There’s little sympathy for the so-called Jihadists killed recently by a drone strike in Syria. That’s perfectly understandable. Their views and actions are repugnant and they have placed themselves in a combat zone that millions of innocent civilians are fleeing.

The UK Attorney General has stated the killings are lawful. There may be intelligence about proposed terrorist actions planned by them which were a threat to our society. However, no confirmation of that has been produced and the basis of the legality remains unclear.

That needs clarified to ensure that the killings were justified. Otherwise, it was an extra-judicial killing by a country that is neither at war in Syria nor possesses the death penalty for its citizens. In addition, if such strikes are to continue wherever on UK citizens and indeed others, then a clear basis for so doing is required. That along with both judicial scrutiny and democratic oversight is essential.

Drones are a new weapon of war. They are not banned by any international convention and their use will doubtless grow as technology develops and terrorism evolves. Rightly or wrongly they are here to stay. They allow for extra-territorial actions as in Syria, as well as their use in areas of conflict by UK forces. However, in any conflict rules and guidelines exist for the military and the use of drones will be governed by them, as would air strikes or other actions. Democratic supervision will also apply through Parliament with the sanctioning of war and actions consequent to it.

However, their use in areas where the UK is not at war raises issues of concern. The nature of conflict in the world is changing as terrorism stalks the globe. Conflict is no longer consigned to certain countries or even regions. Organisations and individual both at home and abroad pose significant threat. The use of drones for the killing of terrorist targets is likely to continue. It therefore raises significant judicial and political issues.

Where are they to be used? The UK is not at war in Syria. On what basis can you carry out a killing in a foreign land that you are not at war with? There are clear international rules and obligations to follow. To breach them is to further undermine international agencies and approved rules still reeling from the war in Iraq. In what countries will the UK act without that States approval or international agreement? The UK was rightly outraged at the murder of the Russian dissident Litvinenko in London. Is it simply to be at the whim of the UK Government without any parliamentary approval or international sanction? Those issues need clarified and democratic authority and oversight established.

Who are they to be used against? The death penalty has long since ended in this country. Other than in war or for the preservation of life killing someone is illegal. Yet, a drone strike such as this is a death sentence. It has not been imposed by a court or for a conviction for a crime. It has been decided by a Government for reasons unspecified. There may well be good reason but that has not been publicised. There has to be a lawful basis for any such action and which has to be clear and understandable. It also has to be subject to democratic oversight. It cannot simply be a Ministerial decision without question or scrutiny.

It’s not simply drones but the nature of terrorism that makes the issue complicated. Such actions may need to be taken and may well be justifiable. However, a situation cannot be allowed whereby a UK Government can execute a citizen or any other human being without any legal basis or democratic oversight. There must be a lawful basis for the actions by the state to protect citizens and others from abuse by it. After all, drone strikes have killed not just Jihadists but innocent people in many countries. What recourse do they have?

In the United States it’s suggested President Obama signs off an ever lengthening drone kill list once a week. But, it is an executive decision not subject to any congressional oversight. The legal basis beyond Presidential powers is all but non-existent. If the UK is not to mirror that then there requires being a legal basis for any such actions a mirror that then there requires being a legal basis for any such actions and democratic oversight of them.

Kenny MacAskill is SNP MSP for Edinburgh Eastern and a former Justice Secretary.