The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[Awol]

Interesting though how the story has always been that drones over Syria were never armed and only there for reconnaissance. Not that we'll ever know the details of what happened here but it does appear to be a change in policy.

Mr Cameron said, after the coalition government lost the vote in 2013, " ...I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly."

 

With respect there is a huge difference between military action in the sense of attacking a foreign regime, and a pin-point strike to assassinate a specific terrorist. Both use military tools but on a vastly different scale. If the intelligence services presented clear reports to the NSC that these guys were a particular threat, over and above your run of the mill jihadi they have a duty to act. Cameron can't exactly call Damascus and ask to have them arrested.   However, they could just as easily have got the Americans to pull the trigger and avoided any messy fallout from moon howlers in the UK. They wanted this to be a job done with British assets to send a psychological message to the Jihadi community in the UK. It will be interesting to see how that message is received.  

[snowychap]

moon howlers in the UK.

Who?

[Awol]

moon howlers in the UK.

Who?

Not you!! Just the usual types more concerned with the rights of a psychotic terrorist than the safety of the UK population. Think some Doris from Reprieve was on the telebox banging her gums about it earlier.

[snowychap]

With respect there is a huge difference between military action in the sense of attacking a foreign regime, and a pin-point strike to assassinate a specific terrorist.

'With respect', there isn't really.

What makes it not covered by Cameron's respecting the will of the House of Commons? Why wouldn't any other military strike on anyone else in Syria (I can't believe that, if IS does represent the direct danger to the UK that other Cameron speeches/articles have said, that these two Herberts are the only potential targets) also be justified in the same manner?

 

[Awol]

 

With respect there is a huge difference between military action in the sense of attacking a foreign regime, and a pin-point strike to assassinate a specific terrorist.

'With respect', there isn't really.

What makes it not covered by Cameron's respecting the will of the House of Commons? Why wouldn't any other military strike on anyone else in Syria (I can't believe that, if IS does represent the direct danger to the UK that other Cameron speeches/articles have said, that these two Herberts are the only potential targets) also be justified in the same manner?

I've tried to explain what I believe the difference to be in the part of the post you didn't quote. You don't accept my interpretation, fair enough. Seems little point in going round and round on it.

 

[snowychap]

Not you!! Just the usual types more concerned with the rights of a psychotic terrorist than the safety of the UK population. Think some Doris from Reprieve was on the telebox banging her gums about it earlier.

I worry about this kind of comment.

I didn't hear the woman from Reprieve and what she said but it sounds like an 'if you don't agree with taking out bad guys in whatever way we can and do then you're one of the usual types more concerned with the rights of the wrong people'.

There's plenty of room in between the extremes to question what the UK government (in our instance) has done and does do, its trustworthiness and its intent.

[snowychap]

I've tried to explain what I believe the difference to be in the part of the post you didn't quote. You don't accept my interpretation, fair enough. Seems little point in going round and round on it.

So simply scale then - as it can't be the foreign regime bit otherwise that would surely encompass any and all strikes on IS as they're not recognized as a regime by the UK are they?

What doesn't count under the accepting the will of the house? A one off? One a week? One a day?

 

Edit: My point is not about whether the strikes themselves are the right thing to do but as per my previous point about questioning the actions, intent, &c. of the state.

Edited September 7, 2015 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

I can't say I'm overly upset by this.

They had some friend of the relatives on the radio saying this was Britain killing Brits abroad and we will need an investigation. Yep, needs to be investigated, totally agree. Then in the afternoon after the investigation I'd like that investigation published.

 

[Awol]

I've tried to explain what I believe the difference to be in the part of the post you didn't quote. You don't accept my interpretation, fair enough. Seems little point in going round and round on it.

So simply scale then - as it can't be the foreign regime bit otherwise that would surely encompass any and all strikes on IS as they're not recognized as a regime by the UK are they?

What doesn't count under the accepting the will of the house? A one off? One a week? One a day?

 

Edit: My point is not about whether the strikes themselves are the right thing to do but as per my previous point about questioning the actions, intent, &c. of the state.

