The ISIS threat to Europe

[Rugeley Villa]

[foreveryoung]

40 minutes ago, villakram said:

I was thinking more along the lines of 5 lads w/ 3 bullets. 

The whole precision guided munitions thing is a load of shite. Spec ops or some other person of some form painting the target with a gps tracker or via laser from distance is the way the most "actual precision" strikes happen. So the fact that the SAS lads are running around illegally in a foreign country murdering British citizens in an extra-judicial manner is not surprising at all. No word on the collateral damage though... It simply amazes me that people are ok with the targeted assassination of their own citizens... murder as non-orwellians might call it.

I find it hard to relate Jihad John as one of my own. If it were he got struck head first by a British brimstone missile, killed until he was dead, I be very happy.

[TrentVilla]

1 hour ago, villakram said:

The whole precision guided munitions thing is a load of shite. Spec ops or some other person of some form painting the target with a gps tracker or via laser from distance is the way the most "actual precision" strikes happen. So the fact that the SAS lads are running around illegally in a foreign country murdering British citizens in an extra-judicial manner is not surprising at all. No word on the collateral damage though... It simply amazes me that people are ok with the targeted assassination of their own citizens... murder as non-orwellians might call it.

So you accept the part of the story about SAS on the ground targeting an individual but not the one about an SAS sniper. Fair enough I guess, not sure what your criteria is for reaching that decision though. As for collateral damage, I rather suspect if the SAS were aware of the bomb factory then locals were, I doubt people were hanging around outside the front door but if there was collateral damage its pretty likely we wouldn't be reading anything about it.

As for SAS lads operating in a foreign country illegally, yes you are right they seemingly are but I have no issue with it. I understand why some do take issue with it but its not a debate worth having as neither side will alter their view on it, I know I won't.

As for killed Jihadi John I have absolutely no issue with his execution, none. But that again is a pointless discussion, people aren't going to change views on it and besides it was covered in some depth at the time.

As for a source, just search on Google and you will find it easily enough, I've not made it up.

[villakram]

Fair enough, I guess...

I just think that there is a breach of ethics/morals or what I would envision society to be more like, in the illegal invasion/bombing/murder. This is only a short few years after a huge financial crash brought about by grossly similar behavior.  This is where I have the problem, a little bit of bad somewhere leaks elsewhere and then is pretty much accepted with a shrug of the shoulders across the entirety of society.

[TrentVilla]

 

I'm struggling to make the link between banker behaviour and a murdering, beheading terrorist to be honest.

We aren't talking about some dissident having something nasty slipped in his tea on the streets of a foreign city, or being stabbed with a poisoned umbrella. (Other non Russian examples are available)

But anyway, as I said before its a pointless debate/discussion so not one I want to get into.

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, villakram said:

It simply amazes me that people are ok with the targeted assassination of their own citizens

I'm not. I don't shed a tear for his departure but I am rather sorry for us.

[limpid]

I din't think it's illegal. There is no functioning state to ask for assistance or to act and there is a clear threat so the self-defence claim holds.

The UN have sanctioned "all necessary measures" and I'm much happier having targeted strikes than random bombing.

[snowychap]

28 minutes ago, limpid said:

I din't think it's illegal. There is no functioning state to ask for assistance or to act and there is a clear threat so the self-defence claim holds.

The UN have sanctioned "all necessary measures" and I'm much happier having targeted strikes than random bombing.

I think the question of whether one may accept air strikes in Syria is a different question from the wider one of accepting state-sanctioned assassination of that state's own citizens (whatever they may have done and wherever they may be).

I have the same problem with the UK doing it in Syria that I did with the US doing it in Yemen.

Edited December 15, 2015 by snowychap

[villakram]

5 hours ago, limpid said:

I din't think it's illegal. There is no functioning state to ask for assistance or to act and there is a clear threat so the self-defence claim holds.

The UN have sanctioned "all necessary measures" and I'm much happier having targeted strikes than random bombing.

Would this mean that if a UK citizen was killed by a British national who was a member of a drug gang in Mexico, that going and bombing there would be ok too, because it's not like the state is fully functioning there either. Btw, I realize that this is a bit of a strawman, but the basic point more or less holds.

Also, where in UK law does it say that the government can murder one of their own citizens? where was this threat? I mean if you walk around a war zone, what should one exactly expect? Same applies to the US too. The legal advice allowing this is as firm as that allowing the "extraordinary measures" aka the torture memo.

