"The BBC reporter just referred to it as "an execution". So much for political impartiality."
Well as that is exactly what the Prime Minister has described what do you expect them to call it?
The legal and targeted killing of specific individuals is an execution. It was decided that these two individuals should be killed and they were killed. Why be squeamish about it? They weren't murdered.
An execution is killing someone on the verdict of a court. This was just a legitimate act of war.
Did we declare war on Syria?
No, and neither did we declare war on Argentina. In any case the enemy is the Caliphate which is occupying parts of Syria.
"If the public mood were the only thing to go by paediatricians would have been hanging from lampposts a few years back.
It is perfectly reasonable for the Sun to report yesterday's news in the way it did. But it is equally reasonable to report that following such unprecedented action the government and David Cameron will face questions about the decision that was taken. They will and they should. That is how a democracy works."
Bravo! Southam Observer's back! I thought you'd followed Cyclefree's lead and had been auditioning to become a collumnist for the Daily Mail.
The British Jihadists in Syria are out there involved in raping and marrying young girls, the torturing of children, the tearing apart of families and are openly cutting off the heads of innocent people in the streets. That's aside from barbequeing non-believers and the archaic practice of tying each limb of an infidel to four different horses and making those horses run in different directions.
They are smuggling themselves out of a tolerant, democratic country in order to take part in barbarism like this.
Bollocks to the acute legalities of it. If the British Army killed every single one of them and Cameron came to parliament to express his glee with a raised glass of brandy I wouldn't give a flying feck. It would increase the chances of young children and innocent families being saved from an evil, sickening ideology and a massive majority of Brits would support it.
Every minute the BBC spend handwringing about it Channel 4 should show repeats of their documentary of those amazingly brave Kurds on the Syrian border risking their lives to save their raped daughters from ISIS in Raqqa.
And don't forget that some of them are smuggling themselves back into our tolerant democratic country in order to bring their barbarism back with them.
I can't help but wonder about the genuineness of the 'paediatrician' graffiti incident. It strikes me as almost too literate a mistake to make for the type of person who would do it.
Meanwhile, in contrast to the Sun, the BBC line is that Cameron faces "questions" about the drone strikes. They quote Corbyn:
"Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn said "urgent consideration needs to be given to the appropriate process by which attacks such as this one are sanctioned, on what evidence and on what basis of law"." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34181475
I wonder who is closest to the public mood on this one?
Maybe they should get Chilcott to do a report on it so that the issue can be determined for the PM after next.
I think many people would sympathise in theory with the corbyn view but given this is the fist time it's happened and at a time of hysteria about all things Syria, I don't think most people would care enough about legalities at his point. After years of it happening and some errors, maybe then.
Given the way ordinary people stood at Wootten Bassett to honour the returning dead soldiers, I somehow doubt that they will sympathise with those who urge people to kill British soldiers, as Corbyn has done. I also doubt that they will sympathise with those who have publicly stated that they want to attack us in Britain as IS have done
You misinterpret what bit people might sympathise with In your anti corbyn haste - I mean they might sympathise with a level of unease over the precise legal justification, in case it is too broad, but that right now people won't care enough about that to press the issue.
Fair enough. One of the consequences - a baleful one - of Blair's misuse of intelligence before the Iraq war is a scepticism about government reliance on it. I have no problem with publication of legal advice provided it does not compromise our intelligence.
But I have no patience with those who seem to ignore the Government's primary duty, which is to keep us safe and protect us from our enemies which include these terrorist loons, and some of whom give the impression that they are more concerned with polishing their own moral halo or attacking the U.S. (as some woman on the Today programme was a few minutes ago) than preventing harm and stopping evil-doers.
Very well said (as usual). Are we really in for yet another day of the TV and online news being given over to those who think the 'uman rights of those who seek to destroy our country are more important than keeping the country safe from them..?
Asking Parliament for permission is a nonsense, (especially when time or surprise is a factor).
You're arguing against killing people who are rapists, murderers, torturers *and* who have been orchestrating terrorist plots against us.
I really don't understand the mindset.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Sandpit, coming hot on the heels of Saint Angela's migration policy, it's making the chattering classes [some, at least] look a world apart from reality.
We are about to have a Labour leader elected with the closest thing to a democratic mandate that a Labour leader has ever had. What right does anyone in the party have to challenge him? Why would that not be treating the membership with contempt (possibly deserved contempt but that is another matter)?
When Corbyn wins that is the settled view of the Labour membership. If the moderate section of the Labour party does not like it they can sod off somewhere else. That is the way democracy works. It's a bitch.
Quite so. Tissue puts his case well but it's actually not in the interest of anyone in Labour The party right would alienate the membership for a generation if they attempted to subvert the democratic outcome. It would be our own little version of Chile - a left-wing insurgency that plays by the agreed rules, wins an election, and then gets overthrown.
Also, the main plank of the right's case to floating members who quite like Corbyn and what he says is that Corbyn will lead the party to plumb depths of unpopularity. They need to allow that become evident. If it happens, the membership will bear it in mind next time. If the experiment is strangled at birth and a new election forced, Corbyn will simply win it with a larger majority.
The BBC reporter just referred to it as "an execution". So much for political impartiality.
How else would you describe it John, no different to what ISIS do , just more sophisticated weapons.
No, just an act of war. They are enemy combatants at war with us and call be killed with impunity, as we do In Iraq. The fact we had an additional reason for killing them is largely irrelevant. No one describes the killing of Reinhold Heydrich as an "execution". And with that recourse to Godwin I will get down to work.
Meanwhile, in contrast to the Sun, the BBC line is that Cameron faces "questions" about the drone strikes. They quote Corbyn:
"Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn said "urgent consideration needs to be given to the appropriate process by which attacks such as this one are sanctioned, on what evidence and on what basis of law"." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34181475
I wonder who is closest to the public mood on this one?
Maybe they should get Chilcott to do a report on it so that the issue can be determined for the PM after next.
I think many people would sympathise in theory with the corbyn view but given this is the fist time it's happened and at a time of hysteria about all things Syria, I don't think most people would care enough about legalities at his point. After years of it happening and some errors, maybe then.
Given the way ordinary people stood at Wootten Bassett to honour the returning dead soldiers, I somehow doubt that they will sympathise with those who urge people to kill British soldiers, as Corbyn has done. I also doubt that they will sympathise with those who have publicly stated that they want to attack us in Britain as IS have done
You misinterpret what bit people might sympathise with In your anti corbyn haste - I mean they might sympathise with a level of unease over the precise legal justification, in case it is too broad, but that right now people won't care enough about that to press the issue.
Fair enough. One of the consequences - a baleful one - of Blair's misuse of intelligence before the Iraq war is a scepticism about government reliance on it. I have no problem with publication of legal advice provided it does not compromise our intelligence.
