Jump to content

The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"


legov

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Agreed. She grew up here, was radicalised here, is (was) a UK citizen. Why the heck should poor old Bangladesh or its people have to deal, with their inferior resources, with someone who's never even been there, who is a barmpot Islamicalist nutter? It's just exporting problems which will bite worse later, for momentary red meat feeding to the EDL tendency.

I think this is a good take on Javid.  Quite possible he knows full well the courts will overturn it, but in the process he gets some love from party members for taking a firm line.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, peterms said:

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear enough, or perhaps you are reading in too much....

...There comes a point at which culpability as well as complicity arises (I suppose everyone would agree with that).  I believe we are well past that point, though others may disagree, and I'd be interested to hear what is the legal position.

To move it on slightly, I don't believe that members of the RAF, who trained members of the RSAF in how to use military equipment, under a gov't to gov't contract can be prosecuted for providing that training (which includes advice on not doing war crimes). They have no authority over RSAF operations, do not plan those operations or take part in them and have no control or influence over the subsequent conduct of the RSAF.

There's an argument to be heard to say training and supply of arms should be stopped until the situation changes, but none whatsoever on the prosecution or legal culpability of RAF personnel for any misdeeds performed by the RSAF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

To move it on slightly, I don't believe that members of the RAF, who trained members of the RSAF in how to use military equipment, under a gov't to gov't contract can be prosecuted for providing that training (which includes advice on not doing war crimes). They have no authority over RSAF operations, do not plan those operations or take part in them and have no control or influence over the subsequent conduct of the RSAF.

There's an argument to be heard to say training and supply of arms should be stopped until the situation changes, but none whatsoever on the prosecution or legal culpability of RAF personnel for any misdeeds performed by the RSAF.

I think our positions aren't going to come any closer together, and we'll get repetitive.  If I happen across any legal view on it I'll post it for info, though I'm not about to spend lots of time looking.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I train somebody and they mis use that training, I'm not to blame.

If I continue to train them and they continue to repeatedly mis use that training, and I still continue to train them, I'm very much complicit.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we're either training them, and they're bombing weddings really well, in which case we're evil but at least competent, or we're training them, but they're bombing weddings, in which case we're just completely incompetent.

We're the Mark Halsey of Air forces.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like we've managed to piss the Bangladeshi government off now:

Link missed originally. :blush:

Quote

Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen and there is “no question” of her being allowed into Bangladesh, the country’s ministry of foreign affairs has insisted, setting up a clash with the UK after Sajid Javid’s move to strip the teenager of her UK citizenship.

“The government of Bangladesh is deeply concerned that [Begum] has been erroneously identified as a holder of dual citizenship,” Shahrial Alam, state minister of foreign affairs, said in a statement issued to the Guardian, adding that his government had learned of Britain’s intention to cancel her citizenship rights from media reports.

“Bangladesh asserts that Ms Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen. She is a British citizen by birth and never applied for dual nationality with Bangladesh … There is no question of her being allowed to enter into Bangladesh.”

The strongly worded statement is a direct challenge to Sajid Javid, the home secretary, who told MPs earlier on Wednesday that he would not waver in his determination to deprive the 19-year-old, who fled to Syria four years ago to marry an Islamic State fighter, of her citizenship.

...

The Foreign Office was understood to be in touch with the Bangladeshi high commission, but the FCO has stressed that decisions on Begum’s return were a matter for the Home Office. There is said to be some disquiet in ministerial circles that Bangladesh had not been consulted fully before the home secretary asserted she could claim Bangladeshi citizenship.

The FCO’s own website points out that Bangladesh is facing a fight to defeat terrorism, including from groups linked to Isis. Sources suggest that given this domestic fight against terrorism, it was never likely that Bangladesh would allow her in, regardless of the citizenship rights she was able to claim.

...

This new 'global' Britain stuff's going well.

Edited by snowychap
Added link
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

If I train somebody and they mis use that training, I'm not to blame.

If I continue to train them and they continue to repeatedly mis use that training, and I still continue to train them, I'm very much complicit.

 

 

Dean Smith is continuing to train Micah Richards.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

If I train somebody and they mis use that training, I'm not to blame.

If I continue to train them and they continue to repeatedly mis use that training, and I still continue to train them, I'm very much complicit.

Was it the same person who repeatedly misused their training? was it one "rogue"? was it multiple people ignoring that they'd been educated not to break the law? Is the training making the trainees behave correctly, but untrained people making the mistakes, and lack of training being the cause? Was it poor training by one trainer that has since been replaced, was it one aspect of training which needs to be improved? Has the training been changed as a result of the deaths? Have the RSAF operations changed as a consequence of RAF input, to reduce/eliminate errors/misconduct?

Good luck with your legal case, against Corporal Smith m'lud.

Look, people are right to ask questions, particularly given the horrors that have happened. I don't agree with the unsupported, unsubstantiated claims that the RAF people are "helping to bomb weddings". Evidence based stuff is more useful, IMO. That a wedding was bombed is not anything like evidence that the RAF abetted it and should be prosecuted like an ISIS terrorist.

Internet I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be a reasonable amount of discussion out there on the legal issues, including a series of posts from an organisation called Just Security.

Here's one of their articles.

