RAF drone strke in Syria on 2 UK citizens

[postmn]

I can see it now in mosques across Britain

 

"Look what the infidel Cameron has done. He has executed 2 British Muslims without a trial! "

 

He just played right into ISIS's hands and just helped radacalise a dozen more.

 

The guys should of been snatched and returned here for trial

 

And then sentenced to 200 years hard labour with no chance of release.

 

Well by the time the bleeding hearts had got through with them they would more than likely got community service . a more effective was is make them stateless . they want to go and join isis strip them of citizenship o wait cant do that due to the liberals

[obiter dictum]

You cannot make any individual stateless

 

That again is contrary to international law

 

That is why we have the rule of law to deal with these situations, not a kangaroo court knee jerk mentality

[Conniff]

Who is this 'everyone' in your everyone is disgusted statement. I'm not disgusted at all. When this is all eventually over, are you saying we should welcome them back with open arms?

[obiter dictum]

People are disgusted in that when you start using domestic law as your own political plaything, democracy suffers

 

It is not the fact these people were murdered (killed contrary to law)

 

In that Cameron decided he is above the law when making his decision to sanction this action

[tobyjugg2]

The only reason we are getting our knickers in a knot is that 2 of the people who were killed in the strike were British.

 

Not me.

For me its that they are escalating military action in Syria, making the situation there MORE difficult to resolve, and using weasel words to bypass the stated will of the British public and their representatives.

 

Good riddance to the jihadists, just a shame that the Syrian Army didn't do it - although if they had, undoubtedly Cameron would be squealing like a stuck pig about it.

 

Notice that the Turks are now openly bombing the PKK Kurds with little action against ISIS.

 

(watch the CNN or France24 news reports - not BBC or SKY)

[Conniff]

It would seem there are a few attempts to turn this into a political argument. No one can be so naive as to think one person, no matter what his status, did this on his own bat.

[unclebulgaria67]

Cannot get too excited by this. They were two terrorists fighting with ISIS who have no interest in international laws or fellow humans.

 

The bit i fail to understand is using the defence argument, unless there was evidence of the UK being threatened in some way. If this ever gets to a UK court, if a Judge finds out there was no direct threat, then the UK government might have to pay millions in compensation to the families. There is also a slim chance of the Defence Secretary being investigated and even prosecuted for giving the order. Possibly more damaging, than these two young terrorists fighting a war in Syria.

 

The danger with drones being used is that rather than have identifiable Factions operating in certain areas, is that terrorists dress as civilians, have hidden guns on the back of trucks and they move quickly unseen by defence forces. Drones make the enemy spread out and also hide in civilian areas. At some point it is enevitabke that ground forces will be needed.

[obiter dictum]

The answer is in Article 2 ECHR and our own Magna Carta (Right to life)

 

That gives everyone the right to a fair trial before punishment

 

Protocol 6 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in peacetime,

 

This has been given further legal persuasion with the ECtHR judgement of unlawful killing those IRA men in Gibraltar by the SAS in 1995

 

I am not interested in the crimes, only the violation of the rule of law

 

Do it once, when do you stop??

[tobyjugg2]

It would seem there are a few attempts to turn this into a political argument. No one can be so naive as to think one person, no matter what his status, did this on his own bat.

 

Err

Well who besides Cameron and his immediate circle of 'enablers, and the few in the high level chain of command who executed it then?

Not Parliament - that is clear.

 

Maybe not one - but certainly no more than a handfull made this decision and executed it.

 

 

The answer is in Article 2 ECHR and our own Magna Carta (Right to life)

 

That gives everyone the right to a fair trial before punishment

 

Protocol 6 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in peacetime,

 

This has been given further legal persuasion with the ECtHR judgement of unlawful killing those IRA men in Gibraltar by the SAS in 1995

 

I am not interested in the crimes, only the violation of the rule of law

 

Do it once, when do you stop??

 

All also true.

 

Now if the UK had worked with the Syrian army on this strike, actioned by the Syrian air force, there would be little provable cause for complaint.