But I have no patience with those who seem to ignore the Government's primary duty, which is to keep us safe and protect us from our enemies which include these terrorist loons, and some of whom give the impression that they are more concerned with polishing their own moral halo or attacking the U.S. (as some woman on the Today programme was a few minutes ago) than preventing harm and stopping evil-doers.
Very well said (as usual). Are we really in for yet another day of the TV and online news being given over to those who think the 'uman rights of those who seek to destroy our country are more important than keeping the country safe from them..?
You don't understand what "the rule of law" means, do you?
I haven't seen so much scorn poured on anyone since Nick Griffin appeared on QT. In this programme, the presenter appeared to be mostly laughing at Comrade Corbyn. I watched it twice just to make sure it was really was the complete hatchet job - it was. 0/10 for being unbiased.
I can only assume the BBC decided to throw the kitchen sink at him in a final attempt to derail #JezWeCan
What a load of absolute cobblers. I think if labour were to listen to PB Tories (who seem to be getting a disquieting proportion of time to spew their biased nonsense above the line as well as below these days) it would do well to do the opposite of whatever they say.
How does the government of any hue ..debate a strike against a known enemy and a known plan of attack on the country..without telling hose attackers that we are coming for them.. if we can get a majority vote in the commons..oh forget the surprise bit..
"If the public mood were the only thing to go by paediatricians would have been hanging from lampposts a few years back.
It is perfectly reasonable for the Sun to report yesterday's news in the way it did. But it is equally reasonable to report that following such unprecedented action the government and David Cameron will face questions about the decision that was taken. They will and they should. That is how a democracy works."
Bravo! Southam Observer's back! I thought you'd followed Cyclefree's lead and had been auditioning to become a collumnist for the Daily Mail.
I loathe the Daily Mail. I am one of only two people on here - TSE is the other one - who has said that they would be happy for the legal advice to be published. You seem to confuse me with some imaginary person in your head.
The British Jihadists in Syria are out there involved in raping and marrying young girls, the torturing of children, the tearing apart of families and are openly cutting off the heads of innocent people in the streets. That's aside from barbequeing non-believers and the archaic practice of tying each limb of an infidel to four different horses and making those horses run in different directions.
They are smuggling themselves out of a tolerant, democratic country in order to take part in barbarism like this.
Bollocks to the acute legalities of it. If the British Army killed every single one of them and Cameron came to parliament to express his glee with a raised glass of brandy I wouldn't give a flying feck. It would increase the chances of young children and innocent families being saved from an evil, sickening ideology and a massive majority of Brits would support it.
Every minute the BBC spend handwringing about it Channel 4 should show repeats of their documentary of those amazingly brave Kurds on the Syrian border risking their lives to save their raped daughters from ISIS in Raqqa.
And don't forget that some of them are smuggling themselves back into our tolerant democratic country in order to bring their barbarism back with them.
Yep, scary.
I'm very liberal on most things but unfortunately I have a dim view of the Jihadist tendencies in this country. Too many British Muslims tacitly take pleasure in attacks against Westerners and the dissembling over it has to stop.
I am convinced - frightening though it is - that some terrible things are going to take place in Britain soon and then after that....... it's just scary to contemplate.
The British Jihadists in Syria are out there involved in raping and marrying young girls, the torturing of children, the tearing apart of families and are openly cutting off the heads of innocent people in the streets. That's aside from barbequeing non-believers and the archaic practice of tying each limb of an infidel to four different horses and making those horses run in different directions.
They are smuggling themselves out of a tolerant, democratic country in order to take part in barbarism like this.
Bollocks to the acute legalities of it. If the British Army killed every single one of them and Cameron came to parliament to express his glee with a raised glass of brandy I wouldn't give a flying feck. It would increase the chances of young children and innocent families being saved from an evil, sickening ideology and a massive majority of Brits would support it.
Every minute the BBC spend handwringing about it Channel 4 should show repeats of their documentary of those amazingly brave Kurds on the Syrian border risking their lives to save their raped daughters from ISIS in Raqqa.
I would strongly object. I would want it to be Scotch.
MD Can you imagine the shrieking from the same people if Cameron had done nothing and the loons had been successful..Gonna be an interesting four years..
People should ask themselves this: If I had an opportunity to press a button to activate a drone missile and terminate the two murderers of Drummer Lee Rigby before they had the chance to behead him in a London street - would they do it? To personally have to push that button. I suspect 90%+ of Brits would say "Hell yeah...."
Mr. G, do you think killing ISIS soldiers is a bad thing?
The only misfortune is that a mere pair were killed.
MD , you do not know who they were or what they were doing , you just believe the pap Cameron and the media feed you. Just as likely they were being funded by us and had run off with the cash. We cannot complain about ISIS when we are blowing up people indiscriminately.
IA I certainly know what Defence of the Realm is and Cameron plus others are charged with that...What would you have done if he info had landed on.your desk. let me guess..
"The BBC reporter just referred to it as "an execution". So much for political impartiality."
Well as that is exactly what the Prime Minister has described what do you expect them to call it?
The legal and targeted killing of specific individuals is an execution. It was decided that these two individuals should be killed and they were killed. Why be squeamish about it? They weren't murdered.
An execution is killing someone on the verdict of a court. This was just a legitimate act of war.
Did we declare war on Syria?
Daesh pretty much declared war on us. The Syrian state is irrelevant.
Your "pretty much" gives away the truth - only states can declare war, and Da'esh neither is nor wants to be a state, as international law understands it, not least because Da'esh wants to abolish secular international law.
Why doesn't the Government try harder to get an international convention to deal with this unprecedented situation? Because it wants to sell arms to Saudi, and Saudi (or bits of it) fund Da'esh.
If Daesh doesn't want to be a state then the norms of diplomacy cannot apply.
I think many people would sympathise in theory with the corbyn view but given this is the fist time it's happened and at a time of hysteria about all things Syria, I don't think most people would care enough about legalities at his point. After years of it happening and some errors, maybe then.
Given the way ordinary people stood at Wootten Bassett to honour the returning dead soldiers, I somehow doubt that they will sympathise with those who urge people to kill British soldiers, as Corbyn has done. I also doubt that they will sympathise with those who have publicly stated that they want to attack us in Britain as IS have done
You misinterpret what bit people might sympathise with In your anti corbyn haste - I mean they might sympathise with a level of unease over the precise legal justification, in case it is too broad, but that right now people won't care enough about that to press the issue.
Fair enough. One of the consequences - a baleful one - of Blair's misuse of intelligence before the Iraq war is a scepticism about government reliance on it. I have no problem with publication of legal advice provided it does not compromise our intelligence.
