2 british terrorists killed by raf drones

[Detetcive]

He asked the UK Attorney General who confirmed that it was legal to kill a UK citizen who's an enemy combatant on foreign soil who was plotting to kill the UK Head of Stage (the Queen).

 

Have you got a suggestion for anyone to give better advice to the government?

 

We don't know that. Let's see the advice. Extra judicial killing of UK citizens needs proper enquiry. Not saying it's right or wrong.

[Cyclone]

The government was elected to make decisions on behalf of the UK population, so yes it is their job to identify enemies of the UK and kill them if necessary.

 

A deeply scary gifting of power to the government, indeed to a single man, since parliament didn't vote on this matter and had actually voted against using force in Syria.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/08/drones-uk-isis-members-jihadists-syria-kill-list-ministers

[L00b]

We don't know that. Let's see the advice. Extra judicial killing of UK citizens needs proper enquiry. Not saying it's right or wrong.

Why does one not put one's money where one's posts are, and offer the families of the killed British jihadis to fund a private prosecution?

 

The hearings will probably be held in camera and the evidence remain unpublished, but one would be able to see the advice indeed, and moreover test it before a Judge.

 

Off you go, don't forget let us know about the decision

 

Not going to do that?

 

You mean, you're not going to avail of the judicial system available to one and all, developed in this country over centuries and a long- and universally-acknowledged model of balance and fairness (which birthed the Human Rights convention, lest we forget), which these killed British jihadis and their ilk are fighting so hard to eradicate, to answer your own question about the legality of their killing?

 

Why's that, then?

A deeply scary gifting of power to the government, indeed to a single man, since parliament didn't vote on this matter and had actually voted against using force in Syria.

That was a vote against using force against the State of Syria, not 'in Syria'. This is the 2nd or 3rd time I've had to remind about it in this thread.

 

Moreover,

• The British government does not require the sanction of Parliament to use force against an immediate threat to the State.
  
• The British government did not target Syrian assets or citizens, either.
  
• There is no casus belli from either the UK's point of view or Syria's after this strike.

"Gifting of Power"? Now, if you think this is anything new worth twisting knickers, I suggest that you acquaint yourself with Operations Flavius, some 27 years ago. And, more recently and where IS is concerned, Operation Shader. For starters.

 

The UK, a G7 nation, has regularly engaged in realpolitik for self-preservation and/or self-interest purposes, for decades and longer. Shocker. Who'd have thought. <etc.>

 

EDIT - Lest we forget,

On 26 September 2014, Parliament was recalled to debate the authorisation of British airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq. Prime Minister David Cameron told MPs that intervention, at the request of the Iraqi government, to combat a “brutal terrorist organisation”, was “morally justified”. He went on to state that ISIL was a direct threat to the United Kingdom and that British inaction would lead to “more killing” in Iraq.

 

Following a seven-hour debate, Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of airstrikes, by 524 votes to 43.

ISIL included Brit recruits in Iraq at that time, a very well-known and -documented fact known to all and sundry, including the voting MPs. I very much doubt Parliament would vote differently today, in respect of bombing ISIL in Syria. And if ISIL targets in Iraq or Syria happen to include Brit recruits at the material time...hey-ho, they're not exactly collateral, are they? Edited September 9, 2015 by L00b

[woodmally]

Its obvious that this needs looking at, as Brits were killed by the armed forces on foreign soil where we have no business to be.

 

Its a legal question that needs properly looking into. The PM works for us and he must expose how he made the decision to public scrutiny.

 

Why should we care about them. They went out there to fight. They got killed. Good ridance.

 

We do have reason to be out there. To stop ISIL. Unless you simply want to accept refugees and refuse to solve the problem as to why they are refugees in the first place.

[ukdobby]

I reckon some people would want us to accept all the refugees running away from IS and stay hiding in our island rather than sorting the scrum out,well done UK.

[woodmally]

I reckon some people would want us to accept all the refugees running away from IS and stay hiding in our island rather than sorting the scrum out,well done UK.

 

Sadly I agree with you. Its the Iraq guilt crisis as well. They shouldnt have invaded Iraq but did and so Ed Milliband et al dont want to upset their labour supporters again and refused to vote for action in Syria when the Commons voted. Net result we have thousands of displaced people.

 

They then have the audacity to complain when we quite rightly blow up a few thugs who are out their causing trouble.

[adrea]

A deeply scary gifting of power to the government, indeed to a single man, since parliament didn't vote on this matter and had actually voted against using force in Syria.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/08/drones-uk-isis-members-jihadists-syria-kill-list-ministers

 

Your life is being threatened by a nutter with a gun, should the police ask parliament to vote on whether to shoot the nutter, or should they just shoot him when they see an opportunity that doesn't put innocent people at risk?

 

Do you think the Syrian people will be angry that the British government had a British citizen killed whilst he was in their country terrorizing them and forcing them to flee their homeland?

[slordy71]

Its obvious that this needs looking at, as Brits were killed by the armed forces on foreign soil where we have no business to be.

 

Its a legal question that needs properly looking into. The PM works for us and he must expose how he made the decision to public scrutiny.

 

thought you should be back at school by now? why does it need looking at, they were legitimate targets, next you will be wanting soldiers to hold any inquiry on the battlefield? yes the PM does work for us and i am sure he has far more sensitive info than us which doesn't need to be disclosed as it may harm further missions.

[Eric Arthur]

We don't know that. Let's see the advice. Extra judicial killing of UK citizens needs proper enquiry. Not saying it's right or wrong.

 

Yes we do know that.

 

Anyone with an interest in the subject will have read about it. It doesn't need an enquiry when somebody wants to assassinate the Queen alongside lots of other UK citizens.

 

https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/drone-strike-legal-advice-given-months-ago-admits-no-10

 

We should stop beating ourselves up about the deaths of people who want to do extreme harm in the UK and concentrate on things that matter.

[tzijlstra]

I keep hearing people moan about legitimate targets, terrorists that want to kill Britons etc. Good, so why object against a proper test of those facts in legal terms? If it is all above board, great, if it isn't than we all have a right to know that our government authorised a strike against two fellow Brits.