I am wary of proposals to have new laws to address "ethical" questions. Soon, British soldiers will have to go war with a lawyer by their sides. Particularly in cases like dealing with ISIL the enemy does not respect our sense of fair play let alone our laws.
We cannot fight wars with one arm tied behind our backs. Counter-insurgency warfare requires intelligence and restraint, but also means that the distinction between civilian and soldier disappears.
Tonight more jihadis are looking over their shoulders, sweating over their internet usage, regretting their poor choices. We should encourage them to become defectors and supergrasses, which will make further jihadi anxiety. Good. Penetrating networks is the first step to destroying them.
And in what way does that "Guidance" affect the state of the law?
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?
Guidance effects the state of the law because it sets out explictly what the law actually means. It defines what 'reasonable force' actually means since it is not explicit in the law. Prevention of crime is not sufficient. Any copper who shot an unarmed robber in a bank robbery when there was nothing to indicate the man was armed would not be able to say they had used 'reasonable force in the prevention of the crime'. The police guidelines on the use of firearms which you seem happy to disregard make the definition of reasonable force very clear - "absolutely necessary in self-defence, or in the defence of others, against the threat of death or serious injury."
That is why the police are always so keen to make clear there was a threat to life following a shooting.
I am wary of proposals to have new laws to address "ethical" questions. Soon, British soldiers will have to go war with a lawyer by their sides. Particularly in cases like dealing with ISIL the enemy does not respect our sense of fair play let alone our laws.
True, but they already have to know the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols, relevant international law relating to prohibited weaponry, the legal status of their superior officers from other nations if they are operating in a coalition or alliance, and the rules of engagement plus their own force's military doctrine. A modern soldier already has to be well-versed in law, particularly the officer class.
In Northern Ireland we had the rules of engagement on a credit-card size piece of cardboard written in terms that the average squaddie could understand. Anymore than that and you are wasting time and breath. When the shit hits the fan you are not going to be thumbing through a book to see of it is OK to fire back.
If the government cannot frame rules of engagement such that the lowliest soldier can understand and comply with in the heat of the moment then that government has no business sending its troops into action.
And in what way does that "Guidance" affect the state of the law?
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?
Guidance effects the state of the law because it sets out explictly what the law actually means. It defines what 'reasonable force' actually means since it is not explicit in the law. Prevention of crime is not sufficient. Any copper who shot an unarmed robber in a bank robbery when there was nothing to indicate the man was armed would not be able to say they had used 'reasonable force in the prevention of the crime'. The police guidelines on the use of firearms which you seem happy to disregard make the definition of reasonable force very clear - "absolutely necessary in self-defence, or in the defence of others, against the threat of death or serious injury."
That is why the police are always so keen to make clear there was a threat to life following a shooting.
Yeah, OK, if you say so. ACPO guidelines trump the law. Whatever.
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.
And in what way does that "Guidance" affect the state of the law?
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?
Guidance effects the state of the law because it sets out explictly what the law actually means. It defines what 'reasonable force' actually means since it is not explicit in the law. Prevention of crime is not sufficient. Any copper who shot an unarmed robber in a bank robbery when there was nothing to indicate the man was armed would not be able to say they had used 'reasonable force in the prevention of the crime'. The police guidelines on the use of firearms which you seem happy to disregard make the definition of reasonable force very clear - "absolutely necessary in self-defence, or in the defence of others, against the threat of death or serious injury."
That is why the police are always so keen to make clear there was a threat to life following a shooting.
Yeah, OK, if you say so. ACPO guidelines trump the law. Whatever.
Nope. The guidelines explain the law and inform the interpretation of the law. I find it strange that you do not seem to be able to grasp that very simple concept. Of course you do understand it really but you don't want to admit it as it undermines your argument.
Fascinating discussion this evening, even if I have little to add. Mr HurstLlama, Mr Tyndall, Mr Casino_Royale, all of you make excellent, densely argued, posts.
I am wary of proposals to have new laws to address "ethical" questions. Soon, British soldiers will have to go war with a lawyer by their sides. Particularly in cases like dealing with ISIL the enemy does not respect our sense of fair play let alone our laws.
True, but they already have to know the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols, relevant international law relating to prohibited weaponry, the legal status of their superior officers from other nations if they are operating in a coalition or alliance, and the rules of engagement plus their own force's military doctrine. A modern soldier already has to be well-versed in law, particularly the officer class.
In Northern Ireland we had the rules of engagement on a credit-card size piece of cardboard written in terms that the average squaddie could understand. Anymore than that and you are wasting time and breath. When the shit hits the fan you are not going to be thumbing through a book to see of it is OK to fire back.
If the government cannot frame rules of engagement such that the lowliest soldier can understand and comply with in the heat of the moment then that government has no business sending its troops into action.
If you're relying on checking the law or the rules of engagement at the time the shit is hitting the fan, your troops are inadequately trained.
Tonight more young alienated Muslims are looking at their computers with an increasing hatred against the UK, feeling vindicated in their fight in good over evil.
For every action their is an equal and opposite reaction.
Really Dr Fox I(I mean really you have to be kidding me)- I don't think eviscerating 2 young alienated English Jihadis in Syria and then gloating about it to all and sundry, with accompanying sordid headlines in the Sun, will help this conflict at all. Not one little bit.
And please try to avoid the term "poor choices". It sounds like you have picked up this latest lingo from Sky Sports. The next you'll be talking about the "business end" of the conflict...
I am wary of proposals to have new laws to address "ethical" questions. Soon, British soldiers will have to go war with a lawyer by their sides. Particularly in cases like dealing with ISIL the enemy does not respect our sense of fair play let alone our laws.
We cannot fight wars with one arm tied behind our backs. Counter-insurgency warfare requires intelligence and restraint, but also means that the distinction between civilian and soldier disappears.
Tonight more jihadis are looking over their shoulders, sweating over their internet usage, regretting their poor choices. We should encourage them to become defectors and supergrasses, which will make further jihadi anxiety. Good. Penetrating networks is the first step to destroying them.
Its probably worth looking at Cameron's statement yesterday to see the lengthy process by which the drone strike was authorised. I'm not sure what more people would like done?
"Today, I can inform the House that in an act of self-defence and after meticulous planning, Reyaad Khan was killed in a precision airstrike carried out on 21 August ....
We took this action because there was no alternative. In this area, there is no Government we can work with; we have no military on the ground to detain those preparing plots; and there was nothing to suggest that Reyaad Khan would ever leave Syria or desist from his desire to murder us at home, so we had no way of preventing his planned attacks on our country without taking direct action....
let me set out for the House the legal basis for the action we took, the processes we followed and the implications of this action for our wider strategy in countering the threat from ISIL. First, I am clear that the action we took was entirely lawful. The Attorney General was consulted and was clear that there would be a clear legal basis for action in international law. We were exercising the UK’s inherent right to self-defence. There was clear evidence of these individuals planning and directing armed attacks against the UK. These were part of a series of actual and foiled attempts to attack the UK and our allies, and given the prevailing circumstances in Syria, the airstrike was the only feasible means of effectively disrupting the attacks that had been planned and directed. It was therefore necessary and proportionate for the individual self-defence of the United Kingdom. The United Nations charter requires members to inform the President of the Security Council of activity conducted in self-defence, and today the UK permanent representative will write to the President to do just that.
Turning to the process:...
Our intelligence agencies identified the direct threat to the UK from this individual and informed me and other senior Ministers of that threat. At a meeting of the most senior members of the National Security Council, we agreed that should the right opportunity arise, military action should be taken. The Attorney General attended the meeting and confirmed that there was a legal basis for action. On that basis, the Defence Secretary authorised the operation. The strike was conducted according to specific military rules of engagement, which always comply with international law and the principles of proportionality and military necessity. The military assessed the target location and chose the optimum time to minimise the risk of civilian casualties. This was a very sensitive operation to prevent a very real threat to our country, and I have come to the House today to explain in detail what has happened and to answer questions about it."
Fascinating discussion this evening, even if I have little to add. Mr HurstLlama, Mr Tyndall, Mr Casino_Royale, all of you make excellent, densely argued, posts.
I can't believe anyone is genuinely upset these two scumbags got blown up. Completely baffling.
Very very few people seem upset. Others are curious about the process, but not upset, and I think it important not to conflate the latter with the former.
And in what way does that "Guidance" affect the state of the law?
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?
Guidance effects the state of the law because it sets out explictly what the law actually means. It defines what 'reasonable force' actually means since it is not explicit in the law. Prevention of crime is not sufficient. Any copper who shot an unarmed robber in a bank robbery when there was nothing to indicate the man was armed would not be able to say they had used 'reasonable force in the prevention of the crime'. The police guidelines on the use of firearms which you seem happy to disregard make the definition of reasonable force very clear - "absolutely necessary in self-defence, or in the defence of others, against the threat of death or serious injury."
That is why the police are always so keen to make clear there was a threat to life following a shooting.
Yeah, OK, if you say so. ACPO guidelines trump the law. Whatever.
Nope. The guidelines explain the law and inform the interpretation of the law.
While I am more generally supportive of your view on this drone issue as presented, I have heard lawyers say that the thing about government guidance, an other guidance, is that it can be very useful indeed, but it can actually sometimes not strictly speaking state what the law is correctly - an example was given of guidance stating what the government thought the purpose of a new change in law was, but that the actual effect of legislation as drafted was contrary to what the government may have intended in terms of requirements and knock on effects. I'd be interested if that is indeed sometimes the case.
What about this for an idea: don't leave Wales to sign up to fight alongside a group of murderous savages and there's a good chance you won't get killed by a drone, or anything else actually.
The hand wringers just HAVE to blame somebody, I've zero sympathy for those two, irrespective of who is responsible.
Well said. The moment you leave the UK to join up with ISIS you are a traitor and an enemy that we are at war with. Expect us to respond with lethal force.
Tonight more young alienated Muslims are looking at their computers with an increasing hatred against the UK, feeling vindicated in their fight in good over evil.