But I have no patience with those who seem to ignore the Government's primary duty, which is to keep us safe and protect us from our enemies which include these terrorist loons, and some of whom give the impression that they are more concerned with polishing their own moral halo or attacking the U.S. (as some woman on the Today programme was a few minutes ago) than preventing harm and stopping evil-doers.
Very well said (as usual). Are we really in for yet another day of the TV and online news being given over to those who think the 'uman rights of those who seek to destroy our country are more important than keeping the country safe from them..?
You don't understand what "the rule of law" means, do you?
So it's somehow not okay to attack those who wish to kill our monarch, those who post videos of the assassination of British citizens?
These people are enemies of the State and should be treated as such, hopefully a few more of them will get the hint that there's a large target on their back now.
Mr. G, you think the Government made up an ISIS propaganda video a couple of years ago?
As for 'blowing people up indiscriminately' - a named individual was targeted. There were no civilian casualties.
Finally "We cannot complain about ISIS when we are blowing up people indiscriminately" - this is beneath you. You know ISIS commit industrial scale rape, have crucified children, attempted genocide against the Yazidis. Are you really saying 'complaining' about that is now illegitimate?
IA I certainly know what Defence of the Realm is and Cameron plus others are charged with that...What would you have done if he info had landed on.your desk. let me guess..
Anyone who is or wants to be Prime Minister (or even a local councillor) is morally vicious in my book. And yes, so are Muslim radicals.
We are about to have a Labour leader elected with the closest thing to a democratic mandate that a Labour leader has ever had. What right does anyone in the party have to challenge him? Why would that not be treating the membership with contempt (possibly deserved contempt but that is another matter)?
When Corbyn wins that is the settled view of the Labour membership. If the moderate section of the Labour party does not like it they can sod off somewhere else. That is the way democracy works. It's a bitch.
Quite so. Tissue puts his case well but it's actually not in the interest of anyone in Labour The party right would alienate the membership for a generation if they attempted to subvert the democratic outcome. It would be our own little version of Chile - a left-wing insurgency that plays by the agreed rules, wins an election, and then gets overthrown.
Also, the main plank of the right's case to floating members who quite like Corbyn and what he says is that Corbyn will lead the party to plumb depths of unpopularity. They need to allow that become evident. If it happens, the membership will bear it in mind next time. If the experiment is strangled at birth and a new election forced, Corbyn will simply win it with a larger majority.
Much as I loathe Corbyn, if Labour elect him then they will have to live with the consequences.
Mr. G, killing terrorists who sought to kill us is no bad thing. I'm quite surprised by your stance on this.
MD, I don't believe a word of it, these politicians lie for a living. They should not be allowed to murder people in our name without permission.
If it were Sturgeon and Salmond, that would be OK because they are pure as the driven snow and neither has told a single lie in their whole political careers?
"The BBC reporter just referred to it as "an execution". So much for political impartiality."
Well as that is exactly what the Prime Minister has described what do you expect them to call it?
The legal and targeted killing of specific individuals is an execution. It was decided that these two individuals should be killed and they were killed. Why be squeamish about it? They weren't murdered.
An execution is killing someone on the verdict of a court. This was just a legitimate act of war.
Did we declare war on Syria?
Daesh pretty much declared war on us. The Syrian state is irrelevant.
Your "pretty much" gives away the truth - only states can declare war, and Da'esh neither is nor wants to be a state, as international law understands it, not least because Da'esh wants to abolish secular international law.
Why doesn't the Government try harder to get an international convention to deal with this unprecedented situation? Because it wants to sell arms to Saudi, and Saudi (or bits of it) fund Da'esh.
If Daesh doesn't want to be a state then the norms of diplomacy cannot apply.
In that case, the rules of policing do. At the least, the government should not let the media crow about what ought to be covert operations. But perhaps you are like a boss I once had, who told me that I was "guilty of being accused" and therefore guilty...
"The BBC reporter just referred to it as "an execution". So much for political impartiality."
Well as that is exactly what the Prime Minister has described what do you expect them to call it?
The legal and targeted killing of specific individuals is an execution. It was decided that these two individuals should be killed and they were killed. Why be squeamish about it? They weren't murdered.
An execution is killing someone on the verdict of a court. This was just a legitimate act of war.
Did we declare war on Syria?
Daesh pretty much declared war on us. The Syrian state is irrelevant.
Your "pretty much" gives away the truth - only states can declare war, and Da'esh neither is nor wants to be a state, as international law understands it, not least because Da'esh wants to abolish secular international law.
Surely they do want to be a state, the fact that they call themselves "the Islamic State" is a bit of a clue. They occupy territory and by all accounts are putting machinery of government in place. Their fellow travellers in other countries are called "provinces' (wilayat). They are effectively an (unrecognized) country.
Mr. Abroad, comparing those who wish to win a democratic election to those who rape, torture, murder and plot terrorist attacks is madness.
No. It may be disagreeable, but whether or not it is mad depends on the means the "democrat" uses. Would you change your view of Muslim radicals if they ran a front party in elections? Of course not.
Asking Parliament for permission is a nonsense, (especially when time or surprise is a factor).
You're arguing against killing people who are rapists, murderers, torturers *and* who have been orchestrating terrorist plots against us.
I really don't understand the mindset.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Sandpit, coming hot on the heels of Saint Angela's migration policy, it's making the chattering classes [some, at least] look a world apart from reality.
MD , you are just making that up , you have no idea who these people were. You are taking government sponsored propaganda and believing it , despite all previous evidence that they lie constantly.
So many hand wringers out today, mewling like babies.
I doubt that given the chance, the scumbags on the receiving end of some good news from that Reaper, would hesitate to listen for a fraction of a second as any of you recited the ECHR, before blowing your brains out.
IA I certainly know what Defence of the Realm is and Cameron plus others are charged with that...What would you have done if he info had landed on.your desk. let me guess..
Anyone who is or wants to be Prime Minister (or even a local councillor) is morally vicious in my book. And yes, so are Muslim radicals.
Morally vicious? Or just having the spine to take decisions you never could?
"The BBC reporter just referred to it as "an execution". So much for political impartiality."
Well as that is exactly what the Prime Minister has described what do you expect them to call it?
The legal and targeted killing of specific individuals is an execution. It was decided that these two individuals should be killed and they were killed. Why be squeamish about it? They weren't murdered.
An execution is killing someone on the verdict of a court. This was just a legitimate act of war.
Did we declare war on Syria?
Daesh pretty much declared war on us. The Syrian state is irrelevant.
Your "pretty much" gives away the truth - only states can declare war, and Da'esh neither is nor wants to be a state, as international law understands it, not least because Da'esh wants to abolish secular international law.
Surely they do want to be a state, the fact that they call themselves "the Islamic State" is a bit of a clue. They occupy territory and by all accounts are putting machinery of government in place. Their fellow travellers in other countries are called "provinces' (wilayat). They are effectively an (unrecognized) country.
