad Khan in a drone strike in Raqqa, Syria, in August. The strike, which David Cameron described as a “new departure”, took place before parliament had voted to allow air strikes in Syria. Fallon made the comment during an appearance at the joint committee on human rights, which has launched an inquiry into the targeting of Cardiff-born Reyaad Khan in a drone strike in Raqqa, Syria, in August. The killing, which David Cameron described as a “new departure”, took place before parliament had voted to allow airstrikes in Syria.
The US targeted an Isis leader in an airstrike in Libya last month in its first such attack, the Pentagon announced. The US targeted an Isis leader with an airstrike in Libya last month in its first such attack, the Pentagon announced.
Last week the committee chair, Harriet Harman, accused the government of “refusing to engage” with the inquiry after Fallon said he could not answer many of the questions posed by the committee because they would endanger national security. He said that he could talk only in generalities.Last week the committee chair, Harriet Harman, accused the government of “refusing to engage” with the inquiry after Fallon said he could not answer many of the questions posed by the committee because they would endanger national security. He said that he could talk only in generalities.
Fallon declined to say whether the government had approved other such strikes but hinted that similar operations could be in progress. Pressed on the question of who in government had approved the strike, he told the committee: “I’m trying to be helpful but you’re drawing me into the discussion of a particular operation. There are other operations current, there are other operations that may be planned.”Fallon declined to say whether the government had approved other such strikes but hinted that similar operations could be in progress. Pressed on the question of who in government had approved the strike, he told the committee: “I’m trying to be helpful but you’re drawing me into the discussion of a particular operation. There are other operations current, there are other operations that may be planned.”
David Cameron and “the most senior members of the national security council” had approved the targeting of Reyaad Khan, following the advice of the attorney general, Jeremy Wright, before Fallon authorised the strike, he said. The prime minister and “the most senior members of the national security council” had approved the targeting of Khan, following the advice of the attorney general, Jeremy Wright, before Fallon authorised the strike, he said.
Fallon or one other defence minister authorise all strikes on “deliberate targets” – whether individuals, depots or specific positions, he said. “I approve the target. I set the criteria [for when and how an attack can take place].”Fallon or one other defence minister authorise all strikes on “deliberate targets” – whether individuals, depots or specific positions, he said. “I approve the target. I set the criteria [for when and how an attack can take place].”
The decision to strike Khan had been based on the threat he posed, rather than his British nationality, Fallon told the committee. “This particular individual would have been targeted whatever his nationality,” he said. The decision to strike Khan had been based on the threat he posed rather than his British nationality, Fallon told the committee. “This particular individual would have been targeted whatever his nationality.”
Fallon confirmed that the legal definition of “imminent threat” – one aspect of permissible justification for carrying out strikes in self-defence – has departed from its original definition of imminence, meaning there was no time left for deliberation.Fallon confirmed that the legal definition of “imminent threat” – one aspect of permissible justification for carrying out strikes in self-defence – has departed from its original definition of imminence, meaning there was no time left for deliberation.
Asked whether imminent threats could continue, he told the committee: “Circumstances have certainly changed. We look at things on a case by case basis … An imminent threat can grow in seriousness or likelihood. It may exist for some period of time … I don’t think it’s possible to have a hard and fast rule about how you define imminent.”Asked whether imminent threats could continue, he told the committee: “Circumstances have certainly changed. We look at things on a case by case basis … An imminent threat can grow in seriousness or likelihood. It may exist for some period of time … I don’t think it’s possible to have a hard and fast rule about how you define imminent.”
In a sometimes testy exchange, Fallon refused to explain how the military views individuals like Ruhul Amin and a Belgian citizen, who were travelling in the same vehicle as Khan and were killed in the same strike. “Clearly the others killed alongside Mr Khan were not innocent civilians,” he said. In a sometimes testy exchange, Fallon refused to explain how the military views individuals such as Ruhul Amin and a Belgian citizen, who were travelling in the same vehicle as Khan and were killed in the same strike. “Clearly the others killed alongside Mr Khan were not innocent civilians,” he said.
Harman said that they belonged in a “grey area” – not specifically targeted but also not regarded as civilians – and added that “jihadi brides”, oil field workers and other people assisting Isis could all fall into this category. Fallon said: “I’m sure you can see why it would be extremely dangerous for me to answer that question … because it would enable our enemies to better protect themselves.” He emphasised that British rules of engagement are extremely strict about avoiding civilian casualties. Harman said that they belonged in a “grey area” – not specifically targeted but also not regarded as civilians – and added that “jihadi brides”, oilfield workers and other people assisting Isis could all fall into this category. Fallon said: “I’m sure you can see why it would be extremely dangerous for me to answer that question … because it would enable our enemies to better protect themselves.” He emphasised that British rules of engagement are extremely strict about avoiding civilian casualties.
Earlier Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, told the Commons that the government had received no reports of civilian deaths in British airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, told the Commons earlier that the government had received no reports of civilian deaths in British airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.
An independent assessment of the US-led air campaign by monitoring group Airwars has identified several reports of more than 750 non-combatants killed, although because of the multinational nature of the campaign it is often difficult to establish which nations carried out problematic strikes.An independent assessment of the US-led air campaign by monitoring group Airwars has identified several reports of more than 750 non-combatants killed, although because of the multinational nature of the campaign it is often difficult to establish which nations carried out problematic strikes.