I am wary of proposals to have new laws to address "ethical" questions. Soon, British soldiers will have to go war with a lawyer by their sides. Particularly in cases like dealing with ISIL the enemy does not respect our sense of fair play let alone our laws.
We cannot fight wars with one arm tied behind our backs. Counter-insurgency warfare requires intelligence and restraint, but also means that the distinction between civilian and soldier disappears.
Tonight more jihadis are looking over their shoulders, sweating over their internet usage, regretting their poor choices. We should encourage them to become defectors and supergrasses, which will make further jihadi anxiety. Good. Penetrating networks is the first step to destroying them.
If this latest issue has made them think that, they were already lost to help.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, particularly having been arguing with Hurstllama over this, nothing I have written this evening changes the fact that I believe that, based on the evidence that has been given so far, I believe the assassinations were justified. I simply believe that we should have a very clear cut set of guidelines for such action and that we need a genuinely independent authority entirely separate from the Government to hold the Government to account after such action has been taken.
While I am more generally supportive of your view on this drone issue as presented, I have heard lawyers say that the thing about government guidance, an other guidance, is that it can be very useful indeed, but it can actually sometimes not strictly speaking state what the law is correctly - an example was given of guidance stating what the government thought the purpose of a new change in law was, but that the actual effect of legislation as drafted was contrary to what the government may have intended in terms of requirements and knock on effects. I'd be interested if that is indeed sometimes the case.
A classic example of that was Obamacare, which had a provision requiring employers to offer health coverage to any employees working 30+ hours a week. So all the universities cut their associate professors hours under 30 hours, thereby not increasing coverage but also reducing the ability of those whose hours had been cut to afford healthcare. Similarly, the costs of the new improved minimum standards of healthcare forced many employers to cancel the coverage they were offering and tell employees they needed to get healthcare through the exchanges. Employer-offered healthcare is now at a post_War low.
Stories and images of migrants pouring into Europe are inspiring thousands more, from Iraq to Nigeria, to rush out on their own risky journeys, posing a burgeoning problem for policy makers who are focused mainly on easing the plight of Syrian refugees.
Tonight more young alienated Muslims are looking at their computers with an increasing hatred against the UK, feeling vindicated in their fight in good over evil.
For every action their is an equal and opposite reaction.
Really Dr Fox I(I mean really you have to be kidding me)- I don't think eviscerating 2 young alienated English Jihadis in Syria and then gloating about it to all and sundry, with accompanying sordid headlines in the Sun, will help this conflict at all. Not one little bit.
I am wary of proposals to have new laws to address "ethical" questions. Soon, British soldiers will have to go war with a lawyer by their sides. Particularly in cases like dealing with ISIL the enemy does not respect our sense of fair play let alone our laws.
We cannot fight wars with one arm tied behind our backs. Counter-insurgency warfare requires intelligence and restraint, but also means that the distinction between civilian and soldier disappears.
Tonight more jihadis are looking over their shoulders, sweating over their internet usage, regretting their poor choices. We should encourage them to become defectors and supergrasses, which will make further jihadi anxiety. Good. Penetrating networks is the first step to destroying them.
I bet many are looking at the hand wringing and sobbing of your fellow apologists and appeasers, whilst laughing and thinking what a soft touch some of us are.
Thankfully you're not responsible for this country's security.
Tonight more young alienated Muslims are looking at their computers with an increasing hatred against the UK, feeling vindicated in their fight in good over evil.
For every action their is an equal and opposite reaction.
Really Dr Fox I(I mean really you have to be kidding me)- I don't think eviscerating 2 young alienated English Jihadis in Syria and then gloating about it to all and sundry, with accompanying sordid headlines in the Sun, will help this conflict at all. Not one little bit.
And please try to avoid the term "poor choices". It sounds like you have picked up this latest lingo from Sky Sports. The next you'll be talking about the "business end" of the conflict...
I am wary of proposals to have new laws to address "ethical" questions. Soon, British soldiers will have to go war with a lawyer by their sides. Particularly in cases like dealing with ISIL the enemy does not respect our sense of fair play let alone our laws.
We cannot fight wars with one arm tied behind our backs. Counter-insurgency warfare requires intelligence and restraint, but also means that the distinction between civilian and soldier disappears.
Tonight more jihadis are looking over their shoulders, sweating over their internet usage, regretting their poor choices. We should encourage them to become defectors and supergrasses, which will make further jihadi anxiety. Good. Penetrating networks is the first step to destroying them.
Young muslims who think that the murderous rapists of IS are reasonable role models need to wise up. Guerillas need a sympathetic population to move in. These two jihadis volunterred to kill on behalf of the sex slaver, rapist, homophobic torturers of IS. Anyone sympathetic to IS is my enemy and I will not cry for a moment over them.
The Islamists of IS are fascists plain and simple. They are not allies of the left, they hate us and our liberal tolerant values. There should be no platform for fascists, and any machine that kills fascists is fine by me.
Wow. I know extremists of any stripe or creed are pretty stupid, but my gods, that had better be clever satire. I think it is probably more than a single step away, mate.
"11% of Brits oppose the slotting of ISIS terrorists. And this is the position adopted by Corbyn. The Left is, finally, committing suicide."
Sean's been getting far too emotional on this topic.
Last night I said I wanted to see the legal advice on the killings purely out professional and creative reasons as I was deeply immersed by the Roger Casement treason conviction and him being hanged on a comma.
In Sean's world that made me a dribbling twit who made me a supporter of ISIL.
I am wary of proposals to have new laws to address "ethical" questions. Soon, British soldiers will have to go war with a lawyer by their sides. Particularly in cases like dealing with ISIL the enemy does not respect our sense of fair play let alone our laws.
True, but they already have to know the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols, relevant international law relating to prohibited weaponry, the legal status of their superior officers from other nations if they are operating in a coalition or alliance, and the rules of engagement plus their own force's military doctrine. A modern soldier already has to be well-versed in law, particularly the officer class.
In Northern Ireland we had the rules of engagement on a credit-card size piece of cardboard written in terms that the average squaddie could understand. Anymore than that and you are wasting time and breath. When the shit hits the fan you are not going to be thumbing through a book to see of it is OK to fire back.
If the government cannot frame rules of engagement such that the lowliest soldier can understand and comply with in the heat of the moment then that government has no business sending its troops into action.
If you're relying on checking the law or the rules of engagement at the time the shit is hitting the fan, your troops are inadequately trained.
People have said a lot of very unkind things about my old regiment, Mr. T., but nobody has ever accused us of being inadequately trained. Every member of my platoon, and probably the whole battalion, could quote verbatim what our ROE were, and not only that every member actually understood them. In the work-up exercises we did before each tour we spent a lot of time playing out scenarios which revolved around when it was permissible to open fire and when it wasn't.
So, actually, when I suggest that if the ROE cannot be written down on a credit-card sized piece of cardboard they are too complex I wasn't joking.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, particularly having been arguing with Hurstllama over this, nothing I have written this evening changes the fact that I believe that, based on the evidence that has been given so far, I believe the assassinations were justified. I simply believe that we should have a very clear cut set of guidelines for such action and that we need a genuinely independent authority entirely separate from the Government to hold the Government to account after such action has been taken.
Ditto. My views are that properly sanctioned drone killings are legal and justified. I have mixed feelings about the morality of a kid in an air-conditioned room half a globe away with no skin in the game taking out enemy combatants with about the same thought as he would give to playing a video game. But if it is that or putting our own soldiers in the firing line, ultimately I will go for that.
I am wary of proposals to have new laws to address "ethical" questions. Soon, British soldiers will have to go war with a lawyer by their sides. Particularly in cases like dealing with ISIL the enemy does not respect our sense of fair play let alone our laws.
True, but they already have to know the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols, relevant international law relating to prohibited weaponry, the legal status of their superior officers from other nations if they are operating in a coalition or alliance, and the rules of engagement plus their own force's military doctrine. A modern soldier already has to be well-versed in law, particularly the officer class.
In Northern Ireland we had the rules of engagement on a credit-card size piece of cardboard written in terms that the average squaddie could understand. Anymore than that and you are wasting time and breath. When the shit hits the fan you are not going to be thumbing through a book to see of it is OK to fire back.
If the government cannot frame rules of engagement such that the lowliest soldier can understand and comply with in the heat of the moment then that government has no business sending its troops into action.
If you're relying on checking the law or the rules of engagement at the time the shit is hitting the fan, your troops are inadequately trained.
People have said a lot of very unkind things about my old regiment, Mr. T., but nobody has ever accused us of being inadequately trained. Every member of my platoon, and probably the whole battalion, could quote verbatim what our ROE were, and not only that every member actually understood them. In the work-up exercises we did before each tour we spent a lot of time playing out scenarios which revolved around when it was permissible to open fire and when it wasn't.
So, actually, when I suggest that if the ROE cannot be written down on a credit-card sized piece of cardboard they are too complex I wasn't joking.
Just a heads up. Assuming nothing major happens, tomorrow afternoon's thread talks about the awesome RAF.
Thought you'd appreciate the warning so you can prepare yourself.
The BBC claims pushing with the Hungarian police caused a woman with a child to end up on the track. Actually, her husband just pulled her down.
utterly disgraceful, bizzarely the Mail took a similar view. There is so much footage out there of the most disgraceful behaviour at these camps, not by the actual guards or the police but by those in the camps.
In this particular case the police acted entirely correctly. It was a very tense situation, i doubt our police would have been as accommodating to what was little more than child endangerment.
Remember, for every person who saw the sky footage, there was a thousand who saw the BBC.
Stories and images of migrants pouring into Europe are inspiring thousands more, from Iraq to Nigeria, to rush out on their own risky journeys, posing a burgeoning problem for policy makers who are focused mainly on easing the plight of Syrian refugees.