Mea culpa. If they do get control of Syria or wherever presumably then we will have to declare war on them and what then happens in the rest of the Arab world?
On the drone strike, it's noticeable that nobody here is much bothered by the killing per se - not JWiseman, not Roger, and not me either. But the suggestion (from a Tory MP, I think) that the "clear and present danger" bit and the general policy be reviewed by the Intelligence Select Committee (which operates in confidence and is authorised to see intelligence) seems a sensible move.
Whether military action in Syria is appropriate in view of Parliament's position is a separate issue. I don't think the line that it's not Parliament's business, it's the Royal Prerogative, will hold as a matter of settled policy - MPs will shrug off a single incident but they won't want to be routinely ignored. I suspect that Cameron will want to clarify it.
Asking Parliament for permission is a nonsense, (especially when time or surprise is a factor).
You're arguing against killing people who are rapists, murderers, torturers *and* who have been orchestrating terrorist plots against us.
I really don't understand the mindset.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Sandpit, coming hot on the heels of Saint Angela's migration policy, it's making the chattering classes [some, at least] look a world apart from reality.
MD , you are just making that up , you have no idea who these people were. You are taking government sponsored propaganda and believing it , despite all previous evidence that they lie constantly.
... and yet you never question a word said by the sainted Nicola despite the bollocks she comes out with.
MG.. It is so good to be talking to someone like you you who shows such foresight, sagacity,wit and sense of justice..I think you set the bench mark for total prattery..
On the drone strike, it's noticeable that nobody here is much bothered by the killing per se - not JWiseman, not Roger, and not me either. But the suggestion (from a Tory MP, I think) that the "clear and present danger" bit and the general policy be reviewed by the Intelligence Select Committee (which operates in confidence and is authorised to see intelligence) seems a sensible move.
[Snipped]
That may be sensible provided "live" intelligence sources are not compromised.
Has something like this been done before in similar cases, do you know?
Asking Parliament for permission is a nonsense, (especially when time or surprise is a factor).
You're arguing against killing people who are rapists, murderers, torturers *and* who have been orchestrating terrorist plots against us.
I really don't understand the mindset.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Sandpit, coming hot on the heels of Saint Angela's migration policy, it's making the chattering classes [some, at least] look a world apart from reality.
MD , you are just making that up , you have no idea who these people were. You are taking government sponsored propaganda and believing it , despite all previous evidence that they lie constantly.
... and yet you never question a word said by the sainted Nicola despite the bollocks she comes out with.
When the SNP leadership do it they call it "Misconstrued" instead.
On the drone strike, it's noticeable that nobody here is much bothered by the killing per se - not JWiseman, not Roger, and not me either. But the suggestion (from a Tory MP, I think) that the "clear and present danger" bit and the general policy be reviewed by the Intelligence Select Committee (which operates in confidence and is authorised to see intelligence) seems a sensible move.
[Snipped]
That may be sensible provided "live" intelligence sources are not compromised.
Has something like this been done before in similar cases, do you know?
Is the difference not simply that this time the PM decided to announce it to Parliament within a couple of weeks, rather than the details come out months or years later as has been the case in the past?
MD Can you imagine the shrieking from the same people if Cameron had done nothing and the loons had been successful..Gonna be an interesting four years..
People should ask themselves this: If I had an opportunity to press a button to activate a drone missile and terminate the two murderers of Drummer Lee Rigby before they had the chance to behead him in a London street - would they do it? To personally have to push that button. I suspect 90%+ of Brits would say "Hell yeah...."
Interesting... I said if happily see those two men given an alarm call with a baseball bat every morning, after they had been proven guilty, and was called all kinds of names on here.
I suspect a majority of brits would push that button now as well
Meanwhile, in contrast to the Sun, the BBC line is that Cameron faces "questions" about the drone strikes. They quote Corbyn:
"Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn said "urgent consideration needs to be given to the appropriate process by which attacks such as this one are sanctioned, on what evidence and on what basis of law"." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34181475
I wonder who is closest to the public mood on this one?
Maybe they should get Chilcott to do a report on it so that the issue can be determined for the PM after next.
I think many people would sympathise in theory with the corbyn view but given this is the fist time it's happened and at a time of hysteria about all things Syria, I don't think most people would care enough about legalities at his point. After years of it happening and some errors, maybe then.
I have suggested in the past that the best approach to those declaring for IS and related organisations is Outlawry. This would make it legal to kill them anywhere and by any means. They should be able to turn themselves in for trial as an option, but otherwise have the crosshairs on their face. I am fairly relaxed about drone strikes or special forces ambushes and raids with shoot to kill policy, coupled with extensive intelligence penetration and electronic surveillance. Similar strategy with supergrasses worked reasonably well against the IRA.
But we have now bombed a country at which we are not at war, and it at least mandates a bit of discussion on the legal niceties of a "dirty war".
Hi fox
A 68 yr old man with painful shins and a swollen foot.... What could be the cause?
Meanwhile, in contrast to the Sun, the BBC line is that Cameron faces "questions" about the drone strikes. They quote Corbyn:
"Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn said "urgent consideration needs to be given to the appropriate process by which attacks such as this one are sanctioned, on what evidence and on what basis of law"." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34181475
I wonder who is closest to the public mood on this one?
Maybe they should get Chilcott to do a report on it so that the issue can be determined for the PM after next.
I think many people would sympathise in theory with the corbyn view but given this is the fist time it's happened and at a time of hysteria about all things Syria, I don't think most people would care enough about legalities at his point. After years of it happening and some errors, maybe then.
I have suggested in the past that the best approach to those declaring for IS and related organisations is Outlawry. This would make it legal to kill them anywhere and by any means. They should be able to turn themselves in for trial as an option, but otherwise have the crosshairs on their face. I am fairly relaxed about drone strikes or special forces ambushes and raids with shoot to kill policy, coupled with extensive intelligence penetration and electronic surveillance. Similar strategy with supergrasses worked reasonably well against the IRA.
But we have now bombed a country at which we are not at war, and it at least mandates a bit of discussion on the legal niceties of a "dirty war".
Hi fox
A 68 yr old man with painful shins and a swollen foot.... What could be the cause?
It could be many things, needs looking at properly.
Outlawry is an interesting idea. Another ancient law we might think about reviving involves getting family members/neighbours to guarantee the behaviour of radical individuals and face legal consequences should those individuals misbehave.
Does anyone believe that these drones were targetted specifically on two people? It's complete bollocks
I suspect an ad campaign to run in Saudi for these amazing British drones that can find two wayward Brummies driving through the desert pretending to be Saladin
Wasn't Saladin Kurdish? They probably don't want to be him.
