TERRORIST A ‘PROLIFIC RECRUITER AND PLANNER FOR IS’
AFORMER Cardiff schoolboy who joined the so-called Islamic State and died in a drone strike in August 2015 had been a “prolific recruiter and attackplanner”, according to intelligence reports.
A major report into Reyaad Khan’s killing in a drone strike describes how intelligence agencies concluded he was a prominent force in the terror group.
The Penarth-born former Cantonian High School student used social media to identify recruits and then provided them with encouragement and instruction “on an unprecedented scale”.
A parliamentary committee concluded there “was no doubt he posed a very serious threat to the UK”.
It said: “He orchestrated numerous plots to murder large numbers of UK citizens and those of our allies as part of a wider terrorist group which considers itself at war with the West.”
The 21-year-old and fellow IS supporter Junaid Hussain “encouraged multiple operatives around the world to conduct attacks against the UK and our allies”.
They also “provided practical instructions for the manufacture of bombs and information on targets”.
The conclusions of the report were made public by Intelligence and Security Committee chairman and former Attorney General Dominic Grieve yesterday.
However, Mr Grieve said a question remained as to whether the “actions of Khan and his associates amounted to an ‘armed attack’ against the UK or Iraq” which would justify a military strike.
These were the intelligence briefings given to government ministers:
A body of reliable and corroborated reporting indicates Khan is currently working with Junaid Hussain to make contact with and task operatives to kill UK and *** individuals.
Khan, alongside Hussain, continues to be involved in a concerted and prolific online campaign to recruit, task and encourage operatives in the West to conduct attacks...
Khan has [made available to] operatives improvised explosive device construction plans and other instructions along with identified targets.
The committee asked to see the intelligence reports on which the briefings were based. They concluded:
The intelligence services’ investigations into Khan revealed several terror plots “which they were then able to disrupt, thereby avoiding what could have been a very significant loss of life”.
Khan and Hussain’s actions included the provision of practical instructions for the manufacture of improvised explosive devices.
They provided recruits with dates and locations of public events.
The services also said Khan’s “personal popularity and status online helped attract and influence potential operatives and he invested significant effort persuading recruits”.
The committee investigated if the attack met the United Nations rules for whether an attack can be justified.
On the severity of the threat, Mr Grieve said: “[We] have been unable to consider how ministers made that assessment since we were denied sight of the key ministerial submission. This failure to provide what we consider to be relevant documents is profoundly disappointing.
“Oversight depends on primary evidence: the government should open up the ministerial decision-making process to scrutiny on matters of such seriousness.”
The committee investigated whether a “lethal strike was the only realistic prospect of disrupting the threat posed by Khan”.
Mr Grieve said the threat “did not lie in him conducting his own attack against the UK” but in Khan “identifying others to act as operatives and tasking them with attacks in this country”.
He said there was no guarantee that attacks could be stopped by solely focusing on the “UK ‘end’ of the threat” and the government “therefore had to tackle the threat at source and disrupt Khan himself”.
He added alternative options were considered if Khan were to leave Syria but it was concluded it was “highly unlikely” he would travel outside IS-controlled territory or be “dissuaded from his activities”.
Mr Grieve said: “[The] threat he posed was ongoing and there appears to have been no realistic prospect of it diminishing.”
On the question of whether an attack was imminent, he said: “[We] have seen from the intelligence reports that the timescale between Khan contacting an operative, recruiting them, and providing targets could be very short and there was very significant pressure on the agencies in seeking to disrupt these attacks.
“However, we note that the concept of ‘imminence’ may mean different things to different people.”
He added that because the committee had not seen ministerial submissions it was “not in a position to comment on the process by which ministers considered the question of imminence, and how it might have been considered in relation to the decision to conduct a lethal strike”.
The chairman raised concerns about the deaths of other people in the attack.
He said: “The strike against Khan was also thought to have killed two other individuals travelling in the same vehicle: Rahul Amin and another passenger.
“We accept that the possibility of collateral damage cannot always be avoided in military engagements, nevertheless it is essential that it is properly assessed beforehand and we therefore questioned what was known about the other occupants of the vehicle.
“However, the government considered that as the strike was part of a military operation, this was outside the ISC’s statutory remit. We have therefore been prevented from looking at this issue in as much detail as we consider it requires.”
He said there “would appear to be questions around the assessment of the possibility of collateral damage which would benefit from further scrutiny” and there is a “serious concern that this matter will go unscrutinised”.
Calling for greater transparency, Mr Grieve said: “It is to the agencies’ credit that their investigation of Khan’s activities led to the disruption of the attacks he planned, thereby avoiding what could have been very significant loss of life. Nevertheless our inquiry into the intelligence on Khan has revealed wider policy issues surrounding the strike itself – notably around the ministerial decision-making process and the assessment of collateral damage.
“The government should be more transparent about these matters and permit proper scrutiny of them.”
» Comment:
THE Intelligence and Security Committee’s investigation of the killing of Reyaad Khan is a sobering reminder of the deadly effects of radicalisation.
An academically gifted student became intoxicated with the odious imperialist visions of the socalled Islamic state.
It is highly unlikely that anyone who met Khan during his years as a Cardiff schoolboy ever imagined he would be the subject of an ISC report.
The MPs state: “From the intelligence reports we have seen, we are in no doubt that Reyaad Khan posed a very serious threat to the UK. He orchestrated numerous plots to murder large numbers of UK citizens and those of our allies, as part of a wider terrorist group which considers itself at war with the West.”
The committee has devoted time, energy and resources into the investigation of the death of a young man who wanted to murder with abandon.
This is not a sign of our society’s weakness but one of its greatest strengths. The MPs from different parties recognise they have a duty to hold the Government to account for the taking of any life.
This is the antithesis of the values of the crazed extremists who have brought such terror to the people of Syria and Iraq and encouraged cruel slaughter around the world.
The UK should strengthen its commitment to transparency and ensure that our representatives in parliament can fully scrutinise all use of lethal force.
Developments in drone technology have created new opportunities to kill terrorists. It is essential that such acts do not take place in a legal no man’s land.
Decisions must be taken within a clear legal and ethical framework with rigorous criteria applied. When confronting an enemy that loathes our commitment to human rights and wants to attack many of the most precious principles at the heart of our culture we should redouble our commitment to protect innocent life.
For this reason, the following comment by committee chairman Dominic Grieve is particularly concerning. The former Attorney General was unclear how the decision was reached that the threat posed by Khan reached the United Nations threshold of constituting that of a “potential ‘armed attack’”.
Mr Grieve stated: “[We] have been unable to consider how Ministers made that assessment since we were denied sight of the key ministerial submission. This failure to provide what we consider to be relevant documents is profoundly disappointing.
“Oversight depends on primary evidence: the Government should open up the ministerial decisionmaking process to scrutiny on matters of such seriousness.”
The select group of men and women on the ISC should be trusted with such material and it is not helpful if the Government appears to be shy of scrutiny on a matter of life and death.
Whoever forms the next Government should support greater clarity which will strengthen our democracy’s foundations.