I am wary of proposals to have new laws to address "ethical" questions. Soon, British soldiers will have to go war with a lawyer by their sides. Particularly in cases like dealing with ISIL the enemy does not respect our sense of fair play let alone our laws.
True, but they already have to know the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols, relevant international law relating to prohibited weaponry, the legal status of their superior officers from other nations if they are operating in a coalition or alliance, and the rules of engagement plus their own force's military doctrine. A modern soldier already has to be well-versed in law, particularly the officer class.
In Northern Ireland we had the rules of engagement on a credit-card size piece of cardboard written in terms that the average squaddie could understand. Anymore than that and you are wasting time and breath. When the shit hits the fan you are not going to be thumbing through a book to see of it is OK to fire back.
If the government cannot frame rules of engagement such that the lowliest soldier can understand and comply with in the heat of the moment then that government has no business sending its troops into action.
If you're relying on checking the law or the rules of engagement at the time the shit is hitting the fan, your troops are inadequately trained.
People have said a lot of very unkind things about my old regiment, Mr. T., but nobody has ever accused us of being inadequately trained. Every member of my platoon, and probably the whole battalion, could quote verbatim what our ROE were, and not only that every member actually understood them. In the work-up exercises we did before each tour we spent a lot of time playing out scenarios which revolved around when it was permissible to open fire and when it wasn't.
So, actually, when I suggest that if the ROE cannot be written down on a credit-card sized piece of cardboard they are too complex I wasn't joking.
Just a heads up. Assuming nothing major happens, tomorrow afternoon's thread talks about the awesome RAF.
Thought you'd appreciate the warning so you can prepare yourself.
Dang! I promised someone on here that I would never again be rude about Crab Air. I might have to take Mrs Llama shopping tomorrow afternoon.
Stories and images of migrants pouring into Europe are inspiring thousands more, from Iraq to Nigeria, to rush out on their own risky journeys, posing a burgeoning problem for policy makers who are focused mainly on easing the plight of Syrian refugees.
Please. I cannot think of a better recruiting agent for radicalising these alienated young people than droning them and bragging about it through the tabloids. FWIW- I honestly do believe that educated, Muslim young people who gravitate to jihadism are rebelling more against their families than western culture. I cannot imagine growing up under the suffocating expectation and control of a Muslim family where appearances are everything. Jihadism seems a good way out, and a whole lot more acceptable for their youthful rebellion than sex and drugs and rock and roll.
Why can't we be more like MOSSAD. By all means kill, but never admit to it, and if you get found out deny it.
Tonight more young alienated Muslims are looking at their computers with an increasing hatred against the UK, feeling vindicated in their fight in good over evil.
I am wary of proposals to have new laws to address "ethical" questions. Soon, British soldiers will have to go war with a lawyer by their sides. Particularly in cases like dealing with ISIL the enemy does not respect our sense of fair play let alone our laws.
We cannot fight wars with one arm tied behind our backs. Counter-insurgency warfare requires intelligence and restraint, but also means that the distinction between civilian and soldier disappears.
Tonight more jihadis are looking over their shoulders, sweating over their internet usage, regretting their poor choices. We should encourage them to become defectors and supergrasses, which will make further jihadi anxiety. Good. Penetrating networks is the first step to destroying them.
If this latest issue has made them think that, they were already lost to help.
People have said a lot of very unkind things about my old regiment, Mr. T., but nobody has ever accused us of being inadequately trained. Every member of my platoon, and probably the whole battalion, could quote verbatim what our ROE were, and not only that every member actually understood them. In the work-up exercises we did before each tour we spent a lot of time playing out scenarios which revolved around when it was permissible to open fire and when it wasn't.
So, actually, when I suggest that if the ROE cannot be written down on a credit-card sized piece of cardboard they are too complex I wasn't joking.
My point was not to insult you or your regiment. Clearly you were well trained, and had trained your men. If you hadn't, you would not have been able to get your ROE reduced to that level.
The fact of the matter is, most of the laws and rules you operated under did not need to be written on the card because they had been fully ingrained into you and your men through training. The point of training is so that one can do things under pressure without having to think about it.
All our lives are getting inexorably more complicated and more regulated. The armed forces are simply not going to be exempted from that process. Think of how much more professional the fighting man and woman has to be now to operate in a total battlefield environment than they had to be in WWII. What it does mean is that the armed forces will have to be even more trained and more professional.
It is the job of political masters to make sure that the rules of engagement remain feasible and not a danger to our own men and women.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, particularly having been arguing with Hurstllama over this, nothing I have written this evening changes the fact that I believe that, based on the evidence that has been given so far, I believe the assassinations were justified. I simply believe that we should have a very clear cut set of guidelines for such action and that we need a genuinely independent authority entirely separate from the Government to hold the Government to account after such action has been taken.
Ditto. My views are that properly sanctioned drone killings are legal and justified. I have mixed feelings about the morality of a kid in an air-conditioned room half a globe away with no skin in the game taking out enemy combatants with about the same thought as he would give to playing a video game. But if it is that or putting our own soldiers in the firing line, ultimately I will go for that.
Mr. T. does it matter if the young man/woman with his/her hand on the fire button is in an airconditioned room half a globe away or in an air conditioned cockpit at 30,000 feet fifty miles away? I can't see the difference myself, except one is much cheaper than the other.
I might also pull you up on your assertion that the person whoever, wherever he maybe kills with the same thought as "he would give to playing a video game". I do not know on what information you formed that opinion but there have been published reports, not only as to the care that is taken before the launch button is pressed, but also on the trauma suffered by the remote pilots caused by being at war for eight hours and then going home to the wife and kids and having to behave like a typical commuter. I think your comment is beneath your normal standard.
Stories and images of migrants pouring into Europe are inspiring thousands more, from Iraq to Nigeria, to rush out on their own risky journeys, posing a burgeoning problem for policy makers who are focused mainly on easing the plight of Syrian refugees.
An excellent and thought-provoking article by David H, as one has come to expect.
Clearly any international agreement involving updating or supplementing the Geneva Convention is going to take a very long time - years, perhaps decades. David is right when he says that, in the meantime, it would be very desirable to agree on a UK legal framework which takes account both of the changed technology of attack methods available to us, and the changed threats facing us, which nowadays don't necessarily come from traditional nation states. The old idea that we were either 'at war' or not 'at war' doesn't really apply to Al Quaeda or ISIS, so the whole issue needs to be rethought.
Ideally we would debate those new matters on a cross-party basis, but for the moment Her Majesty's Opposition is in no fit state to be involved - indeed, it is likely that the leader of the opposition as from Saturday will be someone who cannot be briefed on the subject. For that reason, I think the current legal limbo is likely to remain for a long time.
On the exchanges between Hurst Llama and Richard Tyndall, surely Hurst is right? The law states clearly that the use of lethal force has to be necessary and unavoidable to be justified, i.e. that there is no other way of protecting innocent lives. In the case of a threat on the UK mainland, that usually translates in practice to a rule that lethal force can only be used if the threat is imminent, since if it is not imminent then you've got the option of arrest or containment. In the case of the gentlemen who met a mercifully quick end in the drone attack, the threat may not have been imminent in the same sense, but that isn't the test: the test is whether there was any alternative way of protecting the British public. Since we can't arrest or contain in this case, lethal force might well be fully justified in law.
Having said all that, it's impossible to make a full judgement without access to the intelligence, which we don't have and are not going to get. Therefore people who, like tyson here, rush to condemn the government are just being silly: knowing nothing about the background, how can you have an opinion on the justification or otherwise?
"11% of Brits oppose the slotting of ISIS terrorists. And this is the position adopted by Corbyn. The Left is, finally, committing suicide."
Sean's been getting far too emotional on this topic.
Last night I said I wanted to see the legal advice on the killings purely out professional and creative reasons as I was deeply immersed by the Roger Casement treason conviction and him being hanged on a comma.
In Sean's world that made me a dribbling twit who made me a supporter of ISIL.
It certainly didn't sound, at the time, like you were being lawyerly, it sounded like you were questioning the morality of killing these genocidal scum.
As for emotional: yep. I happily confess. I want revenge. I want the vermin exterminated. ISIS are raping, slaving, torturing, beheading maniacs who are, inter alia, trying to erase the most exquisite survivals of human cultural history, from Palmyra to the Yazidi.
Please. I cannot think of a better recruiting agent for radicalising these alienated young people than droning them and bragging about it through the tabloids.
Tonight more young alienated Muslims are looking at their computers with an increasing hatred against the UK, feeling vindicated in their fight in good over evil.
I am wary of proposals to have new laws to address "ethical" questions. Soon, British soldiers will have to go war with a lawyer by their sides. Particularly in cases like dealing with ISIL the enemy does not respect our sense of fair play let alone our laws.
We cannot fight wars with one arm tied behind our backs. Counter-insurgency warfare requires intelligence and restraint, but also means that the distinction between civilian and soldier disappears.
Tonight more jihadis are looking over their shoulders, sweating over their internet usage, regretting their poor choices. We should encourage them to become defectors and supergrasses, which will make further jihadi anxiety. Good. Penetrating networks is the first step to destroying them.
If this latest issue has made them think that, they were already lost to help.
I've stated I'm not a fan of the Sun headline myself, but I don't quite get the logic here - if someone is so put out at a triumphalist tone at the killing of two jihadis to the point it causes them to emulate, in some fashion, the views and actions of those jihadis, then they were already radicalised. It was already too late for them.
Now, even the radicalised can be turned, of course, but not killing jihadis, or killing them but being a bit less triumphant about it, seems an odd way to go about it. Showing that dying for that cause is a real prospect not some theorized thing they think they could handle, may not sway all, but more than just toning down a bit of rhetoric.
And I don't buy the 'rebelling' argument, or rather, I don't see its relevance. Life sucks for a lot of people, I'm sure people in the situation you describe have it worse than me, but most still don't become murderous jihadis. As such, I don't have any sympathy for those that do, that was still a conscious choice which, given the propaganda of such groups glorifying the very things we condemn them for, they can not express any surprise at the odiousness of afterwards or should expect anyone to defend as them being forced into, as it was choice they made.
