blandy Posted December 16, 2015 Moderator Share Posted December 16, 2015 4 minutes ago, TrentVilla said: 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. Good point re it was said to be a US Reaper that actually released the weapon. I'd forgotten that bit. I don't think it significantly changes the legal aspect of the discussion, though. If UK soldiers on the ground did the targeting and basically called in the attack, then they (on behalf of the UK Gov't and as authorised by the PM) were at least jointly responsible for it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 16, 2015 Moderator Share Posted December 16, 2015 21 minutes ago, TrentVilla said: I don't personally think this sort of action is likely to be often repeated if ever I think it is very likely. It's the nature of the situation that without (other than special forces) troops on the ground, the only way that key ISIL figures will be attacked is via this kind of action. Reconnaissance / Intelligence led targeting. I don't believe that if the SAS, French and US special forces are there that they'll all be coming back home now that one coward has been executed. They will, as we have seen from history - from OBL, Al Qaeda and the Taliban etc. they (US and Allies) spend a heck of a lot of time just finding, tracking and then attacking these people. Sure it's been mainly the US to date using UAVs to do it, but Israel, Russia and other nations including the UK also will kill people via targeted executions. So I agree with Omar. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted December 16, 2015 Administrator Share Posted December 16, 2015 12 minutes ago, blandy said: Good point re it was said to be a US Reaper that actually released the weapon. I'd forgotten that bit. I don't think it significantly changes the legal aspect of the discussion, though. If UK soldiers on the ground did the targeting and basically called in the attack, then they (on behalf of the UK Gov't and as authorised by the PM) were at least jointly responsible for it. There is a huge, great big "if" in there. I don't think it's a good idea to describe something as illegal until it is proven to be so. Until that point it is (highly) suspect, but not illegal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 16, 2015 Moderator Share Posted December 16, 2015 2 minutes ago, limpid said: There is a huge, great big "if" in there. I don't think it's a good idea to describe something as illegal until it is proven to be so. Until that point it is (highly) suspect, but not illegal. You're right. There is an "if" in there. In this instance it will never be "proven to be so". Like I said there seems to be no interest in the authorities - Gov't, courts, Attorney General etc. in having it subjected to review. I'm OK with people voicing an opinion on a message board that they think that "if...then [illegal]" in this type of instance. Many people view Tony Blair as a war criminal, for instance, and have publicly said so. He will never be tried for it. He will never sue those people for their accusations. He's basically been showed to have made a case on...well we've done that one previously. This isn't so different in some respects. Imaginary 70,000 moderate soldiers and all the rest. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted December 16, 2015 Administrator Share Posted December 16, 2015 Agreed. People were using "illegal" in this thread as if it was a fact. I wanted to correct that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 16, 2015 Moderator Share Posted December 16, 2015 Right. Gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 (edited) 5 hours ago, limpid said: We don't have a written constitution however carefully you try to redefine that phrase. Are you of the opinion that we have a constitution? Edited December 16, 2015 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted December 16, 2015 Administrator Share Posted December 16, 2015 4 minutes ago, snowychap said: Are you of the opinion that we have a constitution? That depends on your definition. We have a common law and we have statutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 Just now, limpid said: That depends on your definition. We have a common law and we have statutes. Is that a yes or a no? I'd suggest we have common law (by way of precedent from court decisions binding subsequent courts), we have statutes, we have court judgements that interpret statutes (and reinterpret statutes) and we have conventions. Which of these are not written down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 1 hour ago, TrentVilla said: I don't personally think this sort of action is likely to be often repeated if ever but we will have to see, 1 hour ago, TrentVilla said: 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. As far as I was aware a British drone was at least involved in the Emwazi operation, wasn't it? I only mentioned Emwazi myself earlier because it was the first one to come to mind but if we talk about the August action against Reyaad Khan, that was the UK acting alone, I gather. The GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM TO THE JCHR says the following on the decision-making: Quote Decisions concerning the use of force in self-defence are taken by the Prime Minister in consultation with other senior ministers and advisers. In the case of Reyaad Khan, at a meeting of the most senior members of the National Security Council, it was agreed that should the right opportunity arise, military action should be taken. The Defence Secretary authorised the operation. As for further use of this sort of action, Fallon has been reported as saying, in testimony today, that he wouldn't go in to details discussing a particular operation as others are being planned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted December 16, 2015 Administrator Share Posted December 16, 2015 55 minutes ago, snowychap said: 1 hour ago, limpid said: 1 hour ago, snowychap said: Are you of the opinion that we have a constitution? That depends on your definition. We have a common law and we have statutes. Is that a yes or a no? It's neither. It's a request for further information. You dropped the word "written" from your original response. 58 minutes ago, snowychap said: I'd suggest we have common law (by way of precedent from court decisions binding subsequent courts), we have statutes, we have court judgements that interpret statutes (and reinterpret statutes) and we have conventions. Which of these are not written down? Common law is the both custom and judicial precedent. It's possible that it's all written down if you search hard enough. It isn't written in a single place and is substantially contradictory. It isn't something which could be referred to as a "written constitution" in any sense of that phrase I would recognise. Or are you taking this off topic just to argue the toss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 16, 2015 Moderator Share Posted December 16, 2015 1 hour ago, snowychap said: and we have conventions. Which of these are not written down Those are not all written down. But it's off topic as Limpid says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 1 minute ago, limpid said: It's neither. It's a request for further information. You dropped the word "written" from your original response. I dropped the word 'written' in order for you to confirm whether, in your opinion, we had a constitution so that we could move the conversation on to discussing whether or not the constitution was written down and, if not, which parts weren't. You have now said in your post above that," It's possible that it's all written down if you search hard enough." So, I'll happily accept that you skipped a step to get to a better place. 