 

Killing declared and wanted terrorists whatever their nationality is no issue to me. nor should it be to the law, although the process should be completely transparent, and this should not be considered a peacetime action, and proper process should have been followed.

[obiter dictum]

edit

[citizenB]

The answer is in Article 2 ECHR and our own Magna Carta (Right to life)

 

That gives everyone the right to a fair trial before punishment

 

Protocol 6 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in peacetime,

 

This has been given further legal persuasion with the ECtHR judgement of unlawful killing those IRA men in Gibraltar by the SAS in 1995

 

I am not interested in the crimes, only the violation of the rule of law

 

Do it once, when do you stop??

 

With the best will in the world, I cannot and will not lose any sleep over two young men who turned their back on Britain to take up arms against innocent people. As already pointed out Jihad John lost no sleep when he beheaded an innocent man publicly!

 

Just because they were targeted on foreign soil does not mean that they had no intention to harm Britain in the future. Do we know for certain they were actually targeted or did they just happen to be there ?

 

These terrorists are indiscriminately murdering people and have no respect for any law - yet scream human rights if they are caught!

I do not want to see any more young men from the UK losing their lives fighting any other country's war.

 

If these men had been killed by UK soldiers on the ground, would we still be making a fuss ?

Whilst two wrongs don't make a right, if they cant abide by the laws and rules of engagement in war, then I am more than happy to see them denied those rights.

[obiter dictum]

The rule of law is what separates us from the terrorist

 

Or is the Government now the terrorist with state sanctioned murder??

 

We are not officially at war with Syria, that is the issue

[unclebulgaria67]

Err

Well who besides Cameron and his immediate circle of 'enablers, and the few in the high level chain of command who executed it then?

Not Parliament - that is clear.

 

Maybe not one - but certainly no more than a handfull made this decision and executed it.

 

Here is my speculation about what happened. The US found these targets, identified them as two British born terrorists and decided to contact the British military to see if they wanted to act. This was then fed up the chain of command to the defence secretary, who alerts Cameron. There is discussion with the governments legal advisors to see how givernment could authorise the killing of these two terrorists in Syria and the defence of state interests was raised. The defence secretary is then given the go ahead by Cameron to authorise the drone strike. This would have happened within a few hours at the most.

 

I suspect that there was no immediate risk to UK interests and the reasons for defensive action have been found since. This could be found to be a bit dodgy if it ever ended up in court.

 

Wish the government would just say it as it was. An opportunity to kill two terrorists who would have been a danger to UK interests and who were engaged in carryout out terrorists acts overseas.

[tobyjugg2]

Now Gove, this is a blatant attempt to turn this thread political.

Although the Gove comment adds nothing to this thread in my opinion, How can a *small part* of the UK governments ruling party - including its Prime Minister, using UK military to kill people in a country we are not at war with AGAINST the expressed wishes of the UK parliament and people; NOT be considered for the political as well as legal aspects?

[obiter dictum]

Those UK terrorist cannot be lawfully killed as stated, we are not at war with Syria

 

The UK parliament has voted for no participation of UK forces in Syria

 

Questions need to be asked and answered in parliament

[citizenB]

That post had been deleted 20 minutes ago for the very reason i was fully aware you would use it in a detrimental way

 

Why are you using your position as a site team member to see my deleted posts and try and make political millage out of it 20 minutes after the fact??

 

There is no abuse of site team position. The moment you posted that post would have been emailed out to those who are subscribed to this thread. People will then comment. It looks to me as though the quote was started prior to your editing, because it has a link which would have not been available after your edit.

[Conniff]

It came through as an email as I am subscribed, it has nothing to do with site team member, you also get emails of post. I did not see it was deleted as I used it from the email.

[unclebulgaria67]

The government has access to many legal advisors, who are not political. Cameron suggested that the urgency of the action meant that there was no big legal discussion before it was authorised. This is the nature of such actions, that you are given minutes to make a decision, based on basic discussions.

