Outrage as David Cameron admits approving RAF air strike that killed British jihadists in Syria

Their criticisms came after David Cameron announced Ruhul Amin, 26, also known as Abdul Rakib Amin, from Aberdeen, died along with Reyaad Khan, 21, from Cardiff, who had featured in a prominent Daesh recruiting video last year.

Khan was the intended target, but both men were killed in a drone strike in Raqqa on August 21. No civilians died.

It is the first time a British attack has been launched in a foreign country outside of a war. The strike was carried out without parliamentary approval, and two years after the Commons voted against air strikes on Syria.

Kate Hudson, general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said: “That a British citizen was targeted and killed by these strikes – and another killed by mistake – is particularly alarming and sets a dangerous new precedent. This is extra-judicial killing. A British Prime Minister now claims the right to kill British citizens when they travel abroad. This latest round of strikes is a further violation of the will of Parliament.”

Kat Craig, legal director of Reprieve’s Abuses in Counter-Terrorism team, said: “Ministers repeatedly promised Parliament and the public that there would be no military operations in Syria without parliamentary approval.

“The fact David Cameron has bypassed Parliament to commit these covert strikes is deeply worrying – as is his refusal to share what legal advice he was given.”

Amnesty International UK Director Kate Allen said: “It’s extremely alarming that the UK has apparently been conducting summary executions from the air.

“In following the United States down a lawless road of remote-controlled summary killings from the sky, the RAF has crossed a line.”

Last night SNP defence spokesman Brendan O’Hara raised concerns Cameron was using the refugee crisis in Syria as an excuse to step up military intervention.

"David Cameron has got to come clean about his plans following these developments. I have long been concerned about what exactly his plans are to increase military activity – and now we are getting an insight into what may be going on,” he said. “I fear that David Cameron is planning to use this awful humanitarian tragedy as a smokescreen in order to fulfil his long-held desire to involve UK forces in more military action in Syria

“The case for bombing in Syria has simply not been made – and any involvement of British service personnel in bombing without the approval of Parliament clearly flouts the democratic decision taken by the House of Commons.”

Earlier in a dramatic Commons statement, Cameron was forced to defend launching the military action without asking for MPs’ approval.

He said Khan represented a “specific” threat to UK security and had been plotting “barbaric” attacks at public commemoration events this summer. Downing Street refused to confirm which events Khan had targeted. However, last month a major security operation was mounted in central London over fears of a Daesh attack against the VJ Day parade attended by the Queen.

Cameron said there had been a dramatic escalation in the terror threat against Britain, with six British attacks foiled this year.

He said: “Is this the first time in modern times that a British asset has been used to conduct a strike in a country where we are not involved in a war? The answer to that is yes.

“Britain has used remotely piloted aircraft in Iraq and in Afghanistan but this is a new departure, and that is why I thought it was important to come to the House and explain why I think it is necessary and justified. There was no other way we could have met our objectives and all this was based on the Attorney General’s advice.”

He added: “This was a relatively unique set of circumstances, but that is not to say they won’t happen again, if this person, these people, were in a part of Syria with no government, no-one to work with, no other way of addressing this threat.

“The choice we were left with was, think ‘this is too difficult’, throw up our arms and walk away and then wait for the chaos and terrorism to hit Britain, or to take action in the British national interest and neutralise this threat. I am sure that was the right thing to do.”

Acting Labour leader Harriet Harman urged publication of the legal advice, adding: “Why didn’t the Attorney General authorise this specific action rather than merely ‘confirming a legal basis for it’?”

Killings mean PM can be judge, jury and executioner on a global scale by Ibrahim Mohamoud of Cage UK

COMPLICITY in targeted killings is nothing new for the British Government, although admitting responsibility for directly targeting and killing its own citizens is unprecedented in the “War on Terror”.

The killings of Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin may violate legal safeguards put in place to assess how soon someone is about to make an attack. It is questionable whether they posed a “continued imminent threat” to UK national security.

Extra-judicial killing is the ultimate violation of due process since the victim is not granted a fair trial and can never seek accountability.

The admission by the British Government that it killed two of its own raises several crucial questions as to whether there is a kill list of British nationals positioned in and outside conflict zones.

There is no denying that the British Government may have been complicit in providing intelligence that led to the targeting of other British nationals in Pakistan, Somalia and other countries – this is nothing new.

The UK Government must come clean on how it decides to include individuals on kill lists and then deliberately targets and assassinates them.

The British public is sleepwalking into drone warfare, where Prime Minister David Cameron can decide to be judge, jury and executioner on a global scale.

Whether drone strikes kill targets outside of the judicial process, unarmed civilians – as is often the case – or both, there is a need to call for transparency and accountability for the loss of life without any legal justification.

Targeting British nationals allegedly connected to Daesh will only fuel military objectives of non-state armed groups in the Syria conflict.

It is important to be clear: initially, Daesh did not declare a “global jihad”. It is plausible then, to claim that foreign use of force or targeted drone strikes influenced its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s objectives to create a global battlefield. This could evolve into a real threat to the West – including the UK.

Extra-judicial killings openly admitted, and in fact boasted of by government, have major implications for the nature of the conflict, and the way states and non-states are engaging in war.

Michael Gray: If there is a hell, it is overflowing with arms traders ... let's end UK complicity

The National View: Transparency is vital now that Britain has entered war in Syria

Letters to The National, September 8: The images from Syria we do not see, or chose not to