ISIS Beatles renews debate in Britain over countering terrorism

Nahla Abdel Moneim

The case of the “Beatles” ISIS cell has returned to the scene again after a testimony provided by CNN on October 6 about the intention of the United States to receive British nationals Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh within days after long negotiations between Washington and London over the optimal punishment mechanism for the ISIS members. This comes against the background of a human rights and legal battle linked to the case, which has contributed to stigmatizing the British strategy against extremists as floundering.

CNN confirmed through its own reliable sources that the ISIS members were about to be handed over to the United States for trial for the crimes that were carried out during ISIS’s control over parts of Syria and Iraq, such as the slaughter of foreign hostages, including US citizens who traveled to conflict areas to work as journalists or relief workers.

Deportation and abandonment

The Elsheikh and Kotey case began to circulate in the media in July 2018 after the disclosure of confidential documents containing letters between former British Interior Minister Sajid Javid and officials in Washington, which stated that London did not reject the execution of the two British citizens, thus facilitating their deportation to Guantanamo prison at Washington’s request.

The documents included assurances from the British side that the UK will not ask about the execution of extremists in the future and will not attack Washington in this regard if it carries out the verdict. Britain would even provide the United States with possible evidence to punish the individuals.

These leaks led to widespread controversy within the United Kingdom in light of the government’s circumvention of laws, because London does not apply the death penalty, yet it wanted to liquidate the two “Beatles” terrorists. Therefore, it accepted their deportation to Washington and supported their execution in contravention of its laws. At that time, Javid defended his view, asserting that the decision was consistent with protecting British national security.

In this regard, Brigadier General Khaled Okasha, Director of the Egyptian Center for Thought and Strategic Studies, said in a previous statement to the Reference that states have the right to take such decisions in a sovereign manner in accordance with the information received by their security services about the danger of terrorist elements and the extent of their threat to national security. Therefore, the British decision regarding ISIS elements is theirs alone to take based on the information they have.

In the face of strong calls from the British community to stop this measure to prevent circumventing the law in the future under any pretext, CNN reported on October 6 that US Attorney General William Barr assured Britain that his country would not apply the death penalty against the “Beatles” terrorists in order to urge the UK to provide what information it has about the involvement of the two elements in cases of slaughter and terrorism after security and societal strictures surrounding that case to preserve London’s reputation. But the British Supreme Court had allowed the UK in August to share information about the Beatles case with Washington.

Western floundering

This case emerged as an example of the UK’s lack of clarity of political vision towards ISIS terrorists, especially returnees, as Elsheikh and Kotey were stripped of their British citizenship years earlier because they joined ISIS, meaning even before they were arrested by the SDF in Syria in February 2018.

When they were arrested, they demanded their British citizenship be returned so as to have a fair trial, but London refuses to renationalize any of the terrorists who joined ISIS. In the case of Kotey and Elsheikh, they are of great importance to the United States, which was keen to secure them and transfer them under its supervision. On October 9, 2019, US President Donald Trump announced that the two men were transferred to a secure location due to the intensification of fighting between the Turks and the Kurds in the detainee area.

It appears from the foregoing that the dispute between Washington and London was revolving around the provision of available information, and this was linked to their punishment. Some justify this confusion with the strict European laws on the circulation of information, especially since it was related to facilitating the death sentence not applied in London.

Some link this confusion with other issues that made Britain the most important arena for terrorists to be able to target it more easily. According to the 2019 GTI International Terrorism Index, London ranked first among Europeans in the percentage of victims of extremist operations.

Perhaps the most famous of these models was the Libyan Fighting Group. On June 20, a member of the group carried out a terrorist attack a few months after the British parliament voted in November 2019 to drop the Libyan Fighting Group from the list of terrorist organizations, considering it an active political opposition group against late Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi.

This came as a result of confusing terrorism with terms such as armed opposition. Not only the Middle East, but also Europe, has been harmed, especially Britain, which is awaiting a more difficult situation in terms of security challenges after its final exit from the European Union and its loss of cooperative intelligence advantages with Brussels.