Imposing the death penalty by ministerial edict
Recent terrorist atrocities, whether in Beirut, Egypt or Paris, are bringing a military response from the West. Air strikes have already been carried out by France and it’s likely the UK parliament will tomorrow vote to join military action in Syria. The decision will at least be subject to UK Parliamentary approval and open to both democratic debate and scrutiny by elected representatives.
Similarly, at the present moment, political debate is under way on increased powers and the use of covert interception and surveillance. There will again be some basis for a democratic decision being taken. It’s to be hoped that there will be a continuation, at minimum, of judicial oversight. It’s a huge intrusion on individual liberties, but required in some cases for the common good; reasonableness and proportionality are critical, but so is oversight and accountability.
But, what about drone strikes? They are a new weapon of war but are not banned by any international convention. Their use will grow as technology develops and terrorism continues to stalk the globe.
As well as their use by the military in areas of conflict, drones also allow for extra territorial actions to be taken by the UK Government. In any military conflict, rules and guidelines exist for the military and the use of drones will be governed by them, as would air strikes or other actions.
The use of drones in recent targeted strikes, though, has not been subject to parliamentary approval nor is it under judicial supervision. Yet the consequences are far more severe than that of covert intrusion. Lives have been taken, not just privacy breached.
Drones were used against so-called UK Jihadists in Syria. Mohammed Emwazi, known as “Jihadi John” was killed by one on 12th November and a few months before, on 21st August Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin were struck by drones dispatched from the Middle East but piloted from the UK or USA.
Before and after the recent barbarities there was little sympathy for them. One had killed callously and the other two had placed themselves in a combat zone that millions of innocent civilians are fleeing.
The UK Attorney General stated that the killing of the two was lawful. There may be intelligence of evil acts being planned by them. However, no confirmation of that has been produced and the basis of the legality still remains unclear.
At the very least, it would be appropriate for confirmation of that to be given to the Security and Intelligence Committee at Westminster for their approval.
The use of drones for the killing of terrorist targets is likely to continue. They allow for a military response with little risk to service personnel, and can be used in areas where forces cannot safely operate.
In military campaigns they will at least be subject to debate and some scrutiny. But what about their use in cases such as the Jihadists, where the UK is neither at war nor operating subject to Parliamentary approval?
Air strikes have to be authorised, but drone strikes don’t, or so it appears. That cannot be right. The death penalty has long since been abolished in the UK. The use of drones in many circumstances is tantamount to the death penalty. Their use, therefore, raises significant issues regarding the basis on which they are carried out and the democratic scrutiny of them.
Such actions may well need to be taken and may equally be justifiable. However, a situation cannot be allowed whereby a UK Government can execute a citizen, who may not have been convicted of any crime, without any legal basis or parliamentary approval.
There also needs to be a framework for democratic and judicial supervision for what is, in all likelihood, a death penalty. Moreover, as has been seen in actions by the USA, the use of drones can end up slaughtering innocents rather than the intended targets.
There must be a mechanism for review of events and accountability for actions that have been taken. For sure, these actions cannot be publicly debated given the nature of terrorism and the secrecy required. This is where oversight by a parliamentary committee and the judiciary has a role. That applies in other areas and must do so here. It cannot simply be by ministerial edict.
In the United States, it’s suggested that President Obama signs off an ever lengthening drone kill list once a week. But, it is an executive decision not subject to any congressional oversight. The legal basis, beyond Presidential powers, is all but non-existent.
If the UK is not to mirror that, then both a legal basis for any such actions and political and judicial oversight of them are required.
Terrorists need to be targeted for the protection of us all. But, democratic legitimacy and judicial oversight remain equally essential, for the preservation of our democracy.