Be Excellent To Each Other

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_test
linked from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defe ... tional_law

I wonder if we were under "imminent attack"

Yeah; it's tricky. I think the right to life in things like this is extinguished by being in prep to do the naughties and imminent is a flexible term. Best example I can think of would be the SAS killing the IRA people on Gibraltar and the brouhaha that followed. I think it was Operation Flavius .

Ah, now, come on. That was a face to face confrontation in a public place. Can't really be compared to a drone strike, can it?

Even my liberal lefty inclinations can't find too much to object to here, if you're going to fuck off to Syria and perform in ISIS recruitment videos and fight alongside them, and plan to come back here to murder British people, you're fair game really.

If there's a list of motherfuckers to get blown up by a missile from a drone, they're sure as hell on it.

It is the closest I can think of where bombs were being planned and people died at the hands of the state. I'm not sure if using a drone is much different. It could be described as augmented vision maybe by people cleverer than I. I think the beginning (imminent threat and need for self defense) and the end (dead people) are the important bits and it's as long as you are not using a sledgehammer to crack a nut it's all good.

So it would have been ok if the SAS had shot them face to face? What difference does it make other than we didnt risk anyones life from our side to acheive the same objective.

How could they have returned to be a threat to "British Streets" though? They are were known faces and couldn't have returned without paddling a dinghy with the all the migrants refugees flooding through Europe.

What I'm trying to say is that I feel very uncomfortable about drones targeting and killing British Citizens on foreign soil.

Oh, yes, Deffo. I agree.

They were planning to "kill the Queen on VJ day".
From Wikipedia "Under the law of the United Kingdom, high treason is the crime of disloyalty to the Crown. Offences constituting high treason include plotting the murder of the sovereign"
Allegedly the AG reviewed said evidence, in lieu of justifying a pre-emptive self-defence strike

The fact that this evidence isnt yet in the public domain might cause some gripes, but lets remember these are the same lads that publicised their involvement with ISIS, shared photos of dead people - presumably at their or co-consipiritors hands - and other stuff that shows they were wishing to be considered enemy combatants.

Personally I dont think we lost any valuable British citizens in the exercise...

Interesting perspective.
Do you feel more comfortable with ground troops doing it?

No. But there are no ground troops in Syria.

It is frequently postulated that the SAS perform(ed) operations in Syria so its naive to assume their isnt or never was.
Id rather a drone did this job than risk our military personnel on the ground.

Perhaps I have watched too much "Homeland"

The very fact they've gone to Syria and joined ISIS is enough, surely?

They're enemy soldiers who'd murder and brutalise in this country given half a chance. And we know the shit ISIS gets up to, yes? Throwing gays off high buildings, burning people locked in cages to death, chopping heads and hands off, and so on?

On what level can it not be a good thing that they're dead?

A human level. Is it so hard to understand my distaste of a fucking flying death robot executing humans without trial?

Hey sometimes you can be sensible

I can't but agree with this. If we were to withhold all forms of military action until the enemy combatants could be captures alive and given 'due process', we'd accomplish precisely fuck all in halting the ISIS threat.

If they've left the UK for Syria and are in the middle of a war-torn region where religious nutbars are conducting a jihadi war, it's safe to say they're not just there to take pictures of goats.

At a human level I have far more of a problem with ISIS and what they do and stand for, than us blowing them up before they get a chance to do any more of it.

The lesser of two evils, for sure.

I am completely unsure how I feel about this.

On the one hand, if they were planning to attack the UK in some way, then arguably they're fair game.

On the other hand, they hadn't actually attacked the UK, so the State has essentially killed two of its own people for thought-crimes. Also, if they were planning to kill the Queen, can a pre-emptive strike be considered "self defence of the nation" ? Plotting to kill Her Maj is treason, certainly, but the penalty for that hasn't been execution for quite some time and I always thought we were more civilised than that.

I would like to think that Davey-boy would not have taken this decision lightly, I imagine he was well aware of the potential shitstorm, so I would also like to think that the evidence against the two guys was substantial and suggested an imminent attack.

They went to Syria, joined ISIS, performed in recruitment videos for them, have boasted of performing executions, were actively planning atrocities on British soil - these are not thought crimes.

Nope. I'm with you on this.

We have abolished the death penalty, and Parliament has voted against military action, and they're still killing people anyway. I'm certainly not going to trust that there was cast iron intelligence of an imminent and otherwise non-preventable threat there, given the history of Iraq, Guantanamo, etc.