People have said a lot of very unkind things about my old regiment, Mr. T., but nobody has ever accused us of being inadequately trained. Every member of my platoon, and probably the whole battalion, could quote verbatim what our ROE were, and not only that every member actually understood them. In the work-up exercises we did before each tour we spent a lot of time playing out scenarios which revolved around when it was permissible to open fire and when it wasn't.
So, actually, when I suggest that if the ROE cannot be written down on a credit-card sized piece of cardboard they are too complex I wasn't joking.
My point was not to insult you or your regiment. Clearly you were well trained, and had trained your men. If you hadn't, you would not have been able to get your ROE reduced to that level.
The fact of the matter is, most of the laws and rules you operated under did not need to be written on the card because they had been fully ingrained into you and your men through training. The point of training is so that one can do things under pressure without having to think about it.
All our lives are getting inexorably more complicated and more regulated. The armed forces are simply not going to be exempted from that process. Think of how much more professional the fighting man and woman has to be now to operate in a total battlefield environment than they had to be in WWII. What it does mean is that the armed forces will have to be even more trained and more professional.
It is the job of political masters to make sure that the rules of engagement remain feasible and not a danger to our own men and women.
And with your last sentence we are in accord. I think the Americans have the expression "Monday morning quarter-backing", too much of that renders a force useless. If a squaddie fecks up then normally its his boss that actually is responsible - and that goes all the way up the chain.
First- unconditional support for our intelligence services... have we not heard something similar before? Our Govt knows something we do not.
Second....perhaps it would have been better for all this tawdry business to be kept silent (instead of blasted acrross the Sun) so the like of me and thee do not discuss it on social media sites.
An excellent and thought-provoking article by David H, as one has come to expect.
Clearly any international agreement involving updating or supplementing the Geneva Convention is going to take a very long time - years, perhaps decades. David is right when he says that, in the meantime, it would be very desirable to agree on a UK legal framework which takes account both of the changed technology of attack methods available to us, and the changed threats facing us, which nowadays don't necessarily come from traditional nation states. The old idea that we were either 'at war' or not 'at war' doesn't really apply to Al Quaeda or ISIS, so the whole issue needs to be rethought.
Ideally we would debate those new matters on a cross-party basis, but for the moment Her Majesty's Opposition is in no fit state to be involved - indeed, it is likely that the leader of the opposition as from Saturday will be someone who cannot be briefed on the subject. For that reason, I think the current legal limbo is likely to remain for a long time.
On the exchanges between Hurst Llama and Richard Tyndall, surely Hurst is right? The law states clearly that the use of lethal force has to be necessary and unavoidable to be justified, i.e. that there is no other way of protecting innocent lives. In the case of a threat on the UK mainland, that usually translates in practice to a rule that lethal force can only be used if the threat is imminent, since if it is not imminent then you've got the option of arrest or containment. In the case of the gentlemen who met a mercifully quick end in the drone attack, the threat may not have been imminent in the same sense, but that isn't the test: the test is whether there was any alternative way of protecting the British public. Since we can't arrest or contain in this case, lethal force might well be fully justified.
Having said all that, it's impossible to make a full judgement without access to the intelligence, which we don't have and are not going to get. Therefore people who, like tyson here, rush to condemn the government are just being silly: knowing nothing about the background, how can you have an opinion on the justification or otherwise?
Please. I cannot think of a better recruiting agent for radicalising these alienated young people than droning them and bragging about it through the tabloids. FWIW- I honestly do believe that educated, Muslim young people who gravitate to jihadism are rebelling more against their families than western culture. I cannot imagine growing up under the suffocating expectation and control of a Muslim family where appearances are everything. Jihadism seems a good way out, and a whole lot more acceptable for their youthful rebellion than sex and drugs and rock and roll.
Why can't we be more like MOSSAD. By all means kill, but never admit to it, and if you get found out deny it.
Tonight more young alienated Muslims are looking at their computers with an increasing hatred against the UK, feeling vindicated in their fight in good over evil.
I am wary of proposals to have new laws to address "ethical" questions. Soon, British soldiers will have to go war with a lawyer by their sides. Particularly in cases like dealing with ISIL the enemy does not respect our sense of fair play let alone our laws.
We cannot fight wars with one arm tied behind our backs. Counter-insurgency warfare requires intelligence and restraint, but also means that the distinction between civilian and soldier disappears.
Tonight more jihadis are looking over their shoulders, sweating over their internet usage, regretting their poor choices. We should encourage them to become defectors and supergrasses, which will make further jihadi anxiety. Good. Penetrating networks is the first step to destroying them.
If this latest issue has made them think that, they were already lost to help.
I notice the swingeing sentences handed down after the plasma screen riots did the job. We've seen no riots since. Deterrence works.
Some good justice that (and I'm not generally one who thinks deterrence does work, but hopefully it will). I found it rather odd than some reports of the tearful rioters being handed harsher than they were expecting sentences seems surprised at the idea that due to the context of their crimes in adding to the wider disruption of public order, they were getting less sympathy from judges, which seemed perfectly appropriate (I presume the legalities of such sentences was sound).
Mr. T. does it matter if the young man/woman with his/her hand on the fire button is in an airconditioned room half a globe away or in an air conditioned cockpit at 30,000 feet fifty miles away? I can't see the difference myself, except one is much cheaper than the other.
I might also pull you up on your assertion that the person whoever, wherever he maybe kills with the same thought as "he would give to playing a video game". I do not know on what information you formed that opinion but there have been published reports, not only as to the care that is taken before the launch button is pressed, but also on the trauma suffered by the remote pilots caused by being at war for eight hours and then going home to the wife and kids and having to behave like a typical commuter. I think your comment is beneath your normal standard.
Mr L - I have read those reports about the trauma of drone operators. Again, I was not meaning to impugn individuals, or to state that that was indeed the case. But to reduce the case ad absurdum.
The point for me is that as we become more detached from the action of killing, it becomes less personal; as we kill people with no danger to ourselves, it has the feel of becoming more cowardly whether in fact the person is in truth a hero or a coward. Is it moral to stand up 100 men armed with spears at 100 yards and mow them all down with a machine gun? Maybe if they are attacking you, but it somehow feels less moral than killing someone who has more chance of killing you. Hence the moral outrage at the Highway of Death at the end of Gulf War 1.
Indeed, I suspect that this involvement in killing while still in a civilian and family life setting and the removal from danger is part of the reason drone operators experience trauma.
As I said, I have very mixed feelings. On a functional basis, drones are obviously the way to go. But for me, it is not without some troubling ethical issues which I have yet to resolve to my satisfaction.
Please. I cannot think of a better recruiting agent for radicalising these alienated young people than droning them and bragging about it through the tabloids. FWIW- I honestly do believe that educated, Muslim young people who gravitate to jihadism are rebelling more against their families than western culture. I cannot imagine growing up under the suffocating expectation and control of a Muslim family where appearances are everything. Jihadism seems a good way out, and a whole lot more acceptable for their youthful rebellion than sex and drugs and rock and roll.
Why can't we be more like MOSSAD. By all means kill, but never admit to it, and if you get found out deny it.
Tonight more young alienated Muslims are looking at their computers with an increasing hatred against the UK, feeling vindicated in their fight in good over evil.
I am wary of proposals to have new laws to address "ethical" questions. Soon, British soldiers will have to go war with a lawyer by their sides. Particularly in cases like dealing with ISIL the enemy does not respect our sense of fair play let alone our laws.
We cannot fight wars with one arm tied behind our backs. Counter-insurgency warfare requires intelligence and restraint, but also means that the distinction between civilian and soldier disappears.
Tonight more jihadis are looking over their shoulders, sweating over their internet usage, regretting their poor choices. We should encourage them to become defectors and supergrasses, which will make further jihadi anxiety. Good. Penetrating networks is the first step to destroying them.
If this latest issue has made them think that, they were already lost to help.
Alternatively, I can't think of a better deterrent for jihadi-inclined Brits than the knowledge that IF you go to Syria to join ISIS one of the most sophisticated intelligence and military capabilities in the world - that of the UK - will dedicate itself to hunting you down, and then executing you in cold blood. You'll just be vapourised. You will instantly disappear into a faint red fog, and there will be no martyr's funeral.
I notice the swingeing sentences handed down after the plasma screen riots did the job. We've seen no riots since. Deterrence works.
Hopefully the long sentences for the Aylesbury child groomers that came out yesterday will have a similar effect. You need long sentences when you only catch six out of sixty rapists.
Now we likely have ten years of conservative government, I'd like to think we could take the opportunity to double prison sentences for serious crime.
People have said a lot of very unkind things about my old regiment, Mr. T., but nobody has ever accused us of being inadequately trained. Every member of my platoon, and probably the whole battalion, could quote verbatim what our ROE were, and not only that every member actually understood them. In the work-up exercises we did before each tour we spent a lot of time playing out scenarios which revolved around when it was permissible to open fire and when it wasn't.
So, actually, when I suggest that if the ROE cannot be written down on a credit-card sized piece of cardboard they are too complex I wasn't joking.
My point was not to insult you or your regiment. Clearly you were well trained, and had trained your men. If you hadn't, you would not have been able to get your ROE reduced to that level.
The fact of the matter is, most of the laws and rules you operated under did not need to be written on the card because they had been fully ingrained into you and your men through training. The point of training is so that one can do things under pressure without having to think about it.
All our lives are getting inexorably more complicated and more regulated. The armed forces are simply not going to be exempted from that process. Think of how much more professional the fighting man and woman has to be now to operate in a total battlefield environment than they had to be in WWII. What it does mean is that the armed forces will have to be even more trained and more professional.
It is the job of political masters to make sure that the rules of engagement remain feasible and not a danger to our own men and women.
And with your last sentence we are in accord. I think the Americans have the expression "Monday morning quarter-backing", too much of that renders a force useless. If a squaddie fecks up then normally its his boss that actually is responsible - and that goes all the way up the chain.