[obiter dictum]

Those basic decision resulted in terminating the life of two British citizens

 

Is a human life now really that cheap??

[citizenB]

Those basic decision resulted in terminating the life of two British citizens

 

Is a human life now really that cheap??

 

You would have to ask in those countries who obviously consider it to be !

 

China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Mexico, Palestine !! Some African countries, etc,

[obiter dictum]

But not in the 28 member states

[unclebulgaria67]

Those basic decision resulted in terminating the life of two British citizens

 

Is a human life now really that cheap??

 

Yes !

 

How many migrants drowned crossing the med this summer ? It took the picture of a dead 3 year old boy, before Cameron was willing to consider taking more Syrian refugees.

 

Sign of the times i'm afraid. With a human population due to hit 8 billion within the next 10 years, people are getting use to deaths reported on a large scale every day in the media. I made the same point the other day. There are shootings in the US every day which are not reported in UK media, unless it is in a school, it involves a politician or celebrity or more than a few are killed.

[SabreSheep]

My concern is not for the 2 lives that were lost. (They deserved it in some respects) BUT how it happened and what it means for the bigger picture.

This question is about US, not the now 2 dead corpses in Syria

 

2 people hostile to the government were executed by the government without trial because they "Were planning something"

 

Are we to allow executions of our own citizens based on the same level of evidence and scrutiny that took this country to war for the second time in IRAQ

 

This sort of thing needs to be more transparent. Otherwise you descend the slippery slope of "This person is an enemy of the state because of "reasons" and shall be terminated." Where does that slope end?

 

Also the impact of the actual strike on the community that we want to prevent from going out there and joining their cause in the first place. Do you think that drone strike will hinder or help ISIS recruitment efforts.?

 

As a Nation, we have laws and due process for a reason. Should we abandon our ideals? Are they not worth protecting? And if we compromise those ideals, who do we become. Should we become them?

 

As pointed out above, War criminals were tried before execution. By all means bring back the death penalty for treason but make sure it is supported by a transparent due process.

 

And this is not about "Bleeting Hearts" This is about the bigger picture and recognizing that the ENDs DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS

[obiter dictum]

That is what i have been trying to state all along

 

The ends do not justify the means if it impacts on our own democracy

 

You rob a bank in this country with shooters, the armed response will always challenge first before opening fire

 

Very well put SabreSheep

[unclebulgaria67]

My concern is not for the 2 lives that were lost. (They deserved it in some respects) BUT how it happened and what it means for the bigger picture.

This question is about US, not the now 2 dead corpses in Syria

 

2 people hostile to the government were executed by the government without trial because they "Were planning something"

 

Are we to allow executions of our own citizens based on the same level of evidence and scrutiny that took this country to war for the second time in IRAQ

 

This sort of thing needs to be more transparent. Otherwise you descend the slippery slope of "This person is an enemy of the state because of "reasons" and shall be terminated." Where does that slope end?

 

Also the impact of the actual strike on the community that we want to prevent from going out there and joining their cause in the first place. Do you think that drone strike will hinder or help ISIS recruitment efforts.?

 

As a Nation, we have laws and due process for a reason. Should we abandon our ideals? Are they not worth protecting? And if we compromise those ideals, who do we become. Should we become them?

 

As pointed out above, War criminals were tried before execution. By all means bring back the death penalty for treason but make sure it is supported by a transparent due process.

 

And this is not about "Bleeting Hearts" This is about the bigger picture and recognizing that the ENDs DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS

 

Of course this makes sense, but it does raise the question.

 

If ISIS and other terrorists do not recognise any international laws or conventions and it is not possible to bring them to justice, what can you do ? In an ideal world, you would send in forces to take these two people and return them to face prosecution in a UK court. But you would risk lifes of British soldiers going into war zones to do this and what happens if they get killed or taken hostage. How would you feel as PM seeing a video of a British soldier you sent in, being tortured or killed.

 

We all want to follow the law and take the moral high ground. The reality is a bit different.