The Daily Mail front page on Tuesday 8th 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 21st 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment