RAF drone killed Isis biological weapons engineer after human rights laws 'make arrest impossible'
28 November 2024, 08:24
An RAF Reaper drone killed an Islamic State biological weapons engineer in northern Syria after the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) made it effectively impossible to arrest him.
Listen to this article
Loading audio...
The Yemeni engineer was eliminated in December 2022 with two hellfire missiles because human rights laws prevented him from being detained or extradited.
The British government learned about the man’s presence in a Syrian village and believed his phone and computer could contain key intelligence, including names in his network and plans for an Isis attack.
However, capturing him was ruled out under the ECHR: handing him over to Syria was illegal due to the risk of torture, and flying him to Britain was not possible as there was no extradition treaty, The Spectator reports.
Writing in the magazine former defence secretary Ben Wallace, who authorised numerous such strikes, described this as a “frustrating” outcome.
Read more: Unidentified drones seen over US military bases in UK as 'sinister' sightings continue
He explained that Ministry of Defence lawyers often ruled out alternatives, leaving drone strikes as the only viable option to neutralise the threat. “We simply could not put British personnel into that position on the ground,” he said. “The only option therefore to stop the threat was often a kinetic strike.”
Wallace lamented that the ECHR’s broad reach is increasingly turning military operations into legal minefields, imposing police-style standards on actions in war zones.
The drone strike also highlights a broader debate about the challenges British forces face due to human rights laws.
Critics, including Wallace, have expressed frustration that such laws often lead to killing rather than capturing suspects, denying the possibility of trials and turning potential informants into martyrs.
Conservative MP Robert Jenrick has similarly warned that the ECHR effectively forces special forces to kill rather than detain terrorists because “the European Court will set them free.”
The controversy comes as British special forces are under increasing scrutiny for their conduct. Allegations of unlawful killings during the war in Afghanistan and claims that soldiers planted weapons on victims have triggered investigations.
Separately, serving and former members of the military face repeated legal reviews over incidents dating back to the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
One former SAS soldier told The Spectator he had been left in legal “limbo” for two decades and even attempted suicide.
Known as Soldier M, he served in the SAS for 34 years and took part in a 1992 operation that killed four members of the IRA’s East Tyrone “brigade.” Despite having already given multiple statements, he has been asked again to account for his actions at an inquest convened under Article 2 of the ECHR, which protects “everyone’s right to life.”
“We are being scapegoated … and are subject to the whims of successive governments … when this latest inquiry began, I found myself spiralling downward,” Soldier M said.
The mood at Hereford, the SAS headquarters, is reportedly grim.
George Simm, a former regimental sergeant major, described it as “dark,” adding, “They know that service with the regiment lasts ten or 15 years, but the rest of your life is being pursued by lawyers.”
Colonel Richard Williams, a former SAS commanding officer, defended the regiment against allegations of misconduct. He emphasised that the SAS is not full of “mad dog” assassins and operates within the law. “Special Forces are not above the law. Full stop,” he said, while stressing the need for operational freedoms to carry out critical missions on behalf of the state.
This latest incident raises serious questions about how Britain can respond to emerging threats while operating under the constraints of international human rights laws, with critics warning that the current system often leaves the military with no good options.
