Litvinenko was killed by spies using radioactive Polonium 210 in his tea

Cage - the notorious campaign group that back Jihadi John - today waded into the row over the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko by comparing it to drone strikes on ISIS terrorists.

The group tweeted a question suggesting President Putin might have considered Mr Litvinenko a national security threat but one unreachable with a 'drone strike'.

A public inquiry published today sensationally claimed Mr Putin 'probably' personally ordered the assassination of a man who whom he had a long running personal feud.

Campaign group Cage waded into the aftermath of a public inquiry report revealing President Putin had probably 'personally' authorised the killing of Alexander Litvinenko

The group made comparisons with the first British drone strike on ISIS terrorists in Syria last year when David Cameron announced he had taken steps to protect national security

In a series of further tweets, Cage linked to articles questioning the motives for the killing and suggesting British drone strikes - which Prime Minister David Cameron announced for the first time in September - were a 'departure' for the UK.

Cage rose to prominence after the identity of the ISIS executioner known as Jihadi John was revealed as Londoner Mohammed Emwazi.

The group found itself at the centre of a bitter public row last year when its representatives described the man behind the Islamic State beheadings, Jihadi John, as a ‘beautiful, kind man.’

At an extraordinary press conference hours after the identity of Jihadi John was revealed, CAGE spokesman Asim Qureshi said the man involved, Mohammed Emwazi, ‘wouldn’t hurt a fly’ and that the British security services were at least partly responsible for radicalising him.

His comments put CAGE – a group which claims to ‘campaign for communities affected by the war on terror’ – at the centre of a furore.

Boris Johnson called CAGE ‘apologists for terror’ and Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond suggested the organisation and others like it bore a ‘huge burden of responsibility’ for the actions of terrorists such as Emwazi.

CAGE was left facing difficult questions – not just over its support for Emwazi, but also over support for a whole range of individuals linked to terror.

Among the damaging revelations was the emergence of a video of Qureshi which showed him calling on Muslims to support jihad at an extremist rally.

Qureshi later said he was talking about ‘the right to self-defence’.

He added: ‘Everyone who was at that demonstration would know that Asim Qureshi and CAGE are people who do not advocate terrorism in any way.’

David Cameron stunned MPs in September by revealing the UK had used military force in Syria without parliamentary authority and against a Briton.

Claims: At an extraordinary press conference hours after the identity of Jihadi John was revealed in February 2015, CAGE spokesman Asim Qureshi (pictured) said Mohammed Emwazi ‘wouldn’t hurt a fly’

‘There was a terrorist directing murder on our streets and no other means to stop him,’ said the Prime Minister.

A second Islamic State fanatic from Britain, Ruhul Amin, died with the main target, Reyaad Khan, in the secret operation on August 21.

A third, Junaid Hussain, was killed three days later by a US drone in a joint operation with the UK.

Stephen Marvin, a former school friend of Amin, said he deserved his fate. ‘It’s hard to say he didn’t get what he deserved in the end,’ he told ITV News. ‘He was my childhood best friend but he was a totally different person in the last 12 to 18 months so it was hard to sympathise with him.’

The revelation that Khan, 21, from Cardiff, had been assassinated in the first RAF drone strike against a Briton triggered claims of extra-judicial killing.

But Mr Cameron insisted the attacks were an act of self-defence and not a softening-up exercise to persuade Parliament to vote for further military action against Islamic State targets in Syria.

Some of the IS plots had been foiled while others were still active, he added.

Asked if he would do it again, the Prime Minister told MPs: ‘If it is necessary to safeguard the UK and act in self-defence, and there are no other ways of doing it, then yes, I would. The choice we were left with was to think, this is all 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 national interest.’