It's a slippery slope of an argument, but effectively ISIS is no different to a state that we're at war with. There's no difference, morally, between bombing ISIS "troops" or bombing the soldiers of a state we're at war with. There's also little conceptual difference between bombing even specific ISIS members or bombing Saddam's palace during Gulf War 2.0 or Hitler's bunker or whatever.

I don't think I'm getting myself across properly. I understand that these men were essentially ticking bombs and needed dealing with, but they (and this is my important point here) were killed by a drone on foreign soil. That's terrifying. (Lighthearted break: Would Ronnie Biggs be safe in 2015? )

Would we so casual if the target had been one of the teenage girls that have gone to Syria and been actively working for IS on social media? Have they not done just as much as the two dead men?

None of those are crimes at all, are they? Apart from that last one, I suppose.

Well, except that ISIS isn't a state, and these folks were actually British citizens. I'd personally like to know that sufficient evidential processing was carried out before I get taken out by one of the RAF's finest killbots when I'm next supping margaritas in an Egyptian beach resort.

Morally I have no real concerns with these chaps being bumped off. What I would like to know is what makes it a lawful act, absent of an actual state of war existing.

How are you going to hold a trial in a failed state, with absolutely no functioning infrastructure or due process of its own, let alone any UK presence/influence?

Of course people are going to feel uneasy about stuff like this, it's obviously not ideal! But then, neither is it 'ideal' that British nationals have voluntarily gone to join this foreign terrorist group, as within said lawless, failed State that is suffering civil war, with an express aim of plotting and executing the murder of other innocent British nationals on UK soil.

People have choices, there are consequences for extreme actions, and the public expect their government to take whatever steps are needed to protect them. Simple, really.

basically.

Agreed, but they haven't actually committed any extreme actions, have they?

I guess the only real difference here is that a drone strike is a very obvious thing that makes it stand out and makes it a thing to be talked about. If a couple of special forces chaps had offed them while they were sat having a crap, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Going to Syria and joining ISIS is, I'd suggest, somewhat extreme.

What if they were brainwashed by the people they hung out with?

You hear tales of people joining cults all the time, and it's not inconceivable that deep down these are good, but misguided and taken-advantage-of people.

Give them a few weeks away from the pressure, and they realise the error of their ways? Nope, too late: insta-killed.

No more extreme than going to Alabama and joining the KKK. Drone strike?

We're being told they were planning terrorist outrages on British soil, are we not? Seems fairly straight forward then; if I have designed or part-built a bomb or whatever, with the express purpose of killing and maiming innocent people, the fact that I may not have yet detonated it <> I haven't committed a crime and/or an "extreme action".

Again, I ask: How could they have possibly got a bomb to London on VJ day from Syria? I think the MOD need to be a bit more open about their motivations here.

Well, as long as we're being told...

It's also the second time they've killed one of them, which is good going.

Hey, you see those words up there wot I wrote? I didn't say they were a state. But in effect, it's no different is it. A state is basically a grouping of individuals with a leadership and common purpose which acts on behalf of those within it. ISIS is no different to that, Treaty of Westphalia notwithstanding, so why is it morally ok to bomb Liechtenstein if they threaten us but not ISIS. Legality is a different issue – see below.



Which makes no odds – so were/are a number of soldiers in any number of foreign armies.



Well yes, and I’d like to make sure that when we’re bombing bunkers in North Korea during WW3 that we’ve made sure those are bunkers and not residential buildings. What’s your point? This is just about identifying targets correctly, which is an issue whenever force is used.



Ah, therein lies a different question. The lawfulness of this particular action in international law comes from the imminent threat thing, which I think is a bit cobblers in this instance. I would say that, legally, there was no basis for this action, but there should have been scope for there to be so. The only reason there isn’t a legal basis for it that the UK can really rely on is that ISIS haven’t actually taken over a whole country and got themselves to the stage of statehood yet.

I don't know that they mean to suggest that those doing the plotting are going to be the same people as those who might be planning to actually carry out any action on UK soil by actually carrying the bombs themselves: The seeds of a lot of terrorist plots may be sewn, organised and funded from abroad.

Sorry to backtrack, but as I can't actually find it anywhere: who controls (flies?) the drone(s) that have been responsible for these deaths?