The parliamentary vote in 2013 was specifically about striking the Assad regime over its use of WMDs.  As a result the campaign was aborted but the PM said at the time he reserved the right to act in specific circumstances (such as the emergence of a direct threat) and to inform Parliament after the event.

The legality or otherwise of any military action is not conferred by Parliamentary vote but derives from international law, in this case Article 51 of the UN Charter.  Cameron is legally entitled under the Royal Prerogative to do this as often as he wants if he believes he is responding to a direct threat to national security - the right to self defence.

[limpid]

I can't say I'm overly upset by this.

They had some friend of the relatives on the radio saying this was Britain killing Brits abroad and we will need an investigation. Yep, needs to be investigated, totally agree. Then in the afternoon after the investigation I'd like that investigation published.

I'd like to see the evidence. I'm also aware that it is likely that there are still active investigations happening which are likely to be jeopardised by releasing anything at this time. Time will have to tell on this one.

[foreveryoung]

A clear message needs to be sent out to british Jihadist's. Today this was a clear message and personally I am all for it.

[chrisp65]

I can't say I'm overly upset by this.

They had some friend of the relatives on the radio saying this was Britain killing Brits abroad and we will need an investigation. Yep, needs to be investigated, totally agree. Then in the afternoon after the investigation I'd like that investigation published.

I'd like to see the evidence. I'm also aware that it is likely that there are still active investigations happening which are likely to be jeopardised by releasing anything at this time. Time will have to tell on this one.

yep agreed, but it feels a bit like a very very small side story, I don't think this one incident turns Cameron into Blair mkII

[snowychap]

The parliamentary vote in 2013 was specifically about striking the Assad regime over its use of WMDs.

The motion put by the government and voted upon was that but subsequent to the result being called the following exchange was had (see Hansard 29 Aug 2013 cols 1055,1056 as per link at bottom of post - link button in editor doesn't seem to be working for me) :

10.31 pm

Edward Miliband: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There having been no motion passed by this House tonight, will the Prime Minister confirm to the House that, given the will of the House that has been expressed tonight, he will not use the royal prerogative to order the UK to be part of military action before there has been another vote in the House of Commons?

Mr Speaker: That is of course not a matter for the Chair, but the Prime Minister has heard the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order, and he is welcome to respond.

The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I can give that assurance. Let me say that the House has not voted for either motion tonight. I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion,

29 Aug 2013 : Column 1556

the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the Government will act accordingly.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that response.

 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130829/debtext/130829-0004.htm

Edited September 7, 2015 by snowychap

[Awol]

Snowy, in your link they are talking about not using the Royal Prerogative to undertake military action against the Assad regime.  Cameron hasn't done that, he's used it to target an individual terrorist who it is said was directly involved in planning atrocities within the UK and in an area (Raqqa) that is entirely controlled by Islamic State forces.  He is allowed to do it, the vote in 2013 is totally irrelevant.

However, I'm interested to know how you think the government should have dealt with this? 

Edited September 7, 2015 by Awol
A whoopsy

[snowychap]

Snowy, in your link they are talking about not using the Royal Prerogative to undertake military action against the Assad regime.  Cameron hasn't done that, he's used it to target an individual terrorist who it is said was directly involved in planning atrocities within the UK and in an area (Raqqa) that is entirely controlled by Islamic State forces.  He is allowed to do it, the vote in 2013 is totally irrelevant.

And subsequent to that vote and debate, it has remained in the background at the very least in discussions on any military action in Syria (whether against Assad, IS, Johnny from Cardiff or whoever) and when the defence minister and others have pressed for taking military action against IS in Syria.

The vote is relevant in as far as it was relevant to the discussions that have been had in public and the arguments which have been made by Fallon, Cameron and others.

Whether or not he is 'allowed to do it' is more of a matter for international law experts to discuss from now until the end of time (and without the relevant evidence in front of them) so that is all rather academic.

Again, why won't the same thing apply tomorrow to target another individual terrorist or, surely more effectively, a load of individual terrorists as they're part of IS who Cameron and others have been telling us represent a direct threat to the security of the UK and its citizens. If this justification is valid then why won't it become valid for more operations once it has been accepted without question in this case?