I recall a guest lecture at uni saying that Saladin was not as well known or reverted in the Muslim world until western historians focused on him for their own reasons - the noble opponent eye - as other leaders of the period were more pious or more successful. Interesting if true.
There's a very good French biography of him that is well worth reading.
On the drone strike, it's noticeable that nobody here is much bothered by the killing per se - not JWiseman, not Roger, and not me either. But the suggestion (from a Tory MP, I think) that the "clear and present danger" bit and the general policy be reviewed by the Intelligence Select Committee (which operates in confidence and is authorised to see intelligence) seems a sensible move.
I am bothered by the killing, but it seems to be inevitable becuase of militant islam's role with some brits. Review by the Intelligence Select Committee is essential. I like foxinsoxuk suggestion of declaring IS as outlaws.
What we have here, whether we agree on the Reaper operation or not, is that Cameron deliberately broke the rules of Government in that both he*, and particularly Fallon, authorised action leading to the extra judicial extermination of British Citizens in a an area where they were forbidden, by a vote in the House of Commons. Agreed by Cameron at the time of the vote, and confirmed by Fallon in the summer that armed UK Reapers would not be in service over Syria.
If you take Cameron's and Fallon's arguments to the logical conclusion, there is nobody in the UK or the world that if they are considered to have thoughts contrary to that held by the UK leadership, they would be terminated with extreme prejudice.
*One thing I did notice was that Cameron has not answered the question of why he wasn't involved in the decision to kill. Two options exist, 1/. that the operation was proceeding so fast that there wasn't time to find him and involve him in the decision, or 2/. that the military suspected that he didn't have the danglies to commit and kept him deliberately out of the loop.
For anyone who's interested in 9/11 - both C5 and More4 have had some superb documentaries on it - the tapes of the military/FAA as it unfolded, the firefighters/cops story, those saved in Stairwell B. Almost no commentary - just original footage and intv with those involved. I watched with my hand over my mouth in horror at several points.
"f the public mood were the only thing to go by paediatricians would have been hanging from lampposts a few years back."
A little unfair. I've no doubt you could find the odd loon as you describe, but it would be difficult to find any sympathy at all from the great mass of the public for the Cardiff duo.
A tragedy for the family but some good can come from it.
I remember being surprised by one of the 9/11 hijackers leaving a will specifying that his body not be handled by females. As if flying into a steel structure at hundreds of miles an hour while sitting on a thousand gallons of aviation fuel would leave more than a sooty speck behind.
They have a romantic view of their possible death, not being blown to bits without warning from the skies. A bit of realism might just discourage the odd one from going.
The British Jihadists in Syria are out there involved in raping and marrying young girls, the torturing of children, the tearing apart of families and are openly cutting off the heads of innocent people in the streets. That's aside from barbequeing non-believers and the archaic practice of tying each limb of an infidel to four different horses and making those horses run in different directions.
They are smuggling themselves out of a tolerant, democratic country in order to take part in barbarism like this.
Bollocks to the acute legalities of it. If the British Army killed every single one of them and Cameron came to parliament to express his glee with a raised glass of brandy I wouldn't give a flying feck. It would increase the chances of young children and innocent families being saved from an evil, sickening ideology and a massive majority of Brits would support it.
Every minute the BBC spend handwringing about it Channel 4 should show repeats of their documentary of those amazingly brave Kurds on the Syrian border risking their lives to save their raped daughters from ISIS in Raqqa.
I would like those individuals who join in the blood letting and rape brigade that ISIS has become..that if they plan to hit the UK then they will become legit targets.or come and argue their case in a court room..
BBC top article [previously about Cameron having questions to answer] is "Islamic State conflict: UK 'would repeat Syria drone strike' - nice and robust line from Fallon.
Also, comments enabled. Only a few. Currently not overflowing with tears for the dead lunatics.
Meanwhile, in contrast to the Sun, the BBC line is that Cameron faces "questions" about the drone strikes. They quote Corbyn:
"Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn said "urgent consideration needs to be given to the appropriate process by which attacks such as this one are sanctioned, on what evidence and on what basis of law"." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34181475
I wonder who is closest to the public mood on this one?
Maybe they should get Chilcott to do a report on it so that the issue can be determined for the PM after next.
I think many people would sympathise in theory with the corbyn view but given this is the fist time it's happened and at a time of hysteria about all things Syria, I don't think most people would care enough about legalities at his point. After years of it happening and some errors, maybe then.
I have suggested in the past that the best approach to those declaring for IS and related organisations is Outlawry. This would make it legal to kill them anywhere and by any means. They should be able to turn themselves in for trial as an option, but otherwise have the crosshairs on their face. I am fairly relaxed about drone strikes or special forces ambushes and raids with shoot to kill policy, coupled with extensive intelligence penetration and electronic surveillance. Similar strategy with supergrasses worked reasonably well against the IRA.
But we have now bombed a country at which we are not at war, and it at least mandates a bit of discussion on the legal niceties of a "dirty war".
Hi fox
A 68 yr old man with painful shins and a swollen foot.... What could be the cause?
It could be many things, needs looking at properly.
On the drone strike, it's noticeable that nobody here is much bothered by the killing per se - not JWiseman, not Roger, and not me either. But the suggestion (from a Tory MP, I think) that the "clear and present danger" bit and the general policy be reviewed by the Intelligence Select Committee (which operates in confidence and is authorised to see intelligence) seems a sensible move.
Whether military action in Syria is appropriate in view of Parliament's position is a separate issue. I don't think the line that it's not Parliament's business, it's the Royal Prerogative, will hold as a matter of settled policy - MPs will shrug off a single incident but they won't want to be routinely ignored. I suspect that Cameron will want to clarify it.
It's nice to have a post of yours that I wholly agree with.
Outlawry is an interesting idea. Another ancient law we might think about reviving involves getting family members/neighbours to guarantee the behaviour of radical individuals and face legal consequences should those individuals misbehave.
Only if the opinion polls consistently show Labour under Corbyn heading for certain electoral defeat in 2020 will his removal from the Labour leadership do anything other that guarantee that very defeat in 2020.
BBC top article [previously about Cameron having questions to answer] is "Islamic State conflict: UK 'would repeat Syria drone strike' - nice and robust line from Fallon.
Also, comments enabled. Only a few. Currently not overflowing with tears for the dead lunatics.
Unless I missed it not much discussion about Cameron's bloody nose last night, his honeymoon is well and truly over. All the talk of divisions in labour will disappear soon as the tories unravel over the EU. Corbyn has occupied the media for a couple of months but that won't last, labour will regroup while the migrant/EU issues (yes, they are related) give Cameron a far bigger headache.
One or two on here that have a blissful time since May will soon be on the defensive.
