2 british terrorists killed by raf drones

[tzijlstra]

What has to be done for it to be seen as legal though?

An enemy combatant, in a foreign country, in a foreign warzone - are they not fair game??

 

Do we have to declare war or something against IS to legally kill them, do we not currently hold the position that these people are our enemys??

 

Yes. In a word.

 

Or at least a parliamentary agreement that strikes are allowed on Syrian soil, which still isn't the case and in fact was refused in a fair and democratic vote. So not only is it illegal, it is also against the express wishes of the houses of parliament. At which point the person authorising the strike, presumably DC, is a criminal on several counts.

 

First there is the minor issue of contempt of parliament, which is a case for the parliament to resolve but could result in suspension of duties. Second is the ordering of killing of citizens without trial (aka murder) which can/will lead to a civil case and should lead to a public case. Third is the possibility of perjury, did DC lie to the house when he told them he would not order strikes on Syria?which when committed by the Prime Minister is certain reason for prosecution, one would assume.

 

But it won't get that far because these lads were claimed to be terrorists (we will never see evidence of course) and muslim on contested soil. So that makes it alright then?

[L00b]

2 years ago Parliament told the Govt that military action in Syria was against the will of the Commons and against the desires of the people.

 

We should be heeding that advice. It's up to the Govt to find alternatives that are acceptable within the laws of the land and international law.

That was military action against Assad, and thank God the motion was defeated, lest the UK help create another sectarian and tribal power-vacuum like Iraq.

 

IS is another kettle of fish to Assad who, all beneficially-tyrannical that he may be, does play the world stage game given half a chance: they cannot and will not be engaged with diplomatically, they practice sectarian and ethnic cleansing in conquered territories with the gusto of Erszatzgruppen, they have sectarian Anschluss-like aims extending well beyond the middle east, not to mention financial means to equip themselves with the best there is and last a long time.

 

So, my esteemed internationalists, what should the West do? Turn the other cheek?

[woodmally]

2 years ago Parliament told the Govt that military action in Syria was against the will of the Commons and against the desires of the people.

 

We should be heeding that advice. It's up to the Govt to find alternatives that are acceptable within the laws of the land and international law.

 

Your right we should have recalled parliament for a fresh vote. The vote was lost because Milliband didn't have the bottle following Iraq. So because we engaged in an unjustifiable war Iraq means now we can't engage in a justifiable one.

 

As for these two why are the parents wanting an investigation? They should be investigating why they went to Syria in the first place rather than blaming the government.

[PeteMorris]

2 years ago Parliament told the Govt that military action in Syria was against the will of the Commons and against the desires of the people.

 

We should be heeding that advice. It's up to the Govt to find alternatives that are acceptable within the laws of the land and international law.

 

Since when have decisions made in parliament been the 'will of the people'...In theory yes...But we all know different. Oh, and 2 years is a sodding lifetime away. A lot has happened since then.

 

Apparently the AG was consulted on the legality and apparently there was. I'm not really interested in which point of law was involved.

 

Can you suggest a course of action? Or are you firmly in the 'have a stern word with them camp'?

[tinfoilhat]

Not when Parliament said no to military action in Syria they are not.

 

so they get a pass? Let's say they did execute a plan against UK citizens (and whose to say they weren't involved in the killing of aid workers etc) or organise something on UK soil. What would you or Harriet harmen say when Cameron says to parliament - we knew where we they were at a certain time and we didn't take the shot because it was over a border that is practically redundant.

 

Didn't the U.S. Security services go through a similar handwringing exercise after 911?

 

But after a bit of thought I think the whole thing has been a political exercise. If they wanted them dead with minimum ramifications they could have asked the yanks to do it - I'm sure they'd have been a legit American target.

[tzijlstra]

 

So, my esteemed internationalists, what should the West do? Turn the other cheek?

 

It is irrelevant if it was against Assad or not, the action in Iraq was agreed upon in parliament, this wasn't.

 

But to your question, the solution lies with the EU, the EU needs to authorise a task-force to clear substantial parts of Syria and create a safe-zone so we can stem the tide of refugees. It is slowly heading that way now but as usual the gears grind slowly.

 

If it is successful similar action should be taken in other countries that are unstable. Together we shall re-establish 'colonies' under UN rule, with the aim of providing the population with a safe and beneficial environment, these colonies will be the target of all the foreign aid and are aimed at creating civil and lawful societies, a wholly different model than our medieval forefathers used.

[Obelix]

That was military action against Assad, and thank God the motion was defeated, lest the UK help create another sectarian and tribal power-vacuum like Iraq.

 

IS is another kettle of fish to Assad who, all beneficially-tyrannical that he may be, does play the world stage game given half a chance: they cannot and will not be engaged with diplomatically, they practice sectarian and ethnic cleansing in conquered territories with the gusto of Erszatzgruppen, they have sectarian Anschluss-like aims extending well beyond the middle east, not to mention financial means to equip themselves with the best there is and last a long time.

 

So, my esteemed internationalists, what should the West do? Turn the other cheek?

 

Present the facts and lay them before Parliament and get another vote would be the obvious choice. I rather suspect they will get a different response this time.

 

I'm more and more of the opinion that this is a case where we do need boots on ground and soon. This isn't a situation like Iraq - this is turning out to be much more like Rwanda where we failed dismally by dithering.

[woodmally]

Since when have decisions made in parliament been the 'will of the people'...In theory yes...But we all know different. Oh, and 2 years is a sodding lifetime away. A lot has happened since then.

 

Apparently the AG was consulted on the legality and apparently there was. I'm not really interested in which point of law was involved.

 

Can you suggest a course of action? Or are you firmly in the 'have a stern word with them camp'?

 

It's interesting to note the stern word camp are saying we should accept more refugees yet not wanting to take the tough decisions to use force to allow these poor folk to return home to a safe country. Also not understanding the.reason these thugs are dead is because they made the decision to join ISIS.

[Obelix]

Can you suggest a course of action? Or are you firmly in the 'have a stern word with them camp'?

 

Can you appreciate that I'm not going to even consider answering such a loaded question? Or have you stopped beating your wife lately?

 

---------- Post added 08-09-2015 at 12:25 ----------

 

But to your question, the solution lies with the EU, the EU needs to authorise a task-force to clear substantial parts of Syria and create a safe-zone so we can stem the tide of refugees. It is slowly heading that way now but as usual the gears grind slowly.

 

The EU will still be talking in six months time. I rather a UN resolution is going to be what happens. The UNHCR tends to get a bit stroppy when it needs to and starts moving things forwards.

 

The only fly in the ointment is going to be Russia. If it has people doing silly things inside Syria then a security council vote could be interesting.

[PeteMorris]

Can you appreciate that I'm not going to even consider answering such a loaded question? Or have you stopped beating your wife lately?]

 

Eh??...Beating my wife?....Words fail me!

 

Why is it a loaded question? it seems perfectly reasonable to me.