Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Needed: a Geneva Convention for the 21st Century
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Needed: a Geneva Convention for the 21st Century
My wife and I were recently watching the excellent More4 drama series Saboteurs, about the Nazi effort to build an atomic bomb and the Allied operations to stop them, principally by putting the Norwegian factory producing the heavy water needed for the atomic reactor out of action.
0
Comments
More handwringing.
The sooner Dave goes on his merry way the better. It must be quite nice tho have some kind of political leadership one could trust. Quite where that comes from in the UK in this day and age god only knows.
I remember five years ago now, Podolski missed a penalty for Germany, and Mark Lawrenson claimed that he'd missed it because he wasn't a 'proper German.' *rolleyes*
On a previous thread someone, I think it was Innocent_Abroad, suggested that in cases like the one we have just seen when the general rules of war cannot apply then those that govern policing should. I am not sure he is not correct, however, he may not have thought his position through.
It has long been a point in English law that in order to prevent a crime then it is permissible for the state, or an individual, to use such force as is reasonably necessary but no more force than that. Therefore, do we need to get into all this discussion about obscure points of international law and trying to put together a new Geneva convention? I suggest that Mr. Herdson is hand-wringing unnecessarily.
We have a settled law on the use of force and if someone feels aggrieved by the state's action in this case they may bring an action in the courts.
Going off on a tangent, will their be a coroner's inquest into our two late citizens? I am not sure where the law stands with this. We have to have an inquest if a squaddie gets killed in action by an enemy, and if a Brit drowns whilst swimming pissed on holiday. What does the law say about the death of a Brit killed by HMG. I would have thought an inquest would be necessary but I don't know, perhaps our lawyers can advise.
At least when Mafia Dons did it, I doubted they bragged about it in the papers to prove their virility.
When you are lolling around in luxury from your winnings you can throw me a small bone or at least a bottle of something nice.
Were the killings legal? I don't know, but I certainly have no sympathy for two men killed. Will it make any difference to the situation? If the security services thought that there was a genuine threat from these two and they thought it best to take them out now before they could return to Britain, then perhaps it has helped. But it probably won't make much difference to the situation in Syria.
PS, putting the pedant hat on, it is international humanitarian law, not human rights law, which deals with the rules of armed conflict.
The odds on Sajid Javid are tempting. Can still get 12/1 at Hills.
Perhaps we should go whacking any potentials living in the UK. They are nearer to our homes. Hell we don't even need the expense of drones.
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/641256476087074816
This is, I think, a reasonable question. Not necessarily to tie the hands of governments taking what may be necessary, proportionate or reasonable actions in defence of the realm, but merely to quantify what questions the government is required to ask of itself, and what level of information is required. It may be in this instance the government asked more and required more than we think they need to, that maybe the rules it sets for itself should be looser, but it's be interesting to know what hoops should be jumped through, vs what hoops are currently jumped through - is it too many or not enough?
The vast majority won't care in this instance certainly, but best to have a clear framework of what the steps are for the first time innocent people get caught in one of these blasts, so while it will not stop complaints, it will be clear at what level the government considered matters before pulling the trigger and therefore the inherent reasonableness even though we will never know the full details.
@HurstLlama My mum would probably kill me if I bet more than a £1000 on the Conservative party leadership! I get why you'd recommend putting money on Sajid Javid, but Liz Truss?! And out of interest, why do you reckon Osborne won't take the leadership?
Though that's not such a problem with the governments and the EU's current immigration policies.
As for cost: I'm guessing that one of Reapers was used, an updated version of the Predator. According to Wiki, these cost around $17 million each.
However the Reaper would have been reusable, and the staff employed anyway. Therefore it's a question of the consumables, and that means what type of weapon was used. Again guessing, it might have been a Hellfire ground-to-air missile. These apparently cost a little over $100,000 each. (*)
So $100,000 dollars to rid the world of these terrorists. Knowing the fact the Yanks try to get their money's worth out of export sales, and the UK's inability to get good deals, then the unit costs are probably a fair bit more. Add in the legal costs here in the UK and we might be talking a million or two.