Meanwhile, in contrast to the Sun, the BBC line is that Cameron faces "questions" about the drone strikes. They quote Corbyn:
"Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn said "urgent consideration needs to be given to the appropriate process by which attacks such as this one are sanctioned, on what evidence and on what basis of law"." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34181475
I wonder who is closest to the public mood on this one?
Maybe they should get Chilcott to do a report on it so that the issue can be determined for the PM after next.
I think many people would sympathise in theory with the corbyn view but given this is the fist time it's happened and at a time of hysteria about all things Syria, I don't think most people would care enough about legalities at his point. After years of it happening and some errors, maybe then.
Given the way ordinary people stood at Wootten Bassett to honour the returning dead soldiers, I somehow doubt that they will sympathise with those who urge people to kill British soldiers, as Corbyn has done. I also doubt that they will sympathise with those who have publicly stated that they want to attack us in Britain as IS have done
You misinterpret what bit people might sympathise with In your anti corbyn haste - I mean they might sympathise with a level of unease over the precise legal justification, in case it is too broad, but that right now people won't care enough about that to press the issue.
Fair enough. One of the consequences - a baleful one - of Blair's misuse of intelligence before the Iraq war is a scepticism about government reliance on it. I have no problem with publication of legal advice provided it does not compromise our intelligence.
But I have no patience with those who seem to ignore the Government's primary duty, which is to keep us safe and protect us from our enemies which include these terrorist loons, and some of whom give the impression that they are more concerned with polishing their own moral halo or attacking the U.S. (as some woman on the Today programme was a few minutes ago) than preventing harm and stopping evil-doers.
Very well said (as usual). Are we really in for yet another day of the TV and online news being given over to those who think the 'uman rights of those who seek to destroy our country are more important than keeping the country safe from them..?
isam .. seriously.. and I am not a Doctor .. when your dad gets it all back in order then I would recommend a good 30 minute walk at least once a day.. I try to go up the track on a small mountain nearby... it is great for the CV as well..and the more you do the easier it gets..
Show of hands. Who believes this bullshit story that the intelligence services got wind of a terrorist plot to blow up a high profile target so they sent a drone to Al-Raqqah to take out the two miscreants? It's beyond incredible! They can't even find 'Jihad John'
My guess is post rationalization after a stray bomb
The British Jihadists in Syria are out there involved in raping and marrying young girls, the torturing of children, the tearing apart of families and are openly cutting off the heads of innocent people in the streets. That's aside from barbequeing non-believers and the archaic practice of tying each limb of an infidel to four different horses and making those horses run in different directions.
They are smuggling themselves out of a tolerant, democratic country in order to take part in barbarism like this.
Bollocks to the acute legalities of it. If the British Army killed every single one of them and Cameron came to parliament to express his glee with a raised glass of brandy I wouldn't give a flying feck. It would increase the chances of young children and innocent families being saved from an evil, sickening ideology and a massive majority of Brits would support it.
Every minute the BBC spend handwringing about it Channel 4 should show repeats of their documentary of those amazingly brave Kurds on the Syrian border risking their lives to save their raped daughters from ISIS in Raqqa.
Meanwhile, in contrast to the Sun, the BBC line is that Cameron faces "questions" about the drone strikes. They quote Corbyn:
"Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn said "urgent consideration needs to be given to the appropriate process by which attacks such as this one are sanctioned, on what evidence and on what basis of law"." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34181475
I wonder who is closest to the public mood on this one?
Maybe they should get Chilcott to do a report on it so that the issue can be determined for the PM after next.
I think many people would sympathise in theory with the corbyn view but given this is the fist time it's happened and at a time of hysteria about all things Syria, I don't think most people would care enough about legalities at his point. After years of it happening and some errors, maybe then.
I have suggested in the past that the best approach to those declaring for IS and related organisations is Outlawry. This would make it legal to kill them anywhere and by any means. They should be able to turn themselves in for trial as an option, but otherwise have the crosshairs on their face. I am fairly relaxed about drone strikes or special forces ambushes and raids with shoot to kill policy, coupled with extensive intelligence penetration and electronic surveillance. Similar strategy with supergrasses worked reasonably well against the IRA.
But we have now bombed a country at which we are not at war, and it at least mandates a bit of discussion on the legal niceties of a "dirty war".
Hi fox
A 68 yr old man with painful shins and a swollen foot.... What could be the cause?
It could be many things, needs looking at properly.
isam .. seriously.. and I am not a Doctor .. when your dad gets it all back in order then I would recommend a good 30 minute walk at least once a day.. I try to go up the track on a small mountain nearby... it is great for the CV as well..and the more you do the easier it gets..
Cheers Richard
He is quite active, was a semi pro footballer then academy coach at West Ham, PE teacher, still playing until 10-12 years ago. He hurt his leg kayaking in Genoa last week! But apparently that ( golf ball sized lump) is unrelated to the shin pain and swollen foot
He is on all manner of tablets though, high blood pressure, wolfarin etc
Unless I missed it not much discussion about Cameron's bloody nose last night, his honeymoon is well and truly over. All the talk of divisions in labour will disappear soon as the tories unravel over the EU. Corbyn has occupied the media for a couple of months but that won't last, labour will regroup while the migrant/EU issues (yes, they are related) give Cameron a far bigger headache.
One or two on here that have a blissful time since May will soon be on the defensive.
Well at least PB has a distinguished greybeard constituency to counsel against the impetuous advice of youngsters like me ;-) You are probably correct as it is of course a question of balancing risks as - provided you accept that Labour needs to move to the centre - the question ought to just be one of timing. There might not be the resolve or mechanism to pull off an immediate coup in any case (not least in preventing Corbyn or a Corbynite from standing again).
But the assumption that eventually Corbyn will do the decent thing, or that the PLP will move against him might not hold true either. There is clearly an existential threat here - at least as far as being a party that aspire to national power goes.
Show of hands. Who believes this bullshit story that the intelligence services got wind of a terrorist plot to blow up a high profile target so they sent a drone to Al-Raqqah to take out the two miscreants? It's beyond incredible! They can't even find 'Jihad John'
My guess is post rationalization after a stray bomb
Roger ..unspoofable..but let me fix it for you.."post rationalisation after a very accurate stray bomb"..there now.. is that better.. Don't forget to wear your tin hat today when you begin your trawl of the Riviera hotspots..waving at celebs who completely ignore you...
Wasn't that principle used to stamp out suttees in India when the law continued to be ignored? It was IIRC only by pulling in family members that the practice was stopped.
Outlawry is an interesting idea. Another ancient law we might think about reviving involves getting family members/neighbours to guarantee the behaviour of radical individuals and face legal consequences should those individuals misbehave.
Reluctant to engage with an anonymous bloke on Twitter, or even the sainted Dan Hodges, but when I was proposing ID cards I was on the other side of that argument - I suggested that people with nothing to hide had nothing to fear, and people said ah, but once the power is in place it may be misused.