Quote

The Law of Aiding and Abetting (Alleged) War Crimes: How to Assess US and UK Support for Saudi Strikes in Yemen

US and UK support for Saudi-led military operations in Yemen have received significant attention recently due to reports of strikes that damaged or destroyed hospitals, schools, and other infrastructure vital to the civilian population. When international lawyers consider the rules that apply to such assistance, the so-called law of State responsibility consumes most, if not all, of the attention (see Miles Jackson and my accompanying post that does a deep dive into that area of law). Given the allegations that some Saudi-led coalition operations may amount to war crimes, it is relevant to consider another specific area of international law: the law of aiding and abetting war crimes. Importantly, as I explain below, that area of law is likely broader in its attribution of vicarious liability for assisting States than the law of State responsibility. It should be a centerpiece of any discussion of this topic.

One clarification is necessary at the outset. In this analysis, I make no assessment of the alleged actions by the Saudi-led coalition or any reported instance of US or UK support. This post discusses the generally applicable legal framework that might apply. My discussion therefore also has relevance for all sorts of other situations as well, including reported Russian support related to the Syrian government’s alleged war crimes, reported Iranian support related to the Houthis’ alleged war crimes, and State support for terrorist organizations elsewhere.

...

For now, the important point is this one for States contemplating assistance to another State or non-State armed group: there is substantial legal risk that aiding and abetting liability for war crimes would be found under international law even absent any intent or purpose to promote the crimes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

Was it the same person who repeatedly misused their training? was it one "rogue"? was it multiple people ignoring that they'd been educated not to break the law? Is the training making the trainees behave correctly, but untrained people making the mistakes, and lack of training being the cause? Was it poor training by one trainer that has since been replaced, was it one aspect of training which needs to be improved? Has the training been changed as a result of the deaths? Have the RSAF operations changed as a consequence of RAF input, to reduce/eliminate errors/misconduct?

Good luck with your legal case, against Corporal Smith m'lud.

Look, people are right to ask questions, particularly given the horrors that have happened. I don't agree with the unsupported, unsubstantiated claims that the RAF people are "helping to bomb weddings". Evidence based stuff is more useful, IMO. That a wedding was bombed is not anything like evidence that the RAF abetted it and should be prosecuted like an ISIS terrorist.

Internet I suppose.

 

Back in the day, I had three uncles in the RAF that all worked as technician teachers on Starfighters for the German airforce at Zweibrucken (that's a very quick description of what they actually did).

Had one of those German pilots turned out to be a wrong 'un, I don't see what 'we' could have done. Had another pilot been a wrong 'un, then another, then another.... Well, I guess we'd have just hung on in there hoping the good ones made it all worthwhile one day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, peterms said:

Strange take by Javid on citizenship and rights, here.

You can come here, newly-born child, but not your mother; your rights are unaffected.  Might be a little difficult to actually exercise those rights.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's hoping many people point out his shallow cynicism in playing to the gallery instead of explaining the channels for dealing with this.  I suppose he has been briefed on the contents of the document for which someone ghost-wrote his foreword.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blandy said:

 

Admittedly, I don't know about the legalities of this.

But surely if her family take Javid to court over this and point to this document, they will win the case easily?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

Admittedly, I don't know about the legalities of this.

But surely if her family take Javid to court over this and point to this document, they will win the case easily?

I doubt it'll get to the court stage, it's grandstanding, then he'll try and blame it on the ECHR all in the name of being leader of the destroyed (by then) Tory Party

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

She comes across as arrogant and unremorseful, hasn't been played well from her end at all, has been given the worst possible advise from her lawyer.

On the contrary, she appears to be ignoring his advice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

She comes across as arrogant and unremorseful, hasn't been played well from her end at all, has been given the worst possible advise from her lawyer.

See, that's genuinely not how she came across to me.

To me, she came over as utterly detached from reality. She was expecting more sympathy from the public and was expecting a personal interview from high ranking UK officials. 

That strikes me as the sort of reasoning you'd get from a child that went to a war zone and got repeatedly raped by a paedo terrorist, lost two babies and found herself in a refugee camp with another child. Surrounded by ISIS people, she's then been interviewed for TV.

I'm not saying she's in the right, I'm not saying she's easily forgiven. I'm saying she's lived a life none of us on here can comprehend. 

It's one of those rare moments I don't envy the public figures that have to make the decisions on this. So far, Javid has made a soundbite hero of himself. Now he has to work out how to be 'away' when reality strikes and she rocks up at an embassy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a degree of sympathy for her. At 16 children, are impressionable and make stupid decisions. However, I also feel strongly that she should be held accountable for what she has done. 

The idea that she should be able to come back to the UK, be given a place to live and benefits to sustain herself rancours with me. ISIS are an inhumane, murderous, terrorist organisation. Nobody who joins them or aids them should be given a free ride. If it were me, I'd make joining ISIS a crime, punishable by imprisonment and take the child away from her. But I don't make the law and I don't know the law. 

However, we can't simply just ignore the laws we have put in place to satisfy the mob, if we so that then we're no better than the ISIS twunts. Whatever happens, I'm satisfied so long as we uphold our own laws, as ultimately I care very little for this girl and her child, although I do have some at understanding how vulnerable she may have been when she was radicalised.

Although, let's not forget 'being radicalised' isn't something that just happens to someone and they have no control over it. There is a choice to accept a hateful, disgusting idealogy or not. 

Taking her citizenship away is immaterial to me really, if we legally could, I wouldn't kick up a fuss if we did. It's not clear to me as to whether we can actually do that though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â