I'll leave it to readers to decide if it was a horrific waste of money, or a cheap way to rid the world of two traitorous terrorists.
(*) I'd appreciate if anyone's got any more public-domain information.
Incidentally, nobody has yet addressed my question as to whether the "Cardiff Two" will be accorded an inquest.
The Additional Protocols were the first attempt to deal with non-international armed conflict (civil and 'dirty' wars).
In addition, the UN Security Council has passed at least one resolution acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter (so it has binding legal force on all UN members) requiring member states to pass national legislation with regards to obligations upon its citizens [UNSCR 1540 (2004) with regards to wmd terrorism, to ensure that the obligation not the acquire, develop, produce, retain, transfer, use etc WMD, or aid others in doing so, is also enforced for all persons natural and legal].
Seriously, what is the fuss with making sure a process is reasonable, particularly when people are going out of their way to say they aren't trying to prevent this type of action necessarily, and indeed may think the government needs a freer hand?
Making sure the process is correct goes a long way to ensuring the possibility of inconsistent, personal cock ups occur less.
"The principle of warfare is not for you to die for your country it's to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his country"
You know Churchill walked out on Stalin at the Tehran conference when Stalin boasted about killing Nazis. Churchill said that without law there was no point discussing anything further.
Edited to add: not yet, anyway.
Thanks for the link to Nick Cohen's Standpoint article... I have to say I agree, particularly with the description of hope not hate as "infantilising" Muslims by saying their culture was "immature"... I have always though one of the lefts greatest contradictions was the way they treated minorities as helpless and feeble creatures that would be "just like us" if we gave them enough time, rather than independent minded people that were proud of who they are and had no desire to be "like us". It always seemed an arrogant mindset, and it is being proven now to be dangerous too.
You should read http://traditionalbritain.org/blog/road-national-suicide/ it predicted much of the behaviour Cohen is bemoaning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZYAq_js_E4
Churchills view was he would rather have his leg cut off without anaesthetic.
That is not to say that I disagree with what has been done. I don't. What I do think is that the authorities need the freedom to act in the way they did but must then place all the evidence and all the justification before an independent authority to decide whether what they did was judicial or extra judicial. The Attorney General cannot be that authority since he is part of the Government and owes his job to the man who has authorised the assassination. This ties in with Kle's comments about clear and transparent steps and guidelines.
One moment, the pair of the them are happily wandering about, burning Christians, raping prisoners, torturing Yazidis.
Then, Splat! They're just stains on the sand, with an interview with Eblis ahead of them.
Signs of an internal revolt in the vatican against the pope.
Shouldn't have offered the spare room I guess?
Remember Sharon Shoesmith, the person whose department failed, with tragic results, to protect a little boy. What was her excuse? We ticked all the boxes!
Still nobody has responded to my question about inquests for the "Cardiff Two".
If I was reading the book about such chaotic events, I don't think I would be holding out too much hope for a happy ending at this juncture.
That is a good point. The extreme end in view with radicalising does not alter a person's right to persuade others to their point of view.
As long as they don't do it in public, of course:
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/street.preacher.guilty.of.using.threatening.language.by.quoting.leviticus/50564.htm
Edited to amend bodged snip
Continuing the (far more pleasant) pub theme of the last thread: tyson and Moniker are the grubby old gits sitting miserably in the grimiest corner nursing an hour-old, half-drunk pint of the cheapest bitter available.
They sit there in their smoke-stained, grey raincoats, frowning aggressively at the floor, muttering angrily to themselves, and occasionally grunting curses in acknowledgement of each other. There they will stay until closing time, before trudging home in a blanket of cheerlessness to continue their despondent solitude, without engaging with anyone else.
The rest of the pub smile and laugh with each other. They ignore them.
Edit: For example the guidelines for the PSNI state:
9.6 A police officer shall discharge a firearm only where the officer honestly believes it is absolutely necessary to do so in order to save life or prevent serious injury.
