ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

Still can't believe the murky claims being made by the government around the legality of drone strikes.

Just heard Dominic Grieve on Radio 4 saying it would be preferable to bring him to justice in the normal way, but as this isn't possible then assassinating him (my wording) is legal.

Apparently extrajudicial killing in this case is legal as "self-defence", despite Emwazi being unlikely to personally be a threat to the UK or Britons. He isn't even a military target, he's an IS executioner, so killing him can only be seen as a propaganda effort.

Grieve was rightly pressed that actually this appears to have been a case of retributive justice - killing him for his previous (very high profile) murders of Britons. This might get popular support (especially in this thread) but it's disgraceful IMO.
 
Bye, bye JJ.

One case where I unequivocally support the death penalty, no appeal, no reprieve (the same chance his victims had).

Only shame is he probably felt nothing, though hopefully he did get a phone call a few seconds before the impact just so he knew it was coming...
 
joeyjojo said:
Still can't believe the murky claims being made by the government around the legality of drone strikes.

Just heard Dominic Grieve on Radio 4 saying it would be preferable to bring him to justice in the normal way, but as this isn't possible then assassinating him (my wording) is legal.

Apparently extrajudicial killing in this case is legal as "self-defence", despite Emwazi being unlikely to personally be a threat to the UK or Britons. He isn't even a military target, he's an IS executioner, so killing him can only be seen as a propaganda effort.

Grieve was rightly pressed that actually this appears to have been a case of retributive justice - killing him for his previous (very high profile) murders of Britons. This might get popular support (especially in this thread) but it's disgraceful IMO.
Click to expand...

He is a member of ISIL, he was acting to orchestrate recruitment and attacks. As a member of ISIL he is a legitimate target as outlined by the Target Set in the Targetting Directive. Assassination is the wrong term. He was a valid military target.
 
joeyjojo said:
Still can't believe the murky claims being made by the government around the legality of drone strikes.

Just heard Dominic Grieve on Radio 4 saying it would be preferable to bring him to justice in the normal way, but as this isn't possible then assassinating him (my wording) is legal.

Apparently extrajudicial killing in this case is legal as "self-defence", despite Emwazi being unlikely to personally be a threat to the UK or Britons. He isn't even a military target, he's an IS executioner, so killing him can only be seen as a propaganda effort.

Grieve was rightly pressed that actually this appears to have been a case of retributive justice - killing him for his previous (very high profile) murders of Britons. This might get popular support (especially in this thread) but it's disgraceful IMO.
Click to expand...

I think the tears you're shedding will not be shared by many members of the public outside of the Islamic community.
 
joeyjojo said:
Apparently extrajudicial killing in this case is legal as "self-defence", despite Emwazi being unlikely to personally be a threat to the UK or Britons.
Click to expand...

Are you damaged in the head? How is an executioner who actively kills British and other western hostages not a thread to 'Britons' - he is quite clearly a threat. He has already killed British people and intends to carry on doing so.

They're quite right to point out we can't bring him to justice in the normal way... do you expect the met to just drive over there and place him in handcuffs?
 
dowie said:
Are you damaged in the head? How is an executioner who actively kills British and other western hostages not a thread to 'Britons' - he is quite clearly a threat. He has already killed British people and intends to carry on doing so.

They're quite right to point out we can't bring him to justice in the normal way... do you expect the met to just drive over there and place him in handcuffs?
Click to expand...

Jihadi John? You're nicked, son.
 
I didn't expect anything less than the above but should make one clarification.

I have no comment on whether he should have been put to death as he (probably) was. Some think the death penalty in cases like this is appropriate, others not.

I just wish the government would put together a proper legal framework for killings like these. Essentially what they've done here is killed a British man because either

A) he murdered people in the past
B) he's likely to murder people in the future

If it's A, then this is a retributive capital punishment, which obviously is nowhere near legal.

The government therefore is saying it's B, he posed an immediate risk. But I don't buy that. That justification would make sense if e.g. a dangerous armed person was here in the UK and couldn't be safely arrested and put on trial, you'd expect the police to kill him. But this guy wasn't an immediate threat - for one thing it takes months of intelligence gathering to work out where he is and track him, arrange the strike, etc.

Imagine if he was here in the UK and they couldn't arrest him for some reason so they bombed his car while he was driving around "just in case" he became a danger. That would obviously be illegal.

Edit: actually the Americans are taking credit for it which gets our govt out of some hot water (murdering your own nationals is more problematic than foreigners).
 
Last edited:
After the attacks in Tunisia where British people where targeted I am completely distraught at this countries lack of conviction in coming to the defence of its citizens. That should have resulted in the full force of our troops to the middle east and a full scale war to eradicate he scum that are causing such attacks.

I would denounce being a brit if they where my relatives and we didn't go to full scale war over it.
 
Also the death penalty is not something I would want anyone who killed someone I cared about to have. It's likely the death penalty is quick and painless. What they did to recieve this was not quick and painless.