First- unconditional support for our intelligence services... have we not heard something similar before? Our Govt knows something we do not.
Unconditional support? No, but in reality you haven't got much choice; you have to trust someone, since you know nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever. We have a democratic and moderate government of manifestly decent people, an independent cross-party committee of MPs monitoring the security services, and an independent commissioner (a judge) to look into any issues which might arise. I honestly don't see how it could be done any better, except perhaps to take up Nick Palmer's suggestion that drone attacks of this sort should as a matter of routine be referred to the independent commissioner or the parliamentary committee.
Of course it is true that New Labour and Tony Blair in particular have badly damaged public faith in the whole process. But they were an aberration in our modern history, and we shouldn't assume that other governments are tainted with spin and duplicity just because they were.
My understanding that terrorists and un-unformed guerillas (and in un-recognised countries) have no protection under the geneva convention. Flying a black flag and wearing a balaclava is not a uniform. ISIS have not signed the geneva Convention and have no protection under it. Needless to say they do not abide by its principles anyway. If there is any barbaric principle opposite to any Geneva one then they can be guaranteed to follow it in spades. So there really is no need for any new convention. Especially for the 21st century when the opponents we face are living in and abiding by the non-rules of the 13th Century.
First- unconditional support for our intelligence services... have we not heard something similar before? Our Govt knows something we do not.
Unconditional support? No, but in reality you haven't got much choice; you have to trust someone, since you know nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever. We have a democratic and moderate government of manifestly decent people, an independent cross-party committee of MPs monitoring the security services, and an independent commissioner (a judge) to look into any issues which might arise. I honestly don't see how it could be done any better, except perhaps to take up Nick Palmer's suggestion that drone attacks of this sort should as a matter of routine be referred to the independent commissioner or the parliamentary committee.
Of course it is true that New Labour and Tony Blair in particular have badly damaged public faith in the whole process. But they were an aberration in our modern history, and we shouldn't assume that other governments are tainted with spin and duplicity just because they were.
The main problem with Nick's suggestion is timeliness. If actionable intelligence is time sensitive, I would not want our leaders having to chase down some third party for the green light. As for running a war by committee, NO. Absolutely not.
Mr. T. does it matter if the young man/woman with his/her hand on the fire button is in an airconditioned room half a globe away or in an air conditioned cockpit at 30,000 feet fifty miles away? I can't see the difference myself, except one is much cheaper than the other.
I might also pull you up on your assertion that the person whoever, wherever he maybe kills with the same thought as "he would give to playing a video game". I do not know on what information you formed that opinion but there have been published reports, not only as to the care that is taken before the launch button is pressed, but also on the trauma suffered by the remote pilots caused by being at war for eight hours and then going home to the wife and kids and having to behave like a typical commuter. I think your comment is beneath your normal standard.
Mr L - I have read those reports about the trauma of drone operators. Again, I was not meaning to impugn individuals, or to state that that was indeed the case. But to reduce the case ad absurdum.
The point for me is that as we become more detached from the action of killing, it becomes less personal; as we kill people with no danger to ourselves, it has the feel of becoming more cowardly whether in fact the person is in truth a hero or a coward. Is it moral to stand up 100 men armed with spears at 100 yards and mow them all down with a machine gun? Maybe if they are attacking you, but it somehow feels less moral than killing someone who has more chance of killing you. Hence the moral outrage at the Highway of Death at the end of Gulf War 1.
Indeed, I suspect that this involvement in killing while still in a civilian and family life setting and the removal from danger is part of the reason drone operators experience trauma.
As I said, I have very mixed feelings. On a functional basis, drones are obviously the way to go. But for me, it is not without some troubling ethical issues which I have yet to resolve to my satisfaction.
Very good points, Mr.T. Personally, I don't have a problem with fighting a war in such a manner that my people are going to be safer than the other side's people. That is after all how you win.
Taking that further, I see no problem, morally, in using drones with the pilot half a globe away. In asymmetric warfare he is in no less danger than a pilot in a real aeroplane and if the worst happens I want my people safe so if I am sending drones against manned aircraft I'll be happy as long as the drones can do the job.
The trauma thing re the drone pilots is I think susceptible to an easy solution. Put the control stations on a remote base and send the pilots there on six month secondments, just like "real" pilots in a war zone.
The main problem with Nick's suggestion is timeliness. If actionable intelligence is time sensitive, I would not want our leaders having to chase down some third party for the green light. As for running a war by committee, NO. Absolutely not.
Agreed, but I understood he was suggesting a referral after the event, not before, in the same way as a death at the hands of the police or a death in custody in the UK is automatically referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
An incredible slew of liberal lefty quasi-Islamist drone-ophobic bleating here, from the Guardian. I count four articles questioning the assassination, plus an editorial.
Meanwhile, just one in ten Brits is opposed to what Cameron did. The media-masses detachment continues, and it is the Left which is spiraling into outer space.
The main problem with Nick's suggestion is timeliness. If actionable intelligence is time sensitive, I would not want our leaders having to chase down some third party for the green light. As for running a war by committee, NO. Absolutely not.
Agreed, but I understood he was suggesting a referral after the event, not before, in the same way as a death at the hands of the police or a death in custody in the UK is automatically referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
My misunderstanding. No problems with oversight, or learning lessons when things go wrong.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, particularly having been arguing with Hurstllama over this, nothing I have written this evening changes the fact that I believe that, based on the evidence that has been given so far, I believe the assassinations were justified. I simply believe that we should have a very clear cut set of guidelines for such action and that we need a genuinely independent authority entirely separate from the Government to hold the Government to account after such action has been taken.
Ditto. My views are that properly sanctioned drone killings are legal and justified. I have mixed feelings about the morality of a kid in an air-conditioned room half a globe away with no skin in the game taking out enemy combatants with about the same thought as he would give to playing a video game. But if it is that or putting our own soldiers in the firing line, ultimately I will go for that.
I could not disagree more strongly. Dropping a laser guided munition from a plane is just the same as from a drone. Before these targeted strikes the claims were against the collateral damage caused by 'conventional' bombing. Now the claim against targeted strikes is its accuracy and cold bloodedness! And spare me the angst about being justified. These strikes are not against red cross nurses delivering babies; they are against identified and known terrorists responsible for some of the most brutal if not the most brutal and bestial atrocities ever seen and published on film.
To be brutally honest I think it would be much better for us to know nothing about these kind of affairs rather than pretend we could construct some Parliamentary scrutiny around it all.
In fact I believe that in general these kind of sordid events go on all the time. I actually do hope that our Special Services have been undertaking disruption tactics around the globe and particularly against ISISS. Maybe I could read the book in twenty years time or so.
Which, makes me think about why this particular event came to light. Perhaps, someone leaked it to create favourable headlines?
First- unconditional support for our intelligence services... have we not heard something similar before? Our Govt knows something we do not.
Unconditional support? No, but in reality you haven't got much choice; you have to trust someone, since you know nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever. We have a democratic and moderate government of manifestly decent people, an independent cross-party committee of MPs monitoring the security services, and an independent commissioner (a judge) to look into any issues which might arise. I honestly don't see how it could be done any better, except perhaps to take up Nick Palmer's suggestion that drone attacks of this sort should as a matter of routine be referred to the independent commissioner or the parliamentary committee.
Of course it is true that New Labour and Tony Blair in particular have badly damaged public faith in the whole process. But they were an aberration in our modern history, and we shouldn't assume that other governments are tainted with spin and duplicity just because they were.
I get the impression that her campaign is nearing panic mode.
There are two fundamental questions which she cannot answer honestly -
1. Who had the video idea during Benghazi?
2. Why did you establish your own personal email server?
I don't know the answer to 1 but suspect the answer to 2 is to avoid federal records retention and FOIA requests, and control. There is no way she can admit that.
To be brutally honest I think it would be much better for us to know nothing about these kind of affairs rather than pretend we could construct some Parliamentary scrutiny around it all.
In fact I believe that in general these kind of sordid events go on all the time. I actually do hope that our Special Services have been undertaking disruption tactics around the globe and particularly against ISISS. Maybe I could read the book in twenty years time or so.
Which, makes me think about why this particular event came to light. Perhaps, someone leaked it to create favourable headlines?
First- unconditional support for our intelligence services... have we not heard something similar before? Our Govt knows something we do not.
Unconditional support? No, but in reality you haven't got much choice; you have to trust someone, since you know nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever. We have a democratic and moderate government of manifestly decent people, an independent cross-party committee of MPs monitoring the security services, and an independent commissioner (a judge) to look into any issues which might arise. I honestly don't see how it could be done any better, except perhaps to take up Nick Palmer's suggestion that drone attacks of this sort should as a matter of routine be referred to the independent commissioner or the parliamentary committee. Of course it is true that New Labour and Tony Blair in particular have badly damaged public faith in the whole process. But they were an aberration in our modern history, and we shouldn't assume that other governments are tainted with spin and duplicity just because they were.
Very good points, Mr.T. Personally, I don't have a problem with fighting a war in such a manner that my people are going to be safer than the other side's people. That is after all how you win.
Taking that further, I see no problem, morally, in using drones with the pilot half a globe away. In asymmetric warfare he is in no less danger than a pilot in a real aeroplane and if the worst happens I want my people safe so if I am sending drones against manned aircraft I'll be happy as long as the drones can do the job.
The trauma thing re the drone pilots is I think susceptible to an easy solution. Put the control stations on a remote base and send the pilots there on six month secondments, just like "real" pilots in a war zone.
I agree that as Commander-in-Chief, I'd ideally only want to engage in wars where my side would always win and none of my people were ever hurt.
But I can't help but imagine it from the other perspective. What if we were faced with an intergalactic enemy whom we could not touch, but who could destroy our planet with the push of a button while circling some sun in Andromeda - how moral would that fight feel?