Edited December 16, 2015 by villakram

[chrisp65]

Should we have just killed Shaker Aamer? Turned up in Afghanistan, captured by bounty hunters, supposedly a king pin in the AQ ranks, but no charges ever brought against him. But if he'd been taken out by an SAS bullet we'd surely have just accepted he must be a bad man in a bad place? As it happens, back in the naive old days he was taken away to Guantanemo where for 13 years they didn't actually raise a case against him. Now he's in London, walking around.

Very awkward very grey area.

[limpid]

6 hours ago, villakram said:

Would this mean that if a UK citizen was killed by a British national who was a member of a drug gang in Mexico, that going and bombing there would be ok too, because it's not like the state is fully functioning there either. Btw, I realize that this is a bit of a strawman, but the basic point more or less holds.

No, because in this example the UK would not be acting in self-defence.

6 hours ago, villakram said:

Also, where in UK law does it say that the government can murder one of their own citizens? where was this threat? I mean if you walk around a war zone, what should one exactly expect? Same applies to the US too. The legal advice allowing this is as firm as that allowing the "extraordinary measures" aka the torture memo.

It doesn't. We don't have a written constitution. We can however act in defence of our citizens within the framework of international treaties, even where that might mean harming our citizens. I'd have said that going to war with Germany in 1939 was self defence on the same basis and many, many of our citizens were killed in that action.

As the US largely inherited our legal traditions, it depends which bits they wrote down and what treaties they've signed over the years. Having the unanimous UN mandate to take "all necessary actions" gives a pretty broad scope to respons.

I'm ignoring the second straw men in your post as it isn't pertinent  I've no idea about the "torture memo". 

[omariqy]

4 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Should we have just killed Shaker Aamer? Turned up in Afghanistan, captured by bounty hunters, supposedly a king pin in the AQ ranks, but no charges ever brought against him. But if he'd been taken out by an SAS bullet we'd surely have just accepted he must be a bad man in a bad place? As it happens, back in the naive old days he was taken away to Guantanemo where for 13 years they didn't actually raise a case against him. Now he's in London, walking around.

Very awkward very grey area.

This is a very good point. Don't forget that UK intelligence were complicit in that little fiasco too.

[snowychap]

28 minutes ago, limpid said:

No, because in this example the UK would not be acting in self-defence.

It doesn't. We don't have a written constitution. We can however act in defence of our citizens within the framework of international treaties, even where that might mean harming our citizens. I'd have said that going to war with Germany in 1939 was self defence on the same basis and many, many of our citizens were killed in that action.

As the US largely inherited our legal traditions, it depends which bits they wrote down and what treaties they've signed over the years. Having the unanimous UN mandate to take "all necessary actions" gives a pretty broad scope to respons.

I'm ignoring the second straw men in your post as it isn't pertinent  I've no idea about the "torture memo". 

We do have a written constitution (statute, court judgements and conventions) - we don't have a single constitutional document.

We have an 'unwritten' constitution for the sake of comparing with other places that do have that one codified document (albeit often amended and modified by statute over time) but we most certainly have things that are 'written' that constitute what the government can and cannot do (at any one time - obviously this can be changed and 'interpreted' by subsequent governments as can all single document constitutions everywhere).

I think we ought to be careful about conflating any invocation of the doctrine of self-defence (as was the case with the government's actions re: Emwazi) and UNSCR 2249 (and its wording). The Emwzi strike occurred a week or so before the resolution was approved (or even put forward) and the resolution doesn't invoke chapter seven. As with all UN (security council) resolutions, the wording is sufficiently loose to allow multiple interpretations depending upon how one would wish to take it.

What it (and other resolutions), the doctrine of self-defence, the renaming and reclassification of assassinations/targeted killing/extrajudicial killing/enhanced interrogation techniques/torture and so on ought to tell us is that states will take action and justify it afterwards. I worry when the citizens of those states are not sufficiently perturbed by that regardless of their opinion of the individual case and the people on the other end of the action in each situation.

[TrentVilla]

54 minutes ago, omariqy said:

This is a very good point. Don't forget that UK intelligence were complicit in that little fiasco too.

Is it though?

I mean don't get me wrong I think his treatment is nothing short of a disgrace on the West as a whole. It's simply appalling but I'm not so sure it's a very good point.

Firstly he wasn't a British citizen he was Saudi, he was a British resident. That makes no difference at all in regards to my views on his treatment but it's important in the context of this discussion about the execution of our own citizens. (Despite this the Government still called for his release, even if a little delayed)

Secondly, we weren't involved in his capture, hand over or subsequent imprissionment and torture although he has made a recent allegation that he heard a British accent while being tortured.

So for me it's not a good point to make hyperthetical comparisons between Jhadi John or people leaving a bomb factory and Aamer.