UK Mainland police guidelines are the same:
"lethal or potentially lethal force should only be used when absolutely necessary in self-defence, or in the defence of others, against the threat of death or serious injury."
"Decides also that all States, in accordance with their national procedures, shall adopt and enforce appropriate effective laws which prohibit any non-State actor to manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport, transfer or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery, in particular for terrorist purposes, as well as attempts to engage in any of the foregoing activities, participate in them as an accomplice, assist or finance them"
I am less of an expert on the Additional Protocols, but part of their purpose was to impose rules (even if retrospectively, enabling prosecution of those in breach) on leaders of non-State combatants in non-traditional (i.e. not State on State) conflicts. Thus the leaders of groups such as ISIS would be bound by the obligations, even if enforcement is problematic.
'Remember the left partying when Maggie died ? Now they have crocodile tears for a chap planning to murder at a rememberance day parade.'
You would struggle to make it up.
Fortunately the HR brigade,Guardian bedwetters and the Andrex puppy are in a complete minority.
I should say, the contradiction I had in mind was between the lefts haranguing of anyone they perceived as being racist, whether intentionally or not, and their condescending infantilisation of non white immigrants, who to me seem to be pawns in the game
:trolll:
I seemed to have missed the bonhomie of this sport. Thanks for pointing it out to me Casino.
https://twitter.com/isis_karaoke/status/637568407123197952
That is an astonishing verdict. Freedom of speech in this country seems to only exist for those who agree with the liberal consensus.
1. permitted only where there is an ongoing conflict and the person has take up arms with an organized party to the conflict (i.e. not simply used for bumping off political opponents, and not to be used against civilians outside of the military leadership)
2. the organized party to which the person belongs is either a state with which the killing State is at war, or has been declared a terrorist organization by the killing State
3. arrest of the person is not a practical option
4. a clear standard is set and met for warranting targeted killing as to level of (imminent) threat that the person poses
5. the final decision has senior civilian political sign off
6. all due effort is made to limit civilian casualties and in any case to ensure proportionality under international humanitarian law
7. all due consideration is given to using the most appropriate military means for implementation of the order.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/01/winston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons
Your barbaric gloating over bloodshed reminds me of ISIS.
Alternatively, you could avoid hyperbole like comparing the Prime Minister unfavourably to a Mafia don and calling for his resignation just because he took action to eliminate two men who were plotting and inciting others to commit terrorist atrocities against UK citizens using the only means he realistically could.
If a person is plotting/preparing a crime can force be used upon him if that is the only way to stop the that crime happening? Then is the amount of force proposed reasonable (the ECHR talks of proportionate but the effect is the same) in the circumstances.
Now, for most cases involving plod the timescales are very short, but the law is the same. There were instances in NI when soldiers opened fire when the time between their actions and the intended crimes were longer, but the law still stood. So there is, I argue, no difference in law, between a RAF officer in Lincolnshire hitting a button that will kill a man in Syria and PC Plod shooting a bank robber.
I have given you the Act and Section and if you really cannot see what the law is I am afraid I cannot help you anymore.
But that reminds you of ISIS?
Looooooooooooooooooooooooooool.
I will repeat what it says:
"lethal or potentially lethal force should only be used when absolutely necessary in self-defence, or in the defence of others, against the threat of death or serious injury."
Dare I look at Twitter...
On top of that he is quite inept as a pundit.
Plod fears a crime is about to be committed, he concludes that force is the only way to prevent said crime. He concludes that shooting the person is, in the circumstances, reasonable. Bang, (or rather "Bang, bang" since plod, having read about the double tap, is in love with it despite using weapons for which it was not intended). Later Plod has to answer for his action, at least in the Coroner's Court.
Where is the difference, between plod and his bank robber and HMG with the two idiots in Syria?
Which reminds me does anyone know if the Cardiff Two will be accorded an inquest?
The hand wringers just HAVE to blame somebody, I've zero sympathy for those two, irrespective of who is responsible.