On the exchanges between Hurst Llama and Richard Tyndall, surely Hurst is right? The law states clearly that the use of lethal force has to be necessary and unavoidable to be justified, i.e. that there is no other way of protecting innocent lives. I
Actually it was I that was arguing that the use has to be unavoidable - that there is no other way to protect life. Hurst was arguing that it was not necessary to have the justification of protecting life and that prevention of a crime was sufficient justification. .
@LouiseMensch 35s36 seconds ago Hearing a bit of doubt about Corbyn. Late surge voting anything but and second prefs heading Yvette. Who knows if it means anything
I still think that if it is somehow one of the AnyoneButCorbyns who does it, it's much more likely to be Andy than Yvette.
An incredible slew of liberal lefty quasi-Islamist drone-ophobic bleating here, from the Guardian. I count four articles questioning the assassination, plus an editorial. http://www.theguardian.com/uk Meanwhile, just one in ten Brits is opposed to what Cameron did. The media-masses detachment continues, and it is the Left which is spiraling into outer space.
Correct. As for the idea that you drop a bomb and than refer it to a parliamentary committee (chaired by Keith Vaz??) it is utterly pathetic, but no surprise given its source.
Very good points, Mr.T. Personally, I don't have a problem with fighting a war in such a manner that my people are going to be safer than the other side's people. That is after all how you win.
Taking that further, I see no problem, morally, in using drones with the pilot half a globe away. In asymmetric warfare he is in no less danger than a pilot in a real aeroplane and if the worst happens I want my people safe so if I am sending drones against manned aircraft I'll be happy as long as the drones can do the job.
The trauma thing re the drone pilots is I think susceptible to an easy solution. Put the control stations on a remote base and send the pilots there on six month secondments, just like "real" pilots in a war zone.
I agree that as Commander-in-Chief, I'd ideally only want to engage in wars where my side would always win and none of my people were ever hurt.
But I can't help but imagine it from the other perspective. What if we were faced with an intergalactic enemy whom we could not touch, but who could destroy our planet with the push of a button while circling some sun in Andromeda - how moral would that fight feel?
Well, I'd be pretty miffed that I couldn't fight back. However, what has that got to do with the price of fish. The point of war is that a government or coalition of governments have decided that they must impose their will by force of arms. At that point fairness let alone morals depart the scene - the aim is to win with the minimum loss for your side consistent with having a reasonable world afterwards - every war finishes after all.
My understanding that terrorists and un-unformed guerillas (and in un-recognised countries) have no protection under the geneva convention. Flying a black flag and wearing a balaclava is not a uniform. ISIS have not signed the geneva Convention and have no protection under it. Needless to say they do not abide by its principles anyway. If there is any barbaric principle opposite to any Geneva one then they can be guaranteed to follow it in spades. So there really is no need for any new convention. Especially for the 21st century when the opponents we face are living in and abiding by the non-rules of the 13th Century.
That's precisely why it does need updating. It is not so much for the protection of the enemy as for the soldiers and government of the intervening state. However, there also needs to be an international norm about how interventions of this nature are legitimate. The comparison with policing in the uk is not wholly applicable: within the uk, the state has a duty and a right to use force to prevent criminal activity where it has the means. Deploying force in another country is a breach of their sovereignty and while it may he the right practical and moral option, there is a problem if the legal basis is shaky. That needs fixing.
Re militias and the like, one only has to ask about prisoners of war. Captured combatents are in a legallimbo yet something must be done with them. What? There is a good reason why Guantanamo is still open.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, particularly having been arguing with Hurstllama over this, nothing I have written this evening changes the fact that I believe that, based on the evidence that has been given so far, I believe the assassinations were justified. I simply believe that we should have a very clear cut set of guidelines for such action and that we need a genuinely independent authority entirely separate from the Government to hold the Government to account after such action has been taken.
Ditto. My views are that properly sanctioned drone killings are legal and justified. I have mixed feelings about the morality of a kid in an air-conditioned room half a globe away with no skin in the game taking out enemy combatants with about the same thought as he would give to playing a video game. But if it is that or putting our own soldiers in the firing line, ultimately I will go for that.
I could not disagree more strongly. Dropping a laser guided munition from a plane is just the same as from a drone. Before these targeted strikes the claims were against the collateral damage caused by 'conventional' bombing. Now the claim against targeted strikes is its accuracy and cold bloodedness! And spare me the angst about being justified. These strikes are not against red cross nurses delivering babies; they are against identified and known terrorists responsible for some of the most brutal if not the most brutal and bestial atrocities ever seen and published on film.
I have said they are legal and justified. No angst on that score.
Equally, greater precision in weaponry is definitely good.
With regards to ISIS, I have no moral qualms with the asymmetry either, given they pursue asymmetry in other areas (barbarism, evilness, etc...)
The moral uncertainty is a more generic concern over the ever greater detachment from the killing process and, ultimately, asymmetry. The pilot is on that spectrum just as much as the gladiator with sword and shield and the drone operator, or Hans Solo.
But I am far from a bleeding heart for the two just killed. My concern is to address the moral issues in a generic manner so that our politicians and armed forces are able to keep a firm moral compass as they do the necessary to protect us.
"Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, has said a controversial plan due to be unveiled by the European commission (EC) to share out 160,000 refugees among European Union states might not be enough, and warned that Europe may have to accept even bigger numbers."
Tonight more young alienated Muslims are looking at their computers with an increasing hatred against the UK, feeling vindicated in their fight in good over evil.
For every action their is an equal and opposite reaction.
Really Dr Fox I(I mean really you have to be kidding me)- I don't think eviscerating 2 young alienated English Jihadis in Syria and then gloating about it to all and sundry, with accompanying sordid headlines in the Sun, will help this conflict at all. Not one little bit.
And please try to avoid the term "poor choices". It sounds like you have picked up this latest lingo from Sky Sports. The next you'll be talking about the "business end" of the conflict...
I am wary of proposals to have new laws to address "ethical" questions. Soon, British soldiers will have to go war with a lawyer by their sides. Particularly in cases like dealing with ISIL the enemy does not respect our sense of fair play let alone our laws.
We cannot fight wars with one arm tied behind our backs. Counter-insurgency warfare requires intelligence and restraint, but also means that the distinction between civilian and soldier disappears.
Tonight more jihadis are looking over their shoulders, sweating over their internet usage, regretting their poor choices. We should encourage them to become defectors and supergrasses, which will make further jihadi anxiety. Good. Penetrating networks is the first step to destroying them.
Young muslims who think that the murderous rapists of IS are reasonable role models need to wise up. Guerillas need a sympathetic population to move in. These two jihadis volunterred to kill on behalf of the sex slaver, rapist, homophobic torturers of IS. Anyone sympathetic to IS is my enemy and I will not cry for a moment over them.
The Islamists of IS are fascists plain and simple. They are not allies of the left, they hate us and our liberal tolerant values. There should be no platform for fascists, and any machine that kills fascists is fine by me.
hear hear - especially about pointing out the fascist nature of these barbarians
Very good points, Mr.T. Personally, I don't have a problem with fighting a war in such a manner that my people are going to be safer than the other side's people. That is after all how you win.
Taking that further, I see no problem, morally, in using drones with the pilot half a globe away. In asymmetric warfare he is in no less danger than a pilot in a real aeroplane and if the worst happens I want my people safe so if I am sending drones against manned aircraft I'll be happy as long as the drones can do the job.
The trauma thing re the drone pilots is I think susceptible to an easy solution. Put the control stations on a remote base and send the pilots there on six month secondments, just like "real" pilots in a war zone.
I agree that as Commander-in-Chief, I'd ideally only want to engage in wars where my side would always win and none of my people were ever hurt.
But I can't help but imagine it from the other perspective. What if we were faced with an intergalactic enemy whom we could not touch, but who could destroy our planet with the push of a button while circling some sun in Andromeda - how moral would that fight feel?
Well, I'd be pretty miffed that I couldn't fight back. However, what has that got to do with the price of fish. The point of war is that a government or coalition of governments have decided that they must impose their will by force of arms. At that point fairness let alone morals depart the scene - the aim is to win with the minimum loss for your side consistent with having a reasonable world afterwards - every war finishes after all.
I understand your viewpoint, which is that the moral dilemma becomes immaterial. I think that there is a bigger picture than that, but I'll leave it there. Signing off for the night.
My understanding that terrorists and un-unformed guerillas (and in un-recognised countries) have no protection under the geneva convention. Flying a black flag and wearing a balaclava is not a uniform. ISIS have not signed the geneva Convention and have no protection under it. Needless to say they do not abide by its principles anyway. If there is any barbaric principle opposite to any Geneva one then they can be guaranteed to follow it in spades. So there really is no need for any new convention. Especially for the 21st century when the opponents we face are living in and abiding by the non-rules of the 13th Century.
That's precisely why it does need updating. It is not so much for the protection of the enemy as for the soldiers and government of the intervening state. However, there also needs to be an international norm about how interventions of this nature are legitimate. The comparison with policing in the uk is not wholly applicable: within the uk, the state has a duty and a right to use force to prevent criminal activity where it has the means. Deploying force in another country is a breach of their sovereignty and while it may he the right practical and moral option, there is a problem if the legal basis is shaky. That needs fixing.
Re militias and the like, one only has to ask about prisoners of war. Captured combatents are in a legallimbo yet something must be done with them. What? There is a good reason why Guantanamo is still open.
" Deploying force in another country is a breach of their sovereignty and while it may he the right practical and moral option, there is a problem if the legal basis is shaky. That needs fixing."
How do you fix though? If the state is functioning then deploying armed force within its borders is de facto an act of war. If it isn't functioning as per chunks of Syria at the moment then the problem doesn't arise as no sovereignty has been breached.
If we are not to concern ourselves with the latter that leaves us trying to negotiate some sort of international treaty which would allow states to undertake acts of war within the territories of other states but which wouldn't count as acts of war for some definition of war. I am not too sure that is a path the UK should go down.
