In an open democracy there should be no problem in asking which particular due process is being followed in the eradication of terrorist targets. In cases such as these, where obvious bad players are exporting terrorism on a global scale the rationale is easy to explain and easy to follow. The Attorney General should have no problem in explaining that solid intelligence (no need to discuss the nature of that intelligence of course) led to the identification, location and likely intent of the subsequent target; and as a consequence, the appropriate extreme violence was dispensed forthwith and the threat was neutralized. Because, of course, the Government of the day has never modified or misused intelligence reports has it? No PM has ever gone to war on manufactured intelligence for their own ends have they?
That’s the trouble with the Nigel Farage or Daily Mail approach to foreign policy and fighting terrorists. When it’s all obvious and nicely black and white such as in this case, of course it’s the right way to deal with terrorism. But when the targets become less obvious, and the threat to the UK more nuanced, do we still sing rah-rah team and not care which due process is being followed, or do we care when that process is not even remotely transparent. Surely we can trust the PM and AG (not even the Government in this case) to act in our best interests without question? That doesn’t mean the public need to know anything about intelligence sources or target identification, but surely the key protagonists in the due process can enlighten the elected government of the day with the broad outline of how the State decides capital punishment is wholly justified. What if we find the Real IRA are planning a spectacular in Northern Ireland? Is there any difference in eliminating terrorists threats with drones in ‘Derry or Damascus? Rubbish you cry, but how do you know if there is no due process to review, classified or otherwise?
Do you not wonder for a minute why details of military engagements such as these are released lock, stock and literally smoking barrel to the great unwashed, to be devoured by the tabloid press, despite an obviously high level of content about classified modes and methods? Surely only a cynic would consider that planting a story where a pair of really bad actors get taken out without a hitch furthers the case for further Prime Ministerial level execution without the burdensome nonsense of judicial or even parliamentary review. This pair absolutely got their just deserts in this case, but be careful wishing away long established legal process in the heat of the moment. As for the “…angst in the US when the Americans whacked one of their own citizens…”; this was not driven so much by the left-wing fluffies, as much as the dawning realization that every time Chuck or Randy working as a Government acronym contractor whacked yet another Pakistani wedding party (oops, sorry about killing the wrong brown people) they created more terrorist converts than any Taliban recruiting drive ever did.
Just because this action appears at first blush to be wholly justified, please try to be at least a little curious about the due process surrounding how an elected Government decides when and where to execute people. You never know, one day that SNP affinity might come back to bite you in the arse.