2 british terrorists killed by raf drones

[geared]

The vested interests and factions in the region mean that there will never be consensus or agreement. If they put their own house in order Britain might not need to act.

 

Yea but thats not ever going to happen.

 

Some of the Gulf states won't even accept refugees from the war.

[Cyclone]

Against your Queen, if I am not mistaken?

Appears to have been entirely made up by the media.

 

For a British subject, as high an act of treason as it comes.

 

Death by Hellfire missile sounds quite clement, by comparison to the execution regime of auld for traitors (...which regime is still practiced by ISIS, with an extra side of horror, as it happens).

Well, if it wasn't for the waxing lyrical about the legality of the act on boards like SF...you'd see that there isn't exactly a great many f***s being given about the legality of their deaths by the vast majority of right-thinking members of society this morning - and still less as further details of the plot against the Royals come out, no doubt.

 

Still more details about the strike here.

 

On the contrary, I'd suggest that the majority of the country who can think about the issue have some concerns. It's (in the most case) only the extreme right wing, hang 'em and flog 'em brigade that are celebrating extra judicial executions with no oversight.

 

---------- Post added 08-09-2015 at 14:04 ----------

 

This quote from Halibut for starters.

 

 

 

Where the evidence that lead them to be killed is that they went there in the first place. If they didnt want to be killed why go to Syria to fight.

 

a) that is in no way apologist.

b) you don't even understand the justification that the government has used...

[Vague_Boy]

heres a first for Britain http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34178998 yet the terrorists families want an enquiry

 

The actual headline reads "Two Britons killed in RAF Syria strike".

 

Even the government doesn't make any claims as to them actually carrying out any attacks.

 

Mr. Cameron's rhetoric sounds like like the "weapons of mass destruction/45 minutes" lie.

 

Get the people riled up and they'll go along with anything.

 

Inter arma enim silent leges and all that.

[L00b]

Appears to have been entirely made up by the media.

Source?

On the contrary, I'd suggest that the majority of the country who can think about the issue have some concerns. It's (in the most case) only the extreme right wing, hang 'em and flog 'em brigade that are celebrating extra judicial executions with no oversight.

To the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam for the sake of debating balance, plenty of oversight provided in these drone hits:

Mr Cameron has said the attorney general was consulted over the strike and agreed there was a "clear legal basis" for it.

 

He said the strike had been approved at a meeting of "the most senior members" of the National Security Council and authorised by Mr Fallon.

(source)

 

Alleging that these drone hits amounted to 'extra judicial executions with no oversight' is nothing more than an opinion. The AG's word is good enough for me, until disproven. The alleged illegality is still yours to prove, Cyclone.

Edited September 8, 2015 by L00b

[JFKvsNixon]

The actual headline reads "Two Britons killed in RAF Syria strike".

 

Even the government doesn't make any claims as to them actually carrying out any attacks.

 

Mr. Cameron's rhetoric sounds like like the "weapons of mass destruction/45 minutes" lie.

 

Get the people riled up and they'll go along with anything.

 

Inter arma enim silent leges and all that.

 

You do wonder if this announcement has anything to do with Corbyn's recent comments where he said he couldn't currently envisage circumstances in which he would agree to deploy Britain’s armed forces on overseas military operations.

[PeteMorris]

You do wonder if this announcement has anything to do with Corbyn's recent comments where he said he couldn't currently envisage circumstances in which he would agree to deploy Britain’s armed forces on overseas military operations.

 

Let's face it...Anything which comes from government, usually has a purpose, and is a 'spin' on the cold reality of things.

 

Yep maybe I am an old cynic!...Well...A cynic anyway!

[gomgeg]

Week, things are looking up a bit, a shame for them they didn't, they might have seen it coming.

[Obelix]

 

Alleging that these drone hits amounted to 'extra judicial executions with no oversight' is nothing more than an opinion. The AG's word is good enough for me, until disproven. The alleged illegality is still yours to prove, Cyclone.

 

What is judicial oversight? Is the AG casting an eye over it sufficient? What has he done? Merely clarified if it is "legal" which may be tricky given the relative paucity of cases to guide him. Or has he considered if it is correct, considering that we generally don't just arbitrarily sentence people on the whim of a single person except for the most trifling of offences such as speeding.

 

Looking back through the very foundations of English Law there is a strong undertone that surmises people should be brought before a judge or magistrate for trial - the Habeus Corpus Act, also the Justices of the Peace Act. IF you go back to Magna Carta, the only extant clause still says that persons shall not be destroyed otherwise than by lawful judgement of his Peers.

 

Having someone arbitrarily killed because their existence is inconvenient is to me a very unwelcome step to take without independent oversight and review of this - and in this case I fail to see how it can possibly have been achieved.

[Timeh]

A bit more detail seems to be coming to light:

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1548816/the-islamic-state-plots-that-threatened-britain

 

:hihi::hihi::hihi:

[johncocker]

I think they have a right to see the evidence which led to them being killed.

 

 

They could ask the relatives of the people they have likely killed, beheaded,burnt alive or maybe some of the girls they have rapped

you seem to forget what these religious psychos go over there for