The last time military action in Syria was proposed, we got all kinds of promises that it wouldn't be happening without Parliament being informed. Not so, apparently. Today Cameron tells us that one of our drones killed Reyaad Khan on 24 August. He was a Brit fighting for ISIS, and may well be a nasty piece of work, but that isn't sufficient reason for wiping him out.
The argument is that this was self-defence. He was involved in plots to carry out terrorist acts in the UK on 10 May and 27 June of this year. If he was, and those plots have been foiled, fine. But how can that make his killing two or three months later an act of self-defence?He wasn't going to be coming to the UK. Jihadis in the Uk were going to be carrying this out on his orders. So what's the consequence of his being killed? Are they going to say, OK. Game over. We don't want to play if you're this tough? I don't think so. the whole thing, of course, is mired in secrecy, so we'll never know exactly what's going on, but it's very hard to share Cameron's smooth confidence that this was an efficient, legal operation which will make us all safer.