This is a difficult one: In essence, without proof of action, this feels to be edging towards thought crime, and then even with proof I don't know what the usual process is when dealing with what might be considered confirmed plots of realistic action: I guess this is execution of sorts, and I know that in a state of war there are different actions to those sentences under normal circumstances where we wouldn't condone capital punishment, but a lot seems to be without proof or trial.

I'm not sure my worries are particularly based on where these people come from: they are British Citizens, but if they have joined a foreign agency that is bent on endangering other (British, if this is perceived as a defence action) people it all gets a bit muddy: I think in my immediate mind they are ISIS agents whether they are from Syria, The Netherlands or Cardiff.

Can't have been me, the drone would never have made it to target.

The RAF/Army.

Oh, so they're British? OK, I immediately meant in terms of nation, but I see. It's a mess, sure thing.

Also, for the record, the drones did not just kill the chap accused of planning the 'attacks' on the UK. It killed other people too, including at least one other British national not accused of orchestrating anything (though he was also in ISIS).

Like DP and Cras (now there's an image), I'm not weeping for the fuckwits who died. Just concerned about the methods and the growing tendency of Western democracies to do whatever they fancy with regards to killings, detention, torture, etc.

Oh yeah, it's British personnel using a British drone. The pilot could have been piloting it from over here but might have been in Syria or nearby.

I personally like to think it was being piloted by Cameron using an Xbox 360 controller and once the missiles had landed he stood up and yelled "CHEEEE-VOOOO."

There's definitely conflicted things going on in my head. I have no doubt at all that special forces do this stuff all the time using troops in person without us knowing about it, and that seems somehow 'okay' in my head. Whereas the fact that this has been done blatantly and publicly with a drone somehow seems 'off'. Which is weird, because in reality I should be more comfortable with it happening out in the open rather than in an alley somewhere without us knowing about it.

You don't trust the government to efficiently run our railways, right? I believe that's a fair summary of why you support privatisation. But you do trust it to decide which of its citizens can be targeted for extra-judicial assassination?

No evidence against these men was presented in court, and if it had been they wouldn't have faced the death penalty. No attack was imminent because they were still in Syria. And they were not "enemy combatants" because our Parliament clearly voted against going to war in Syria. This is some Judge Dredd fascist stuff right here; our government can now decide for itself, based on evidence it doesn't need to show to anyone, that you deserve to die in a drone strike. I'm surprised more people aren't disturbed by that.

Like Curio and Cras, I'm pretty sure that these were bad people who, in reflection of them deciding to leave their home country to fight for an overseas organisation bent on doing evil things had evil actions in mind and planned. However, as said by many people above, there's a leap from that to executing them (is 'executing' a fair word here, I can't see a distinction, though I have little law knowledge)... From afar with no trial and no (as far as I have seen) presented evidence other than 'intelligence', which we are expected to believe wholly and without question.

Like the intelligence that Iraq has WMDs ready to deploy in 45 minutes.

The evidence presented thing is a bit of a red herring. The government has been elected to behave as a representation of the populace, as such they can do things without having to get a referendum on everything. However, they should do so within the laws that apply to them; I am unsure that this attack does so.

Judge Dredd fascist stuff... lol.

I've already said this is far from an ideal situation. I've already pointed out the equally mind-numbingly obvious point that there is no court to send them to, because there's no functioning legal infrastructure, law enforcement or anything like it in that failed state, suffering full civil war (let alone British infrastructure).

Yes, wouldn't it be wonderful if we could pack these individuals off to some court or other, and subject them to a jolly fine jury trial and appeal, all with the best of legal representation and so on... sadly the reality of the situation doesn't permit this and we have to deal with the undoubtedly very uncomfortable scenario that we're actually (and no doubt inconveniently) confronted with.

(Also your attempted drawn comparison between how I personally think governments are not very good at efficiently running nationalised companies or whatever, as over many years, and whether or not I can trust them to gather critical intelligence to prevent terrorist atrocities and/or make pretty tough snap decisions/calls about what to do with that intelligence, is bizarre).

I'm not sure what you're saying there. If it's somehow in opposition to what I've said, then I don't understand. If you're saying that those are both times that we've been presented with statements that we are expected to believe without question as a justifiable reason to take action, I know, I'm not sure what you're saying though. Is it just another example from another time for the sake of it? To say it has precedence?

Sorry, I think I've missed your point or... Something.