I would want them to suffer. Almost kill him then heal him up rinse and repeat. Each death they caused would equate to one cycle.
 
Last edited:
joeyjojo said:
I didn't expect anything less than the above but should make one clarification.

I have no comment on whether he should have been put to death as he (probably) was. Some think the death penalty in cases like this is appropriate, others not.

I just wish the government would put together a proper legal framework for killings like these. Essentially what they've done here is killed a British man because either

A) he murdered people in the past
B) he's likely to murder people in the future

If it's A, then this is a retributive capital punishment, which obviously is nowhere near legal.

The government therefore is saying it's B, he posed an immediate risk. But I don't buy that. That justification would make sense if e.g. a dangerous armed person was here in the UK and couldn't be safely arrested and put on trial, you'd expect the police to kill him. But this guy wasn't an immediate threat - for one thing it takes months of intelligence gathering to work out where he is and track him, arrange the strike, etc.

Imagine if he was here in the UK and they couldn't arrest him for some reason so they bombed his car while he was driving around "just in case" he became a danger. That would obviously be illegal.

Edit: actually the Americans are taking credit for it which gets our govt out of some hot water (murdering your own nationals is more problematic than foreigners).
Click to expand...


What would you have liked to happened with him?
 
joeyjojo said:
I didn't expect anything less than the above but should make one clarification.

I have no comment on whether he should have been put to death as he (probably) was. Some think the death penalty in cases like this is appropriate, others not.

I just wish the government would put together a proper legal framework for killings like these. Essentially what they've done here is killed a British man because either

A) he murdered people in the past
B) he's likely to murder people in the future

If it's A, then this is a retributive capital punishment, which obviously is nowhere near legal.

The government therefore is saying it's B, he posed an immediate risk. But I don't buy that. That justification would make sense if e.g. a dangerous armed person was here in the UK and couldn't be safely arrested and put on trial, you'd expect the police to kill him. But this guy wasn't an immediate threat - for one thing it takes months of intelligence gathering to work out where he is and track him, arrange the strike, etc.

Imagine if he was here in the UK and they couldn't arrest him for some reason so they bombed his car while he was driving around "just in case" he became a danger. That would obviously be illegal.

Edit: actually the Americans are taking credit for it which gets our govt out of some hot water (murdering your own nationals is more problematic than foreigners).
Click to expand...

Are you mad, who cares if it's illegal or not.
 
joeyjojo said:
I didn't expect anything less than the above but should make one clarification.

I have no comment on whether he should have been put to death as he (probably) was. Some think the death penalty in cases like this is appropriate, others not.

I just wish the government would put together a proper legal framework for killings like these. Essentially what they've done here is killed a British man because either

A) he murdered people in the past
B) he's likely to murder people in the future

If it's A, then this is a retributive capital punishment, which obviously is nowhere near legal.

The government therefore is saying it's B, he posed an immediate risk. But I don't buy that. That justification would make sense if e.g. a dangerous armed person was here in the UK and couldn't be safely arrested and put on trial, you'd expect the police to kill him. But this guy wasn't an immediate threat - for one thing it takes months of intelligence gathering to work out where he is and track him, arrange the strike, etc.

Imagine if he was here in the UK and they couldn't arrest him for some reason so they bombed his car while he was driving around "just in case" he became a danger. That would obviously be illegal.

Edit: actually the Americans are taking credit for it which gets our govt out of some hot water (murdering your own nationals is more problematic than foreigners).
Click to expand...

Irrelevant, he had to die and i'm glad he has.
 
Spook187 said:
Are you mad, who cares if it's illegal or not.
Click to expand...

Because principles?

No-one can be sad at his killing, but it does make me a little uncomfortable that rather than bring people to justice, we carry out drone strikes as an alternative. The bloke posed a threat to Britain but no moreso than the rest of his ISIS colleagues. Wars are not waged against individuals, so it is hard to justify this as a military action.

At a very high level, we've killed a bloke because we don't agree with him because he killed people who didn't agree with him. It doesn't sit right with me. We've worked hard to build a justice system. I would much rather have seen Bin Laden and others held to account for their actions and sentenced accordingly, this way out is too easy.
 
joeyjojo said:
B) he's likely to murder people in the future

The government therefore is saying it's B, he posed an immediate risk. But I don't buy that.

But this guy wasn't an immediate threat
Click to expand...

Tell that to Alan Hennings family and the other poor souls who Jihadi John murdered.

If he had it his way we would all be dead.
 
Am I the only one seeing this high brow pontificating over slaughtering a mad animal saddening, and wondering just where the loyalty of seemingly sane British citizens lies?

If one only looks at the cost and shame of previous cases brought to trial in the UK and then allowed to run and run to the advantage only of greedy lawyers and their leftist support groups, then a long term surveillance and a state of the art rocket is money well spent. If we are indeed engaged in a war on terror, how much better a target do people want??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom