"They Got What They Deserved" - The Slippery Slope of Targeted Assassination

The Daily Mail front page on Tuesday 8^th September depicted the images of 21-year-old Reyaad Khan and associate Ruhul Amin, 26, accompanied by the headline “They Got What They Deserved”. The men were killed in an RAF drone strike in Raqqa, Syria on the 21^st August. They were fighting with ISIS. David Cameron announced that the fighters had been killed in a targeted attack, at the same time that Defence Secretary Michael Fallon threatened the UK would “not hesitate” to launch more secret airstrikes in Syria in order to tackle terror. This, it seems, is a “perfectly legal act of self defence”.

Whilst claims that one of the men was planning an attack on UK soil are as yet unconfirmed, this event signals what could be a new turning point in the struggle against ISIS. It is largely acknowledged that ISIS itself poses little direct threat to the UK, with its attention focused on the ongoing struggles for control of its territory in Syria and Iraq. What concerns UK politicians is the threat of radicalised Britons returning from ISIS training grounds and enacting terror plots using the skills they have learned abroad. This may be the most significant terror threat to the UK at the current time, but does that justify the killing of two young men?

These men had been identified and were fighting for ISIS in hostile territory against hardened soldiers. Their chances of returning home were slim, even if that was indeed what they wanted. If they had chosen to return it would have proven extremely difficult to enter the country without the authorities being aware. If they had committed crimes worthy of being killed, why could they not have been arrested and put on trial? They may have committed acts that are reprehensible to us as ordinary citizens. They may have been fighting for an organization whose ideals are very different to our own. And they may be guilty of crimes that deserve a punishment. But did they deserve this?

The UK justice system is based on ideals that do not fit with our expanding drone program overseas. A murderer at home can expect to receive a trial in which they must be shown to be guilty of their crimes beyond any reasonable doubt, and if this is the case they will receive a prison sentence. We do not believe in the death sentence in this country. But fighters who choose to commit their crimes on foreign soil receive the death sentence before any jury is consulted or facts of the case are discussed. They have no representation, no chance to explain themselves or to repent for their sins, no trial by jury, and no second chance.

What is left behind is a grief-stricken chorus of friends and families who never got to say goodbye to their sons or confront them for what they did. What is left behind is a sense that justice has not really been served, that maybe instead of trying to bring these men to trial we instead opted for the easy way out by striking them down without giving them a chance to fight back. What is left behind is an angry public that see two terrorists on the front page of their newspapers, and not two human beings who were not necessarily beyond salvation. Now we will never know. It seems that the War on Terror in its current form has become a points-scoring exercise rather than a real battle for peace. Kill one of ours, we’ll kill one of yours. Perhaps we are beyond rebuilding bridges, but it would be nice to see someone trying.

Just a week after Cameron said that instead of taking in more refugees from the Middle East we should instead focus on stabilising the situation in their home countries, he admits to the killing of two young fighters in an airstrike on a country that we are supposedly not at war with. This sort of mission creep is exactly the kind of destabilising force that we need to avoid if we have any hopes of pacifying the region. Attempts to understand the fighters and their struggle are non-existent, because it is easier to kill from a distance and claim a victory. Two British men have been killed by our government. If they are soldiers we should have fought them on the battlefield. If they are criminals they should have stood trial for their crimes. You do not have to agree with their ideologies to understand that this was a miscarriage of justice. And in the long-term this will only serve to destabilise the situation in Iraq and Syria, and turn more people towards the jihadist groups in the region. The refugee crisis will not be solved through increasing the violence currently ravaging the Middle East. Nor will relationships between clashing factions be mended through targeted assassination. It is time to rethink our strategies both at home and abroad when tackling the threat of terror globally.

Crisis Care and Policing Mental Illness

In 2014, 710 individuals sectioned under the Mental Health Act were detained by Sussex Police. This constituted one in every five individuals detained unduly by police under the Act across England and Wales. However, under a new pilot scheme being rolled out across the country, the force is looking to rectify this number. By paring police officers with mental health nurses, forces across the country are creating new ‘street triage teams’ to respond to crisis situations.

Historically, mental health issues in the UK have been dealt with through criminalization. The Mental Health Foundation reports that over 70% of the UK prison population has two or more mental health disorders. Last year alone almost 4,000 individuals were unduly held in police cells for mental health-related concerns and disturbances. The effect this has on an individual already suffering is undoubtedly negative. When police alone are used to diffuse crisis situations, mentally ill individuals are inherently criminalized through arrest and detention. This unnecessary involvement with the criminal justice system can worsen a situation through the emotional trauma associated with being treated as a criminal threat. What the inclusion of mental health professionals in the policing profession provides is an ability to judge what the best treatment for an individual in crisis is. Some individuals involved in potentially threatening or criminal behaviour may need medical treatment, whereas others may require arrest and detention. Police officers often lack the resources to establish the mental state of individuals, and are also viewed with suspicion by the people they may be trying to help. Trained psychological professionals can provide the guidance and care needed at an extremely difficult time. The inclusion of mental health nurses in the policing field is therefore a very welcome development, and one that will undoubtedly aid the improvement of both our mental healthcare and criminal justice institutions.

However, the news that crisis intervention programs are so desperately needed invokes a more instrumental question regarding attitudes towards mental health provision in the UK. Why are so many people in need of crisis counselling and intervention across the country? In 2013, there were 53,176 detentions under the Mental Health Act across the UK. Despite the myriad reasons that sectioning may occur, this represents an alarming number. Detention is usually a last resort for individuals considered a threat to themselves or others, so why is it being used so often?

Despite recent increases in mental healthcare funding under the new Tory government, NHS resources dedicated to mental health issues are still spread drastically thin. NHS practitioners are not equipped to deal with the sheer number of mental health cases reaching them on a daily basis. With an estimated quarter of all adults suffering some form of mental illness in any given year according to the Mental Health Foundation, more needs to be done to ensure we have the resources to provide good primary care to everyone suffering from a psychological disorder. The nation’s first line of defence against mental illness is insufficient, and this places undue pressure on the crisis counselling teams across the country. Sectioning and crisis counseling resources are therefore being stretched to near breaking point because individuals do not get the help they need to treat their illness before it becomes a life threatening ordeal.

Awareness needs to be raised of the counseling, medical and psychological services available to individuals who feel like they might need extra support if we are to reduce the pressure on the crisis care system. Individuals who get symptoms treated earlier require less treatment and have less long-term negative effects associated with their illness. Mass public campaigns have helped raise the awareness of the public on what signs to look for with strokes or heart attacks so that individuals can get help quickly and the emergency services can be alerted as soon as possible. The same should be done for mental illness, so individuals can spot early signs of depression or other illnesses in their loved ones and maybe encourage them to get help before it gets too much. Mental health in the UK needs to become a priority as our understanding of what affects psychological wellbeing develops. Crisis counseling is a necessary part of any system dealing with mental illness, as important as accident and emergency staff, but without general practitioners and primary care facilities provided by the NHS the UK would be a much sicker nation than it currently is. This is the situation we find ourselves in regarding mental health. Mentally ill people are not criminals. That this has been acknowledged is a good thing. It is also just the first step in reforming our healthcare system to ensure that every person is given the care they need to live healthy, happy lives with well managed mental wellbeing.