ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

[dowie]

No not every time, just the ones where parliament had already voted against military action

they haven't, that vote was over whether to join a bombing campaign against the Assad regime

you're not going to get a vote in parliament for a dingle drone strike against an individual - when parliament approved action against ISIS in Iraq the government made clear it didn't limit them from taking other measures when necessary

 

[Freakbro]

The Govt. had intelligence that immediately required individuals to be taken out, you may not believe it that's your prerogative.

Some things can't wait, even for you.

Which part of the' information doesn't need to be public' do you fail to understand?

Also, no-one is saying they have to wait, but are you saying the Government can act with carte blanche with no scrutiny of their actions just because they use the Terrorism card?

they haven't, that vote was over whether to join a bombing campaign against the Assad regime

you're not going to get a vote in parliament for a dingle drone strike against an individual - when parliament approved action against ISIS in Iraq the government made clear it didn't limit them from taking other measures when necessary

No argument there, but see above, that doesn't mean they don't have to justify their actions after the event...and no, not to the public - but to parliament.

I personally don't give 2 hoots two guys fighting over there got killed, but I'm glad to see the opposition holding the Govt to account....That's what they are there for

 

[joeyjojo]

Why are the BBC news trying to find out all the legalities of these airstrikes!

Can't they get it into there thick heads that it's top secret Intel which puts other people's life's at risk.

The problem isn't so much whether the intel was up to snuff, it's the lack of oversight in the decision-making process.

At the very least the PM's/military's decision to kill Britons should be going through one or more judges. Even a secret court would be preferable to the extra-judicial process that happened to authorise these strikes.

To the multitude of mouth-frothing posts in this thread I'd like to point out it's not "soft" to question the legality of airstrikes on Britons. As I've written before, it's just one step away from the army being permitted to pre-emptively shoot people in the street.

 

[arknor]

they should have had their citizenship revoked and stopped being British the moment they left to fight for a force that is against everything our country stands for.

the fact they are being called british makes me sick

 

[RoboCod]

Funny isn't it, probably very few of you would trust what a politician says 99% of the time, but here, all they have to say is 'they were planning attacks' and you all lap it up!

You don't need to trust the governments words, just trust the offending terrorist' words...

no proof..apart from their videos and own words

I think holding the governments actions to justifiable account is a cornerstone of our democracy and bears no relevance to ones stance against terrorism.

Agreed, but you also need to trust in your own government to maintain your safety.

 

[MookJong]

No tears lost from me, however the justification being a plan to attack the VE day celebration (a past event) makes little sense.

 

[Amp34]

Why are the BBC news trying to find out all the legalities of these airstrikes!

Can't they get it into there thick heads that it's top secret Intel which puts other people's life's at risk.

Start supporting our government in there actions!

Because we should blindly follow the government without questioning anything?

We are a democracy, not a dictatorship and people have the right to ask questions and keep he government on the straight and narrow.

 

[Amp34]

The Govt. had intelligence that immediately required individuals to be taken out, you may not believe it that's your prerogative.

Some things can't wait, even for you.

Actually it seems the decision to take these two out was taken months ago. It sounds like this time was the first opportunity to do so.

Edit:

“In addition to Reyaad Khan who was the target of the strike, two [Isis] associates were also killed, one of whom – Ruhul Amin, has been identified as a UK national. They were [Isis] fighters and I can confirm there were no civilian casualties.”

The strikes were authorised by the prime minister at a meeting of senior members of the national security council some months ago after intelligence agencies presented evidence to ministers that Khan and Hussain were planning to attack commemorative events in the UK.

It is understood that the two events were the VE Day commemorations, presided over by the Queen at Westminster Abbey on 10 May, and a ceremony to mark the murder of Lee Rigby in Woolwich on armed forces day on 27 June. The Sun reported on 27 June that Hussain had allegedly admitted instructing undercover reporters how to attack soldiers on armed forces day.

The preparations took place over a period of months after the intelligence agencies briefed ministers. The prime minister then convened a meeting of senior members of the national security council attended by the attorney general, Jeremy Wright, who advised that a strike would be legal on the grounds of self defence.

Government sources said that ministers then “agreed an approach” – a strike by an unmanned RAF Reaper drone – and authorised intelligence agents and the RAF to identify the right moment to strike.

http://gu.com/p/4c794?

 

[Hades]

 

[gettothechopper]

they should have had their citizenship revoked and stopped being British the moment they left to fight for a force that is against everything our country stands for.

the fact they are being called british makes me sick

Its against international law to make citizens born in your country stateless

They are just as British as you or me, as sick as that makes you its still true, commiting a crime or being on our enemies side doesnt change that either

 

[Amp34]

they should have had their citizenship revoked and stopped being British the moment they left to fight for a force that is against everything our country stands for.

the fact they are being called british makes me sick

Petition to change the law then.

You'll have to petition both the UK government and International community as a whole though.

 

[Spacedeck]

Why are BBC pushing this? I don't see the issue. We wouldn't allow them back into this country with open arms. They would instantly be arrested and sentenced under some acts of terrorism. Plus isn't the whole point to get rid of them? That's just two less terrorists to deal with.

 

[gettothechopper]

Why are BBC pushing this? I don't see the issue. We wouldn't allow them back into this country with open arms. They would instantly be arrested and sentenced under some acts of terrorism. Plus isn't the whole point to get rid of them? That's just two less terrorists to deal with.

you dont, i dont ,some people do though

some people rag on about anything to do with "drones" as well - like they watched too much terminator or something

 

[FTM]

the other thing to bear in mind..these were not 'suspects' as we would view them over here were they were plotting terrorism..in which case they would face arrest and due process (assuming they didnt arm themselves and resist)

they confessed on camera to being soldiers for their new adopted state and encouraged others to kill

as far as I can see if you are stupid enough to leave the uk then parade yourself in front of a camera telling everybody you are going to carry out jihad on the uk and its citizens then we dont need a trial..you are an enemy of the state and an enemy combatant, and you should expect a 500lb paveway through you bedroom window

if you leave to fight for an avowed enemy of the uk, for an entity that wishes to kill and has killed uk civilians in the most brutal way possible...then you should face the consequences that come with those actions..we can identify these people as they are stupid enough to maintain a social media profile and we should have a hit list..and let them know they are on it, let them live in fear...and let everybody else that leaves to join them know what to expect

 

[joeyjojo]

Why are BBC pushing this? I don't see the issue. We wouldn't allow them back into this country with open arms. They would instantly be arrested and sentenced under some acts of terrorism. Plus isn't the whole point to get rid of them? That's just two less terrorists to deal with.

You just explained it perfectly. They would have been arrested and tried, in a court with a judge. Since they were in a lawless region though where our government couldn't get at them they went straight to "execution by missiles" instead.

Even worse, the decision seems to have been taken by Cameron and Hammond with no other legal backing than the attorney general saying there was a "legal basis" which they've refused to share in parliament.

The BBC paraphrasing Kat Craig (Reprieve) puts it succinctly: 'the prime minister "has given himself a secret, unreviewable power" to kill anyone anywhere in the world at any time'.

as far as I can see if you are stupid enough to leave the uk then parade yourself in front of a camera telling everybody you are going to carry out jihad on the uk and its citizens then we dont need a trial..you are an enemy of the state and an enemy combatant, and you should expect a 500lb paveway through you bedroom window

Have you read 1984? This is thought-policing.

 

[jas72]

Its against international law to make citizens born in your country stateless

They are just as British as you or me, as sick as that makes you its still true, commiting a crime or being on our enemies side doesnt change that either

Doesn't the IS claim to be a country therefore they signed up to that state even if the international community doesn't recognise it as one (they will eventually when it comes to dividing up Iraq and Syria during peace negotiations.).

You are free to change nationality, if your adopted country is willing to have you.

 

[Skunkworks]

They were ISIS, that's where the conversation ends.

 

[FTM]

Have you read 1984? This is thought-policing.

except its not..we have not second guessed them or used covert means to find out what they think

they were quite happy to go on camera and ally themselves with a group that burns prisoners alive, beheads aid workers and throws people off buildings, they bought into that and wanted to be a part of it

they were happy to encourage others to join and happy enough to wave goodbye to any rights here for a shot at killing some people in the name of their faith

and yes , they most probably face trial here...but they are not here, they are in a war zone..so we have responded in kind

we could legally bomb them in had they been in Iraq.....so now its just legal terms to argue about, not moral ones

personally I would have sent them a text seconds before the bomb hit..just to let them know who was killing them.....

 

[RDM]

At the very least the PM's/military's decision to kill Britons should be going through one or more judges.

I disagree, I think having a judge have to OK every military operation would be a very good way to completely hamstring our military. The people in question were working for a military force that we are currently at war with. That makes them legitimate targets as far as the military are concerned.

To the multitude of mouth-frothing posts in this thread I'd like to point out it's not "soft" to question the legality of airstrikes on Britons. As I've written before, it's just one step away from the army being permitted to pre-emptively shoot people in the street.

Not really as the people concerned were in an active warzone in an effectively stateless area working for an enemy force. Killing the enemy is pretty much the main purpose of the military.

 

[FoxEye]

Why are the BBC news trying to find out all the legalities of these airstrikes!

Can't they get it into there thick heads that it's top secret Intel which puts other people's life's at risk.

Start supporting our government in there actions!

I sometimes wonder exactly what agenda the BBC are pushing, or if they are all pulling in different directions.

Sometimes they will spread the govt's propaganda, like advocating action against Assad, calling him a brutal dictator, and presenting the case for war.

Now they want to challenge the legality of the UK's air strikes on ISIS members.