They are so completely different situations that comparison is pretty futile.

There is and seemingly never has been evidence against Aamer and I feel immensely sorry for him. But let's not pretend it's in any way similar to guys walking out of a bomb factory wearing explosive vests or a guy who has executed people on camera for the world to see. There is just no way the SAS would have targeted Aamer.

[limpid]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

We do have a written constitution (statute, court judgements and conventions) - we don't have a single constitutional document.

We have an 'unwritten' constitution for the sake of comparing with other places that do have that one codified document (albeit often amended and modified by statute over time) but we most certainly have things that are 'written' that constitute what the government can and cannot do (at any one time - obviously this can be changed and 'interpreted' by subsequent governments as can all single document constitutions everywhere).

I was talking about the overuse of the word "illegal" with reference to actions against stateless actors or actors acting extrastate. Each case needs to be determined on its individual terms by an appropriate court. My point was that the people taking the action believe self-defence is an acceptable defence in light of the evidence they've been presented. Legality in such cases can only ever be determined after the fact.

We don't have a written constitution however carefully you try to redefine that phrase.

[blandy]

4 hours ago, limpid said:

Having the unanimous UN mandate to take "all necessary actions" gives a pretty broad scope to respons.

They potted Jihadi John before the UN resolution. What was done was a state execution without any judicial or legal process. I think there are two parts to the discussion. One is over the Governments compliance with its legal obligations. That at best was fudged. The man presented no immediate danger to the UK or any UK citizens. If he had been walking down the street in the UK, or in Spain or France he would not and could not have been (legally) killed by a sniper or targetted weapon. It was basically an illegal killing by the state.

The other aspect is the context that he was a known beheader of British and other nationals hostages and prisoners, and a combatant in a civil war zone. He was also a propaganda and recruiting asset to the ISILs. It's probably for the best that he was killed, despite the dubious nature of the legal niceties. I suspect that because most everyone in the UK would think it's better he's dead, that there will be no legal arguments that the PM exceeded his authority in authorising the execution.

[villakram]

Sums things up pretty good blandy!

It's the ignorance or lack of concern on the part of the populace that really worries me. I think only a small part of this is deliberate, most of it is out of ignorance (absence/lack of knowledge not stupidity) and much of this is a direct result of the propaganda emanating from media central and a duplicitous political class.

[omariqy]

4 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

Is it though?

I mean don't get me wrong I think his treatment is nothing short of a disgrace on the West as a whole. It's simply appalling but I'm not so sure it's a very good point.

Firstly he wasn't a British citizen he was Saudi, he was a British resident. That makes no difference at all in regards to my views on his treatment but it's important in the context of this discussion about the execution of our own citizens. (Despite this the Government still called for his release, even if a little delayed)

Secondly, we weren't involved in his capture, hand over or subsequent imprissionment and torture although he has made a recent allegation that he heard a British accent while being tortured.

So for me it's not a good point to make hyperthetical comparisons between Jhadi John or people leaving a bomb factory and Aamer.

They are so completely different situations that comparison is pretty futile.

There is and seemingly never has been evidence against Aamer and I feel immensely sorry for him. But let's not pretend it's in any way similar to guys walking out of a bomb factory wearing explosive vests or a guy who has executed people on camera for the world to see. There is just no way the SAS would have targeted Aamer.

Whilst you make valid points in terms of the comparison, I think Chris was on the right lines of if they carry on in that fashion then it won't be too long before someone who should've been put on trial is instead executed, wrongly.

[TrentVilla]

1 minute ago, omariqy said:

Whilst you make valid points in terms of the comparison, I think Chris was on the right lines of if they carry on in that fashion then it won't be too long before someone who should've been put on trial is instead executed, wrongly.

Well that could have been said without a pretty confused comparison and I'd have probably agreed. Sooner or later errors will happen with this sort of thing but that is a slightly different discussion to if the actions were right or justified in this particular case where it is very much a one off. I don't personally think this sort of action is likely to be often repeated if ever but we will have to see, I don't think we can say that action in this example was wrong because of potential mistakes that might occur in the future if this sort of thing is repeated.

[TrentVilla]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I suspect that because most everyone in the UK would think it's better he's dead, that there will be no legal arguments that the PM exceeded his authority in authorising the execution.

Did he though? It might be a technicality but did he actually authorise the execution? I rather suspect he didn't or at least not from a legal perspective.

The action was carried out by the U.S. we certainly helped, we certainly knew it was going to happen and were complicit in it doing so but I think he stopped some way short of the above. Legally at least.