"Was it reasonable to kill these particular people?" is a different question from "Should we be clear about the process and preconditions for Britain to kill our own citizens without trial?" The latter clarity is a perfectly reasonable demand, and it should be made irrespective of what most people feel about this specific case.
this article needs to be read while reminding oneself that the author does not necessarily have electoral success of the Labour party as their top priority.
Mind you, neither does the Labour party at the moment, apparently.
Mr. Palmer, I think that's a crock of an argument.
Forcing ID cards, and a database that would be a hacker's wet dream, on the whole population is a billion light years away from deliberating targeting and killing two terrorists actively seeking to kill Britons.
I think Cooper will be the next leader after Corbyn ; she feels confident enough and has the correct resume and it seems to me that without corbynmania she would have won this leadership race
Amazing how that stray bomb.. jettisoned over that vast desert just happened to land on two Islamic goons from Cardiff... who were known to the security people and considered a threat to the UK.. Absolutely amazing... well spotted Roger..stay low..they are just across that Med..
This sort of decision is faced by PM's occasionally, and is one of the many reasons I would never want to be PM.
Weighing everything up, I think they probably made the right decision, in a case where there were many dangers to both action and inaction.
Some thoughts:
1) It is interesting that they've chosen to release this information; it might have been easier to do it and then keep it quiet. Although this might cause long-term problems if the information was to leak out.
2) It might have been easier to get the Yanks or French to attack the car, both of whom would have little reason not to do so. Then we would have been able to say: "two brits killed in Syria," without any of the complexities that an attack by British forces has caused.
3) Does anyone believe Corbyn would have the strength to make such a decision, even if the situation was much more dire and imminent?
1) and 2) makes me think the government are sending messages. They did it by the most direct method which implicates them, and they want people to know about it. Whether morally right or wrong, it's strong action.
Unless I missed it not much discussion about Cameron's bloody nose last night, his honeymoon is well and truly over. All the talk of divisions in labour will disappear soon as the tories unravel over the EU. Corbyn has occupied the media for a couple of months but that won't last, labour will regroup while the migrant/EU issues (yes, they are related) give Cameron a far bigger headache.
One or two on here that have a blissful time since May will soon be on the defensive.
First the word, now the purd!
Changing the wording and last nights rebellion mean it's looking promising for the BOOers
Glad Cameron got defeated on purdah, but this is just a return to neutrality/a more level playing field. I still think In will win easily [though the migrant madness of Merkel might change that].
Reluctant to engage with an anonymous bloke on Twitter, or even the sainted Dan Hodges, but when I was proposing ID cards I was on the other side of that argument - I suggested that people with nothing to hide had nothing to fear, and people said ah, but once the power is in place it may be misused.
"Was it reasonable to kill these particular people?" is a different question from "Should we be clear about the process and preconditions for Britain to kill our own citizens without trial?" The latter clarity is a perfectly reasonable demand, and it should be made irrespective of what most people feel about this specific case.
Nothing to hide; nothing to fear is one of the oldest and most cliched arguments in the book.
I think it was a brave and politically right decision to make re these two.
They were our problem and it was up to us to take them out. Palming it off to the US or ANOther would've fixed the immediate issue - I'd be pretty unimpressed at that too.
It's the message that's the really strong impact here. Plot against your own countrymen/fight for a foreign flag, and expect to be taken down.
EDIT Have any other countries done anything similar? Have French forces killed their own citizens fighting for ISIS?
This sort of decision is faced by PM's occasionally, and is one of the many reasons I would never want to be PM.
Weighing everything up, I think they probably made the right decision, in a case where there were many dangers to both action and inaction.
Some thoughts:
1) It is interesting that they've chosen to release this information; it might have been easier to do it and then keep it quiet. Although this might cause long-term problems if the information was to leak out.
2) It might have been easier to get the Yanks or French to attack the car, both of whom would have little reason not to do so. Then we would have been able to say: "two brits killed in Syria," without none of the complexities that an attack by British forces has caused.
3) Does anyone believe Corbyn would have the strength to make such a decision, even if the situation was much more dire and imminent?
1) and 2) makes me think the government are sending messages. They did it by the most direct method which implicates them, and they want people to know about it. Whether morally right or wrong, it's strong action.
Reluctant to engage with an anonymous bloke on Twitter, or even the sainted Dan Hodges, but when I was proposing ID cards I was on the other side of that argument - I suggested that people with nothing to hide had nothing to fear, and people said ah, but once the power is in place it may be misused.
(snip)
The Pet Shop Boys wrote a song about that particular fallacious idea:
Amazing how that stray bomb.. jettisoned over that vast desert just happened to land on two Islamic goons from Cardiff... who were known to the security people and considered a threat to the UK.. Absolutely amazing... well spotted Roger..stay low..they are just across that Med..
Ha ha. Yes a "stray bomb" would be the silly excuse if we were trying to deny it.
Reluctant to engage with an anonymous bloke on Twitter, or even the sainted Dan Hodges, but when I was proposing ID cards I was on the other side of that argument - I suggested that people with nothing to hide had nothing to fear, and people said ah, but once the power is in place it may be misused.
Morning Nick
I don't think that is the other side of the argument at all. I think it is the same argument.
If you are a UK citizen in the UK, you should not fear your government, and you should expect privacy.
If you then travel abroad explicitly to join a death cult, and make explicit threats against the UK, you should expect to be targetted, i think.
Comments
"If the public mood were the only thing to go by paediatricians would have been hanging from lampposts a few years back.
It is perfectly reasonable for the Sun to report yesterday's news in the way it did. But it is equally reasonable to report that following such unprecedented action the government and David Cameron will face questions about the decision that was taken. They will and they should. That is how a democracy works."
Bravo! Southam Observer's back! I thought you'd followed Cyclefree's lead and had been auditioning to become a collumnist for the Daily Mail.
The only misfortune is that a mere pair were killed.
Asking Parliament for permission is a nonsense, (especially when time or surprise is a factor).
You're arguing against killing people who are rapists, murderers, torturers *and* who have been orchestrating terrorist plots against us.
I really don't understand the mindset.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Sandpit, coming hot on the heels of Saint Angela's migration policy, it's making the chattering classes [some, at least] look a world apart from reality.
Also, the main plank of the right's case to floating members who quite like Corbyn and what he says is that Corbyn will lead the party to plumb depths of unpopularity. They need to allow that become evident. If it happens, the membership will bear it in mind next time. If the experiment is strangled at birth and a new election forced, Corbyn will simply win it with a larger majority.
I haven't seen so much scorn poured on anyone since Nick Griffin appeared on QT. In this programme, the presenter appeared to be mostly laughing at Comrade Corbyn. I watched it twice just to make sure it was really was the complete hatchet job - it was. 0/10 for being unbiased.