8 minutes ago, limpid said: Or are you taking this off topic just to argue the toss? I'll just point out that the 'no written constitution' argument was used by you earlier in the thread in this exchange: 9 hours ago, limpid said: 15 hours ago, villakram said: Also, where in UK law does it say that the government can murder one of their own citizens? It doesn't. We don't have a written constitution. It is therefore neither 'taking this off topic' nor 'arguing the toss' to question the notion of things either not being written or being unwritten in the context of this very thread and the question posed above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 (edited) 17 minutes ago, blandy said: 1 hour ago, snowychap said: ...we have conventions. Which of these are not written down? Those are not all written down. Some may well not be but most are recorded in Erskine May and, yes, a constitutional discussion is now getting away from the crux of the matter but, as above, the point about countering Limpid's original comment was about the context in which that post was made (i.e. in response to villakram's question). Edited December 16, 2015 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted December 16, 2015 Moderator Share Posted December 16, 2015 4 hours ago, blandy said: I think it is very likely. It's the nature of the situation that without (other than special forces) troops on the ground, the only way that key ISIL figures will be attacked is via this kind of action. Reconnaissance / Intelligence led targeting. I don't believe that if the SAS, French and US special forces are there that they'll all be coming back home now that one coward has been executed. They will, as we have seen from history - from OBL, Al Qaeda and the Taliban etc. they (US and Allies) spend a heck of a lot of time just finding, tracking and then attacking these people. Sure it's been mainly the US to date using UAVs to do it, but Israel, Russia and other nations including the UK also will kill people via targeted executions. So I agree with Omar. I meant specifically the execution of British citizens on foreign soil, although in retrospect I perhaps didn't make that clear. I guess it could happen again in Syria/Iraq but I really don't see this as being some watershed moment or the precursor to a program of summary executions in place of trials. Or that the option of a trial will be passed over for the use of drone strikes. Although I would have been very much welcomed in the case of Redknapp v HMRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 Quote It simply amazes me that people are ok with the targeted assassination of their own citizens... If a racist killer with a gun, or a psycho maniac with a rifle start shooting at a police officer, the officer has the right to shoot to kill. If a citizen of a country who takes up arms with a group or militia or army who have declared war on said country, I believe that country has the right to shoot to kill. What's the difference? If a bad guy wants a trial, he should surrender.* *I fully understand that this statement conflicts with the Guantanamo extrajudicial affront to justice that has occurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villakram Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 1 hour ago, maqroll said: If a racist killer with a gun, or a psycho maniac with a rifle start shooting at a police officer, the officer has the right to shoot to kill. If a citizen of a country who takes up arms with a group or militia or army who have declared war on said country, I believe that country has the right to shoot to kill. What's the difference? If a bad guy wants a trial, he should surrender.* *I fully understand that this statement conflicts with the Guantanamo extrajudicial affront to justice that has occurred. So if, spaghetti monster forgive, I was born in England... does that mean that no matter where I go in the entire world/solar system thereafter, that I am subject to the laws/whims of Her Majesty? Because as I see it, Mr. English Headchopping psycho was killing English people who decided to take a stroll about a warzone in the country formally known as Syria. Also, I'm not aware that the group called ISIS/etc had specifically declared war on England? Anyway, I'll leave it at this as this is sorta going nowhere. There does at least appear to be some consensus that it's all ethically shaky. "... he should surrender" you sir, would fit in very well in uniform with a badge and a gun over in this fair land Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 Quote "... he should surrender" you sir, would fit in very well in uniform with a badge and a gun over in this fair land High marks for out of context quote The point is, if you are an enemy combatant of the state, proven by your actions, you should forfeit your rights as a citizen and the protection under the law citizenship affords. Jihadi John is a case in point. He butchered Englishmen for the Islamic State. Was he not then fair game for elimination? As a pacifist (believe it or not), ideally such characters would be captured, returned home and made to stand trial, but if there is a continuing threat from such men to continue to murder combatants, and, more egregiously, non-combatants, then they should be targeted. But better yet, I believe, (believe it or not) that this wouldn't even be an issue if we just stayed the **** out of the Middle East. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 1 minute ago, maqroll said: The point is, if you are an enemy combatant of the state, proven by your actions, you should forfeit your rights as a citizen and the protection under the law citizenship affords. Who declares someone an 'enemy combatant of the state' other than 'the state'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 Just now, snowychap said: Who declares someone an 'enemy combatant of the state' other than 'the state'? Other than the state, it would be the targeted person him or herself. In the case of Jihadi John, he declared himself an enemy of the state by his actions. If some English psychopath in Borneo was targeting English tourists and killing them, and there was no authority to stop him from continuing, I think it reasonable for Britain to use it's intelligence apparatus to eliminate said psychopath *if* capture and trial was unlikely or too dangerous. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts