One law for jihadis and one for the rest?

Among the many serious questions that arise from our story today about the fate of the two notorious British jihadis captured in Syria perhaps the most important is why our laws seem incapable of dealing with them. Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary, has secretly agreed with the Americans to waive the UK’S objections to the imposition of the death penalty on the two men should they be extradited to the US for trial. This has only become necessary because of apparent shortcomings in the British justice system that means the men cannot be brought back to Britain to face prosecution. And this is despite the existence of intelligence implicating them in the murder of two British citizens, backed up by statements from 600 witnessess collected by the Metropolitan police and the FBI.

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in America and the various murderous atrocities carried out against British people here and abroad, successive governments have pledged ever tougher laws to deal with the Islamist menace. These include making it an offence to fight with jihadi organisations; yet even though hundreds of British Muslims travelled to join Isis hardly any returnees have been prosecuted. The public and the relatives of their victims are entitled to ask why not.

Moreover, the Government took powers to strip those who fight against British Forces of their citizenship. Why has that not happened to these two, thereby obviating the requirement to seek assurances from the Americans about the death penalty? If they were no longer our citizens the dilemma would not arise. It is possible the two jihadis will be sent to Guantanamo Bay without trial. Yet previous British citizens held there have been repatriated, at substantial cost to the taxpayer in compensation. How can we be sure that is not going to happen again in a few years’ time?

Campaigners will doubtless seek to block the removal of Alexanda Kotey and Shafee El-sheikh to any jurisdiction other than the UK. Yet it seems our laws, despite repeated promises over the years, are insufficiently robust to cope with one of the great threats to our way of life.

While there will be controversy around the Home Secretary’s decision not to seek assurances on the use of the death penalty, he maintains this is applicable only in this case. But the country will be perplexed as to why we cannot try these men here. After all, there seems to be no barrier to pursuing British soldiers through the courts.