I can only assume the BBC decided to throw the kitchen sink at him in a final attempt to derail #JezWeCan
I'm very liberal on most things but unfortunately I have a dim view of the Jihadist tendencies in this country. Too many British Muslims tacitly take pleasure in attacks against Westerners and the dissembling over it has to stop.
I am convinced - frightening though it is - that some terrible things are going to take place in Britain soon and then after that....... it's just scary to contemplate.
We cannot complain about ISIS when we are blowing up people indiscriminately.
These people are enemies of the State and should be treated as such, hopefully a few more of them will get the hint that there's a large target on their back now.
As for 'blowing people up indiscriminately' - a named individual was targeted. There were no civilian casualties.
Finally "We cannot complain about ISIS when we are blowing up people indiscriminately" - this is beneath you. You know ISIS commit industrial scale rape, have crucified children, attempted genocide against the Yazidis. Are you really saying 'complaining' about that is now illegitimate?
Are the parallels with corbyns "a tragedy" re bin laden? And with the deaths announced yesterday?
http://youtu.be/PAxOwJjoGXI
I doubt that given the chance, the scumbags on the receiving end of some good news from that Reaper, would hesitate to listen for a fraction of a second as any of you recited the ECHR, before blowing your brains out.
Whether military action in Syria is appropriate in view of Parliament's position is a separate issue. I don't think the line that it's not Parliament's business, it's the Royal Prerogative, will hold as a matter of settled policy - MPs will shrug off a single incident but they won't want to be routinely ignored. I suspect that Cameron will want to clarify it.
... and yet you never question a word said by the sainted Nicola despite the bollocks she comes out with.
Has something like this been done before in similar cases, do you know?
Legal advice, what legal advice..?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9628949/Alex-Salmond-denies-barefaced-lies-over-Scotland-euro-membership.html
I suspect a majority of brits would push that button now as well
A 68 yr old man with painful shins and a swollen foot.... What could be the cause?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2015/09/why-did-labour-use-system-elect-its-leader
You can get it in translation if you prefer...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Saladin-Anne-marie-Edde/dp/0674055594/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441700041&sr=8-1&keywords=anne-marie+edde
Yes, it appears we are...
@WeezyDJ2: Have I really woken up to hear that the British PM has unlimited powers to kill anyone, anywhere in the world? I'm scared. #r4today
@spinthosewheels: I'm not planning any terrorist attacks so I'm not. No one outside Guardian bedwetter land gives a fuck. https://t.co/OdqV3s4geN
If you take Cameron's and Fallon's arguments to the logical conclusion, there is nobody in the UK or the world that if they are considered to have thoughts contrary to that held by the UK leadership, they would be terminated with extreme prejudice.
*One thing I did notice was that Cameron has not answered the question of why he wasn't involved in the decision to kill. Two options exist, 1/. that the operation was proceeding so fast that there wasn't time to find him and involve him in the decision, or 2/. that the military suspected that he didn't have the danglies to commit and kept him deliberately out of the loop.
When we get polling on this, it'll be interesting to see how things stack up [with caveats about the potential inaccuracy of polling].
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/911-elite-rescue-cops
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/911-the-lost-tapes
And the rest http://www.channel4.com/search?q=911
Also, comments enabled. Only a few. Currently not overflowing with tears for the dead lunatics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34181475
He's going to see someone tonight about it, just wondered and didn't want to google and find out it was the plague
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/641164979283095552
One or two on here that have a blissful time since May will soon be on the defensive.
My guess is post rationalization after a stray bomb
Plague unlikely. It usually starts in the armpits...
He is quite active, was a semi pro footballer then academy coach at West Ham, PE teacher, still playing until 10-12 years ago. He hurt his leg kayaking in Genoa last week! But apparently that ( golf ball sized lump) is unrelated to the shin pain and swollen foot
He is on all manner of tablets though, high blood pressure, wolfarin etc
Well at least PB has a distinguished greybeard constituency to counsel against the impetuous advice of youngsters like me ;-) You are probably correct as it is of course a question of balancing risks as - provided you accept that Labour needs to move to the centre - the question ought to just be one of timing. There might not be the resolve or mechanism to pull off an immediate coup in any case (not least in preventing Corbyn or a Corbynite from standing again).
But the assumption that eventually Corbyn will do the decent thing, or that the PLP will move against him might not hold true either. There is clearly an existential threat here - at least as far as being a party that aspire to national power goes.
"Was it reasonable to kill these particular people?" is a different question from "Should we be clear about the process and preconditions for Britain to kill our own citizens without trial?" The latter clarity is a perfectly reasonable demand, and it should be made irrespective of what most people feel about this specific case.
Mind you, neither does the Labour party at the moment, apparently.
Forcing ID cards, and a database that would be a hacker's wet dream, on the whole population is a billion light years away from deliberating targeting and killing two terrorists actively seeking to kill Britons.
Weighing everything up, I think they probably made the right decision, in a case where there were many dangers to both action and inaction.
Some thoughts:
1) It is interesting that they've chosen to release this information; it might have been easier to do it and then keep it quiet. Although this might cause long-term problems if the information was to leak out.
2) It might have been easier to get the Yanks or French to attack the car, both of whom would have little reason not to do so. Then we would have been able to say: "two brits killed in Syria," without any of the complexities that an attack by British forces has caused.
3) Does anyone believe Corbyn would have the strength to make such a decision, even if the situation was much more dire and imminent?
1) and 2) makes me think the government are sending messages. They did it by the most direct method which implicates them, and they want people to know about it. Whether morally right or wrong, it's strong action.
Changing the wording and last nights rebellion mean it's looking promising for the BOOers
Glad Cameron got defeated on purdah, but this is just a return to neutrality/a more level playing field. I still think In will win easily [though the migrant madness of Merkel might change that].
She had the job previously (forget if it was pre- or post-Blair) on an interim basis. Perhaps too old/disinterested now?
As an aside, she backed Corbyn and apparently regrets it rather a lot.
They were our problem and it was up to us to take them out. Palming it off to the US or ANOther would've fixed the immediate issue - I'd be pretty unimpressed at that too.
It's the message that's the really strong impact here. Plot against your own countrymen/fight for a foreign flag, and expect to be taken down.
EDIT Have any other countries done anything similar? Have French forces killed their own citizens fighting for ISIS?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wXMnjLU63I
http://www.politico.eu/article/jeremy-corbyn-labour-tories-uk-politics-cameron/
I don't think that is the other side of the argument at all. I think it is the same argument.
If you are a UK citizen in the UK, you should not fear your government, and you should expect privacy.
If you then travel abroad explicitly to join a death cult, and make explicit threats against the UK, you should expect to be targetted, i think.