2 british terrorists killed by raf drones

[PeteMorris]

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.

 

I really don't understand the argument. Is the alternative to just sit back and wait until 'something' happens? From what I can glean, they were in a moving vehicle. In 'hostile' disputed territory. They were high profile terrorists we all saw on the news threaten god knows what in their very public rantings.

 

Yet we have people saying we need questions answered. What would you prefer? I single drone strike, or the nightmare of finding them again, somehow getting them back to the UK, and spend millions on a trial and then spend who knows how much to keep them incarcerated for the rest of their life, making sure they don't radicalise anyone in prison they come into contact with.

[Obelix]

You are answering a different question to the one I posed Pete. That's why you don't understand it.

[johncocker]

Or, two men who now cannot prove their innocence or have their guilt proven by a court of law.

The family is right to want to know what happened.

 

Or , the family should be thanking the RAF who are sending them(two Islamic State terrorists )too their destiny with 72 golden raisins far quicker than they could ever pray for:thumbsup::hihi::hihi:

[PeteMorris]

You are answering a different question to the one I posed Pete. That's why you don't understand it.

 

It's not that I don't understand the question at all...What I don't understand is why it needs to be asked!

 

The moment someone travels to Syria (or anywhere else) and publicly threatens the UK and is happy to have their threats beamed around the globe they become terrorists. Actually, they don't even need to do that. If they're fighting for the terrorist group who would like to be called 'Islamic State' then they become fair game.

 

How many deaths are they personally responsible for?

[L00b]

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.

The AG is the highest legal advisor to the sitting British government, an appointment one doesn't get to without a lengthy and very solid background in legal practice.

 

The AG, as a legal practitioner, is subjected to the exact same duties and obligations of the SRA Code of Conduct as the lowliest trainee solicitor.

 

If the AG says "there is a clear legal basis" for a proposed action (and Cameron would not quote the AG as having said that, if the AG hadn't - else the AG would already be on record, in a flash, disclaiming the quote), then the AG has considered the legal questions raised by the action at the proposal stage, and come to the conclusion that, in light of applicable statutes and case law, if the matter came before a Judge, the AG would have a better than fighting chance of prevailing.

 

But you knew all that, of course.

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.

Are you suggesting the government should petition the Court every time it wants to fire a missile at an enemy of the state, citizen or not, rather than seek and obtain a legal opinion from its highest-placed legal staff member under a statutory duty of impartiality?

 

That'd be some way to run that particular railway.

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.

You've yet to establish this 'arbitrary' character of the kill mission.

 

All information to date points to an intelligence-led, long-considered and closely-targeted mission, accomplished accurately and without collateral damage, from the sounds of it:

The prime minister's official spokesman said the decision had been taken "some months ago"

(see post #114 for linked source).

 

I just don't get the sanguine comments based on the alleged illegality of the strikes. Allow yourself a moment of patriotic feelgood or pride, for once...and count yourselves lucky: all we French have ever been given to chew on, by way of "intelligence-led strike mission", was the f***** Rainbow Warrior fiasco!

Edited September 8, 2015 by L00b

[Obelix]

It's not that I don't understand the question at all...What I don't understand is why it needs to be asked!

 

The moment someone travels to Syria (or anywhere else) and publicly threatens the UK and is happy to have their threats beamed around the globe they become terrorists. Actually, they don't even need to do that. If they're fighting for the terrorist group who would like to be called 'Islamic State' then they become fair game.

 

How many deaths are they personally responsible for?

 

The bulk of your quoted answer indicates the need for it to be asked.

[johncocker]

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.

]

Obeliex :hihi:how ironic,

That's what stuffed the Roman Empire mate, and allowed the barbarians to vanquish it.

 

They sat around talking and pontificating, until it was too late.

 

Isis must just love people like you!

[Obelix]

The AG is the highest legal advisor to the sitting British government, an appointment one doesn't get to without a lengthy and very solid background in legal practice.

 

The AG, as a legal practitioner, is subjected to the exact same duties and obligations of the SRA Code of Conduct as the lowliest trainee solicitor.

 

If the AG says "there is a clear legal basis" for a proposed action (and Cameron would not quote the AG as having said that, if the AG hadn't - else the AG would already be on record, in a flash, disclaiming the quote), then the AG has considered the legal questions raised by the action at the proposal stage, and come to the conclusion that, in light of applicable statutes and case law, if the matter came before a Judge, the AG would have a better than fighting chance of prevailing.

 

But you knew all that, of course.

Are you suggesting the government should petition the Court every time it wants to fire a missile at an enemy of the state, citizen or not, rather than seek and obtain a legal opinion from its highest-placed legal staff member?

 

That'd be some way to run a railway.

 

You've yet to establish this 'arbitrary' character of the kill mission.

 

All information to date points to an intelligence-led, long-considered and closely-targeted mission:

(see post #114 for linked source).

 

I just don't get the sanguine comments based on the alleged illegality of the strikes. Allow yourself a moment of patriotic feelgood or pride, for once...and count yourselves lucky: all we French have ever been given to chew on, by way of "intelligence-led strike mission", was the f***** Rainbow Warrior fiasco!

 

I've not said the strikes are illegal - quite the contrary.

 

I've said that I'm uneasy with the way the Govt is, probably quite legally proceeding. I do not think it is correct that a State can simply kill those citizens it finds are against it. That seems to be the top of a long and slippery slope.

 

---------- Post added 08-09-2015 at 16:41 ----------

 

Obeliex :hihi:how ironic,

That's what stuffed the Roman Empire mate, and allowed the barbarians to vanquish it.

 

They sat around talking and pontificating, until it was too late.

 

Isis must just love people like you!

 

A post as bereft of content and as full of hot air as the space between your ears.

[johncocker]

A post as bereft of content and as full of hot air as the space between your ears.

 

 

whoooo you are cheeky ,but i do like you:hihi:but I do find the problem with people like you is that you have thought yourself round into such tight circles that you're disappeared up your own rear end and lost any rational moral perspective:o

 

btw/ These two murders, rapists had declared themselves that they were no longer British and were citizens of the Caliphate and that they were enemies of democracy and of Britain. Only in the Loony Lefts' eyes is their rightful killing seen as unfair and unjust. I wonder if you're so vociferous in your condemnation of the murder, rape and slavery carried out by this scum against innocent Yazidi, Chritian and Sh'iite women and men.

Edited September 8, 2015 by johncocker

[L00b]

I've not said the strikes are illegal - quite the contrary.

 

I've said that I'm uneasy with the way the Govt is, probably quite legally proceeding. I do not think it is correct that a State can simply kill those citizens it finds are against it. That seems to be the top of a long and slippery slope.

I don't think there was anything "simple" about deciding, and then proceeding, to kill these British citizens.

 

I'm also reasonably confident that, had these British citizens 'limited' their acts to waging war, raping and murdering locals in Syria and Iraq like other IS combatants, rather than capitalise on their familiarity with western culture and social media to actively pursue and implement lone western wolf-recruiting activities as reported, the British government would not have targeted them deliberately in the way it has.

 

I've seen and read enough about IS atrocities, never to lose a second of sleep over any IS combatant turned into itty little bits by drones, regardless of their nationality and whose drone did the firing.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, and as I've already posted in here, were IS not waging a total war on a scale arguably worse even that what took place in Yugoslavia in the early 90s, and were they abiding by at least basic human rights in respect of captives and captured populations, I would be more concerned. As it is, however, based on their own acts performed under their own volition, they sit quite some distance below cockroaches on my personal metric. All of them, homegrown like 'imported' ex-western ones.