I'm interested to know how you think the government should have dealt with this?

I don't know and I don't pretend to know without knowing what they do or seeing what they know or knew (or even then) but I think it's never a good thing for a government to make contentious decisions in matters of taking military action (targeted assassinations or full blown bombing campaigns). I'm afraid that I'm always skeptical about any state decisions made in secret and especially when there is so much surety in their subsequent announcement.

I'll reiterate where I am coming from which is to question what governments have done, are doing and intend to do, why they do it and who is holding them accountable and where the checks are.

If the government want to engage in military operations in Syria (against whomever) then I'd like them to return to parliament and put their case - not throw their hands up as they have done and say they won't do that unless there is consensus.

Edited September 7, 2015 by snowychap

[Awol]

Trent posted a few pages ago that the SAS has been tasked with targeting the British man and IS executioner known as Jihadi John. If they succeed and kill him will the government be condemned for ordering that? Is there a difference between shooting him or dropping a bomb from a drone?

If killing him is also wrong then how exactly are these people who are beyond the reach of conventional law enforcement to be dealt with? Should they be allowed to murder with impunity? If not then what should the UK do when confronted with people who legally hold our nationality but belong to an organisation that has not only vowed to kill our citizens but already carried out the threat - hostage murders, 31 holiday makers on a beach in Tunisia, assorted foiled plots to hit targets in mainland UK.

Really interested to see if people have a real solution to these problems in mind.

 

[PompeyVillan]

We find ourselves in the unfortunate situation whereby out national security is compromised by our own citizens. Partly (of perhaps hugely) due to our recent foreign policy and colonial past.

If we can arrest them, we do, if we can't then we need to neutralise the threat of a way that is proportionate to the level of threat.

It's not ideal, but I'm okay with my country taking steps to ensure my safety. This is a very messy situation that I wish we were never in and never want to be in again. But we're in it.

We should not accept these incidents without questioning them, but in turn sometimes they are necessary.

[mjmooney]

A clear message needs to be sent out to british Jihadist's. Today this was a clear message and personally I am all for it.

I can see the point of taking out a potential threat. But not the 'sending out a message' bit. It's hardly going to dissuade someone who craves martyrdom above else. There will be plenty who believe that these guys are now in paradise shagging virgins.

We are not dealing with rational people here.

[snowychap]

If they succeed and kill him will the government be condemned for ordering that?

Again, there is a vast difference between 'condemning' and questioning the actions, intent and trustworthiness of the state carrying out actions where the public justification is just an utterance from a politician.

From my point of view, I think it's a dodgy situation for a nation's people to allow themselves to get in to accept, without question, that the actions of the state are only going to be in the best interests of its people (they may arguably be in a 'national interest' but I'm not sure that always coincides with the best interests of its people). Therefore, if extraordinary measures are to be taken (and if those measures are to remain extraordinary and not become routine) it behoves the people (and their representatives) to hold the state (and the executive on its behalf) to account when those actions are taken.

That for me is a real solution to these problems.

[lapal_fan]

 

A clear message needs to be sent out to british Jihadist's. Today this was a clear message and personally I am all for it.

 

I can see the point of taking out a potential threat. But not the 'sending out a message' bit. It's hardly going to dissuade someone who craves martyrdom above else. There will be plenty who believe that these guys are now in paradise shagging virgins.

 

We are not dealing with rational people here.

 

 

But even if today's news dissuades ONE potential terrorist/IS member from actually going through with it, then today's news has worked. 

In my opinion, anyone who decides to go and join these organisations, with the full intention of hurting innocent, law abiding citizens, must pay the consequences, even if they've joined just for association purposes.  I don't buy that all the people from the UK that join these organisations are mentally ill, or unstable, they have a choice and they make that choice.  They must do some pretty detailed research before they decide to jump on a plane to get over there, these people aren't mentally insecure. 

How many more incidents where innocent people lose their lives going to work are we going to suffer before anything happens.

I'm pretty liberally minded, but I want my family to be safe first and foremost and if the people in power have sufficient reason to believe these people are a threat to innocent people, then provided they have done their research and came to that conclusion, then I frankly welcome their interjection.