" Deploying force in another country is a breach of their sovereignty and while it may he the right practical and moral option, there is a problem if the legal basis is shaky. That needs fixing."
How do you fix though? If the state is functioning then deploying armed force within its borders is de facto an act of war. If it isn't functioning as per chunks of Syria at the moment then the problem doesn't arise as no sovereignty has been breached.
If we are not to concern ourselves with the latter that leaves us trying to negotiate some sort of international treaty which would allow states to undertake acts of war within the territories of other states but which wouldn't count as acts of war for some definition of war. I am not too sure that is a path the UK should go down.
And there is already provision for that - the UN Security Council has a remit to address all threats to international peace and security, of which what we are discussing is merely a subset. Sure, it is dysfunctional, but so would be anything set up to replace it.
" Deploying force in another country is a breach of their sovereignty and while it may he the right practical and moral option, there is a problem if the legal basis is shaky. That needs fixing."
How do you fix though? If the state is functioning then deploying armed force within its borders is de facto an act of war. If it isn't functioning as per chunks of Syria at the moment then the problem doesn't arise as no sovereignty has been breached.
If we are not to concern ourselves with the latter that leaves us trying to negotiate some sort of international treaty which would allow states to undertake acts of war within the territories of other states but which wouldn't count as acts of war for some definition of war. I am not too sure that is a path the UK should go down.
And there is already provision for that - the UN Security Council has a remit to address all threats to international peace and security, of which what we are discussing is merely a subset. Sure, it is dysfunctional, but so would be anything set up to replace it.
Thanks, Mr. T.
There you go Mr. Herdson, your worries are needless. There is already provision to do what you wanted within the Security Council and for domestic concerns we have Section 3 CLA 1967.
Job done, tea and medals all round.
Good night all, and thanks to all, especially Mr. Tyndall, for some interesting conversation.
Tonight more young alienated And please try to avoid the term "poor choices". It sounds like you have picked up this latest lingo from Sky Sports. The next you'll be talking about the "business end" of the conflict...
I am wary of proposals to have new laws to address "ethical" questions. Soon, British soldiers will have to go war with a lawyer by their sides. Particularly in cases like dealing with ISIL the enemy does not respect our sense of fair play let alone our laws.
ety. Good. Penetrating networks is the first step to destroying them.
Young muslims who think that the murderous rapists of IS are reasonable role models need to wise up. Guerillas need a sympathetic population to move in. These two jihadis volunterred to kill on behalf of the sex slaver, rapist, homophobic torturers of IS. Anyone sympathetic to IS is my enemy and I will not cry for a moment over them.
The Islamists of IS are fascists plain and simple. They are not allies of the left, they hate us and our liberal tolerant values. There should be no platform for fascists, and any machine that kills fascists is fine by me.
hear hear - especially about pointing out the fascist nature of these barbarians
The fascism of the Islamists is so blindingly obvious, it astonishes me the Left cannot see it. I wrote about it in the Telegraph
I've come to the conclusion that the Left is now so desperate, so bereft of hope and ideas as they digest the death of Marxism and glumly contemplate Chinese-capitalist globalism, that they will entertain anything - literally ANYTHING - that seems to challenge the Anglo-Saxon capitalist worldview. Even better if it comes from non-white people.
Thus the embrace of the most putrid, fascistic values inherent in Islamism. They're ok coz Islamists hate us. That's good enough for the likes of Corbyn, Palmer, the Guardian, most comedians, and so forth.
@LouiseMensch 35s36 seconds ago Hearing a bit of doubt about Corbyn. Late surge voting anything but and second prefs heading Yvette. Who knows if it means anything
I still think that if it is somehow one of the AnyoneButCorbyns who does it, it's much more likely to be Andy than Yvette.
Indeed, second preferences for Cooper will be mainly from Kendall, late surge voting anything but could mean first preference Burnham votes as well as Corbyn
Just having a look at the Geneva Conventions and the various commentaries on it from legal and human rights sources, I am not sure that David is correct to claim that it is outdated. It appears to me that those drafting the conventions were well aware of the potential for non signatories to be involved in combat and they made it quite clear in the 3rd Convention what that meant.
Article 2 Para 3:
"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."
Basically if ISIL were to turn round and say that they were abiding by the Conventions - even though they are not actually signatories - then the other parties who were signatories would be legally obliged to treat them in accordance with the Conventions. This opportunity remains open to ISIL but they have chosen not to take it. As such there is no requirement for the British, US or any other signatory to abide by the Conventions when dealing specifically with ISIL. Of course they are bound by it whilst dealing with non combatants/civilians or Syrian forces under Assad's control as Syria is a signatory.
Speaking of drones, today brings yet another Hillary Clinton campaign relaunch.
We are told that she will be showing more humor and heart, and giving more interviews.
"He will make an excellent drone!" - Commander Data.
I realise PB is its own little universe, where refugees can be called terrorists but ISIS combatants may not be killed. But even by this site's everyday madness, what I am about to say may be thought extreme...
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.
I must disagree. It's a jurisdictional question. The ISIS killings took place outside the UK's jurisdiction and not within any jurisdiction recognised by the UK. This makes the question whether it was judicial or non-judicial moot. It was an action outside a recognised jurisdiction, so no law applied other than those governing soldiers at war. No jurisdiction, ergo no crime.
(Are you saying they were still within Syrian jurisdiction at the time? I'd argue that Syrian government writ no longer runs in ISIS-held territory)
Just having a look at the Geneva Conventions and the various commentaries on it from legal and human rights sources, I am not sure that David is correct to claim that it is outdated. It appears to me that those drafting the conventions were well aware of the potential for non signatories to be involved in combat and they made it quite clear in the 3rd Convention what that meant.
Article 2 Para 3:
"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."
Basically if ISIL were to turn round and say that they were abiding by the Conventions - even though they are not actually signatories - then the other parties who were signatories would be legally obliged to treat them in accordance with the Conventions. This opportunity remains open to ISIL but they have chosen not to take it. As such there is no requirement for the British, US or any other signatory to abide by the Conventions when dealing specifically with ISIL. Of course they are bound by it whilst dealing with non combatants/civilians or Syrian forces under Assad's control as Syria is a signatory.
And Article 1.1 of Additional Protocol II:
"This Protocol, which develops and supplements Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions of application, shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol"
Comments
Poor SNP South Britain branch.
Tonight more jihadis are looking over their shoulders, sweating over their internet usage, regretting their poor choices. We should encourage them to become defectors and supergrasses, which will make further jihadi anxiety. Good. Penetrating networks is the first step to destroying them.
That is why the police are always so keen to make clear there was a threat to life following a shooting.
https://twitter.com/DavidKenner/status/641340049850695680
https://twitter.com/firatdural/status/641341026800562177
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34192391
If the government cannot frame rules of engagement such that the lowliest soldier can understand and comply with in the heat of the moment then that government has no business sending its troops into action.
https://twitter.com/DaveClark_AFP/status/641340518404755457
For every action their is an equal and opposite reaction.
Really Dr Fox I(I mean really you have to be kidding me)- I don't think eviscerating 2 young alienated English Jihadis in Syria and then gloating about it to all and sundry, with accompanying sordid headlines in the Sun, will help this conflict at all. Not one little bit.
And please try to avoid the term "poor choices". It sounds like you have picked up this latest lingo from Sky Sports. The next you'll be talking about the "business end" of the conflict...
"Today, I can inform the House that in an act of self-defence and after meticulous planning, Reyaad Khan was killed in a precision airstrike carried out on 21 August ....
We took this action because there was no alternative. In this area, there is no Government we can work with; we have no military on the ground to detain those preparing plots; and there was nothing to suggest that Reyaad Khan would ever leave Syria or desist from his
desire to murder us at home, so we had no way of preventing his planned attacks on our country without taking direct action....
let me set out for the House the legal basis for the action we took, the processes we followed and the implications of this action for our wider strategy in countering the threat from ISIL. First, I am clear that the action we took was entirely lawful. The Attorney General was consulted and was clear that there would be a clear legal basis for action in international law. We were exercising the UK’s inherent right to self-defence. There was clear evidence of these individuals planning and directing armed attacks against the UK. These were part of a series of actual and foiled attempts to attack the UK and our allies, and given the prevailing circumstances in Syria, the airstrike was the only feasible means of effectively disrupting the attacks that had been planned and directed. It was therefore necessary and proportionate for the individual self-defence of the United Kingdom. The United Nations charter requires members to inform the President of the Security Council of activity conducted in self-defence, and today the UK permanent representative will write to the President to do just that.
Turning to the process:...
Our intelligence agencies identified the direct threat to the UK from this individual and informed me and other senior Ministers of that threat. At a meeting of the most senior members of the National Security Council, we agreed that should the right opportunity arise, military action should be taken. The Attorney General attended the meeting and confirmed that there was a legal basis for action. On that basis, the Defence Secretary authorised the operation. The strike was conducted according to specific military rules of engagement, which always comply with international law and the principles of proportionality and military necessity. The military assessed the target location and chose the optimum time to minimise the risk of civilian casualties. This was a very sensitive operation to prevent a very real threat to our country, and I have come to the House today to explain in detail what has happened and to answer questions about it."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150907/debtext/150907-0001.htm
https://vid.me/nHCc
The BBC claims pushing with the Hungarian police caused a woman with a child to end up on the track. Actually, her husband just pulled her down.
Which PB Poster said this:
"11% of Brits oppose the slotting of ISIS terrorists. And this is the position adopted by Corbyn. The Left is, finally, committing suicide."
This facebook post by a supporter of Scottish Nationalism has persuaded me of the merits of targeted drone extra judicial killings.
You keep on going Messrs Cameron and Fallon
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COaVYIUUYAAyuzg.jpg
http://www.wsj.com/articles/migrant-wave-inspires-others-to-attempt-trek-to-europe-1441668591
Thankfully you're not responsible for this country's security.
The Islamists of IS are fascists plain and simple. They are not allies of the left, they hate us and our liberal tolerant values. There should be no platform for fascists, and any machine that kills fascists is fine by me.
Last night I said I wanted to see the legal advice on the killings purely out professional and creative reasons as I was deeply immersed by the Roger Casement treason conviction and him being hanged on a comma.
In Sean's world that made me a dribbling twit who made me a supporter of ISIL.
So, actually, when I suggest that if the ROE cannot be written down on a credit-card sized piece of cardboard they are too complex I wasn't joking.
Thought you'd appreciate the warning so you can prepare yourself.
Chip Kelly trades Matt Barkley and cuts Tebow. Do you think he's waiting for RG3 to be cut by the Skins to snap him up?
Plus Dallas picks up an RB whose first name is Christine....
In this particular case the police acted entirely correctly. It was a very tense situation, i doubt our police would have been as accommodating to what was little more than child endangerment.
Remember, for every person who saw the sky footage, there was a thousand who saw the BBC.
Why can't we be more like MOSSAD. By all means kill, but never admit to it, and if you get found out deny it.
The fact of the matter is, most of the laws and rules you operated under did not need to be written on the card because they had been fully ingrained into you and your men through training. The point of training is so that one can do things under pressure without having to think about it.
All our lives are getting inexorably more complicated and more regulated. The armed forces are simply not going to be exempted from that process. Think of how much more professional the fighting man and woman has to be now to operate in a total battlefield environment than they had to be in WWII. What it does mean is that the armed forces will have to be even more trained and more professional.
It is the job of political masters to make sure that the rules of engagement remain feasible and not a danger to our own men and women.
I might also pull you up on your assertion that the person whoever, wherever he maybe kills with the same thought as "he would give to playing a video game". I do not know on what information you formed that opinion but there have been published reports, not only as to the care that is taken before the launch button is pressed, but also on the trauma suffered by the remote pilots caused by being at war for eight hours and then going home to the wife and kids and having to behave like a typical commuter. I think your comment is beneath your normal standard.
Clearly any international agreement involving updating or supplementing the Geneva Convention is going to take a very long time - years, perhaps decades. David is right when he says that, in the meantime, it would be very desirable to agree on a UK legal framework which takes account both of the changed technology of attack methods available to us, and the changed threats facing us, which nowadays don't necessarily come from traditional nation states. The old idea that we were either 'at war' or not 'at war' doesn't really apply to Al Quaeda or ISIS, so the whole issue needs to be rethought.
Ideally we would debate those new matters on a cross-party basis, but for the moment Her Majesty's Opposition is in no fit state to be involved - indeed, it is likely that the leader of the opposition as from Saturday will be someone who cannot be briefed on the subject. For that reason, I think the current legal limbo is likely to remain for a long time.
On the exchanges between Hurst Llama and Richard Tyndall, surely Hurst is right? The law states clearly that the use of lethal force has to be necessary and unavoidable to be justified, i.e. that there is no other way of protecting innocent lives. In the case of a threat on the UK mainland, that usually translates in practice to a rule that lethal force can only be used if the threat is imminent, since if it is not imminent then you've got the option of arrest or containment. In the case of the gentlemen who met a mercifully quick end in the drone attack, the threat may not have been imminent in the same sense, but that isn't the test: the test is whether there was any alternative way of protecting the British public. Since we can't arrest or contain in this case, lethal force might well be fully justified in law.
Having said all that, it's impossible to make a full judgement without access to the intelligence, which we don't have and are not going to get. Therefore people who, like tyson here, rush to condemn the government are just being silly: knowing nothing about the background, how can you have an opinion on the justification or otherwise?
Now, even the radicalised can be turned, of course, but not killing jihadis, or killing them but being a bit less triumphant about it, seems an odd way to go about it. Showing that dying for that cause is a real prospect not some theorized thing they think they could handle, may not sway all, but more than just toning down a bit of rhetoric.
And I don't buy the 'rebelling' argument, or rather, I don't see its relevance. Life sucks for a lot of people, I'm sure people in the situation you describe have it worse than me, but most still don't become murderous jihadis. As such, I don't have any sympathy for those that do, that was still a conscious choice which, given the propaganda of such groups glorifying the very things we condemn them for, they can not express any surprise at the odiousness of afterwards or should expect anyone to defend as them being forced into, as it was choice they made.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Béziers
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
Second....perhaps it would have been better for all this tawdry business to be kept silent (instead of blasted acrross the Sun) so the like of me and thee do not discuss it on social media sites.
The point for me is that as we become more detached from the action of killing, it becomes less personal; as we kill people with no danger to ourselves, it has the feel of becoming more cowardly whether in fact the person is in truth a hero or a coward. Is it moral to stand up 100 men armed with spears at 100 yards and mow them all down with a machine gun? Maybe if they are attacking you, but it somehow feels less moral than killing someone who has more chance of killing you. Hence the moral outrage at the Highway of Death at the end of Gulf War 1.
Indeed, I suspect that this involvement in killing while still in a civilian and family life setting and the removal from danger is part of the reason drone operators experience trauma.
As I said, I have very mixed feelings. On a functional basis, drones are obviously the way to go. But for me, it is not without some troubling ethical issues which I have yet to resolve to my satisfaction.
Now we likely have ten years of conservative government, I'd like to think we could take the opportunity to double prison sentences for serious crime.
Of course it is true that New Labour and Tony Blair in particular have badly damaged public faith in the whole process. But they were an aberration in our modern history, and we shouldn't assume that other governments are tainted with spin and duplicity just because they were.
ISIS have not signed the geneva Convention and have no protection under it. Needless to say they do not abide by its principles anyway. If there is any barbaric principle opposite to any Geneva one then they can be guaranteed to follow it in spades.
So there really is no need for any new convention. Especially for the 21st century when the opponents we face are living in and abiding by the non-rules of the 13th Century.
We are told that she will be showing more humor and heart, and giving more interviews.
Taking that further, I see no problem, morally, in using drones with the pilot half a globe away. In asymmetric warfare he is in no less danger than a pilot in a real aeroplane and if the worst happens I want my people safe so if I am sending drones against manned aircraft I'll be happy as long as the drones can do the job.
The trauma thing re the drone pilots is I think susceptible to an easy solution. Put the control stations on a remote base and send the pilots there on six month secondments, just like "real" pilots in a war zone.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/08/andrea_mitchell_on_her_clinton_interview_i_couldnt_ask_everything_i_did_want_to_ask.html
And spare me the angst about being justified. These strikes are not against red cross nurses delivering babies; they are against identified and known terrorists responsible for some of the most brutal if not the most brutal and bestial atrocities ever seen and published on film.
In fact I believe that in general these kind of sordid events go on all the time. I actually do hope that our Special Services have been undertaking disruption tactics around the globe and particularly against ISISS. Maybe I could read the book in twenty years time or so.
Which, makes me think about why this particular event came to light. Perhaps, someone leaked it to create favourable headlines?
There are two fundamental questions which she cannot answer honestly -
1. Who had the video idea during Benghazi?
2. Why did you establish your own personal email server?
I don't know the answer to 1 but suspect the answer to 2 is to avoid federal records retention and FOIA requests, and control. There is no way she can admit that.
A pleasant night to all.
But I can't help but imagine it from the other perspective. What if we were faced with an intergalactic enemy whom we could not touch, but who could destroy our planet with the push of a button while circling some sun in Andromeda - how moral would that fight feel?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/opinion/paul-krugman-trump-is-right-on-economics.html?_r=0
Re militias and the like, one only has to ask about prisoners of war. Captured combatents are in a legallimbo yet something must be done with them. What? There is a good reason why Guantanamo is still open.
Equally, greater precision in weaponry is definitely good.
With regards to ISIS, I have no moral qualms with the asymmetry either, given they pursue asymmetry in other areas (barbarism, evilness, etc...)
The moral uncertainty is a more generic concern over the ever greater detachment from the killing process and, ultimately, asymmetry. The pilot is on that spectrum just as much as the gladiator with sword and shield and the drone operator, or Hans Solo.
But I am far from a bleeding heart for the two just killed. My concern is to address the moral issues in a generic manner so that our politicians and armed forces are able to keep a firm moral compass as they do the necessary to protect us.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/08/angela-merkel-eu-refugee-sharing-plan-may-not-be-enough-germany-europe
How do you fix though? If the state is functioning then deploying armed force within its borders is de facto an act of war. If it isn't functioning as per chunks of Syria at the moment then the problem doesn't arise as no sovereignty has been breached.
If we are not to concern ourselves with the latter that leaves us trying to negotiate some sort of international treaty which would allow states to undertake acts of war within the territories of other states but which wouldn't count as acts of war for some definition of war. I am not too sure that is a path the UK should go down.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=skcvfu7LEUE
There you go Mr. Herdson, your worries are needless. There is already provision to do what you wanted within the Security Council and for domestic concerns we have Section 3 CLA 1967.
Job done, tea and medals all round.
Good night all, and thanks to all, especially Mr. Tyndall, for some interesting conversation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3218034/The-Islamic-welfare-State-Men-line-receive-handouts-ISIS-run-benefits-office-Islamists-boast-helping-poor-ignoring-role-bringing-poverty-region.html
Article 2 Para 3:
"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."
Basically if ISIL were to turn round and say that they were abiding by the Conventions - even though they are not actually signatories - then the other parties who were signatories would be legally obliged to treat them in accordance with the Conventions. This opportunity remains open to ISIL but they have chosen not to take it. As such there is no requirement for the British, US or any other signatory to abide by the Conventions when dealing specifically with ISIL. Of course they are bound by it whilst dealing with non combatants/civilians or Syrian forces under Assad's control as Syria is a signatory.
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6250023
...it's Lieutenant Commander Data, Sunil...
(Are you saying they were still within Syrian jurisdiction at the time? I'd argue that Syrian government writ no longer runs in ISIS-held territory)
"This Protocol, which develops and supplements Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions of application, shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol"