Cameron sanctions assassination of UK citizen

[Genx87]

If there is a war on. A soldier being dressed up as a German soldier, located in Germany and/or occupied territory. Was a valid target, for the British military, during World war 2.

This ISIS thing, seems to be boiling down to a war between ISIS and some of the rest of the world.

If someone joins ISIS, then they can be killed (during a war), just like the German soldiers were killed, during the second world war.

The circumstances of bombing a military target and actively assassinating a citizen are different. In WWII there were defectors to the Axis powers. These defectors did not have bombers sent after them. After the war we gave them trials like any civilized society should.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Of course they deserve to rot in jail or killed. But we have a judicial process for metering out justice. Allowing an executive branch to be judge, jury, and executioner is a horrible policy. Give it enough time and more UK\US citizens become targets. The range of crimes expanded.

Like I said, these are trial run before the drones come home.

I agree, it could well be the thin end of a wedge, and go too far (in a bad way).
Worryingly, I recently read a news story. Which said that American Police are to be given the right to get armed drones.
This may be a step too far. Such potentially powerful/dangerous weapons, should probably ONLY be given to armies.

It takes time for existing laws to handle developments in new technologies.

Personal drones (used by the general public). Are already beginning to be a hazard, to peoples way of life.

E.g. Aircraft safety and privacy while outdoors.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

The circumstances of bombing a military target and actively assassinating a citizen are different. In WWII there were defectors to the Axis powers. These defectors did not have bombers sent after them. After the war we gave them trials like any civilized society should.

If those killed people (terrorists with UK citizenship), were armed and had joined ISIS. They were no longer civilians, but fighters/'ISIS-Army'. So valid military targets. (Assuming that we have declared war and any other necessary pre-requisites, if applicable, are met).
By the sound of it (if reports are true), they had to act quickly, to stop terrorist attacks on the Queen and other people.

Edit:
Surely if those defectors you mentioned. Became an active/current/bad threat. During the war, while they are in enemy territory. They could/would be killed by the British Army/military, if possible and necessary.

 

[Genx87]

If those killed people (terrorists with UK citizenship), were armed and had joined ISIS. They were no longer civilians, but fighters/'ISIS-Army'. So valid military targets. (Assuming that we have declared war and any other necessary pre-requisites, if applicable, are met).
By the sound of it (if reports are true), they had to act quickly, to stop terrorist attacks on the Queen and other people.

Edit:
Surely if those defectors you mentioned. Became an active/current/bad threat. During the war, while they are in enemy territory. They could/would be killed by the British Army/military, if possible and necessary.

If they died in a firefight then yes, they are legitimate targets. But the UK sent a drone looking for this guy at a command center, not on the front lines. People use this excuse when trying to justify extrajudicial killings. It doesnt hold up to scrutiny.

Defectors were killed in WWII. But on the battlefield fighting allied powers. The ones who in the back lines were captured and usually given a trial. The battlefield distinction is a big one.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

If they died in a firefight then yes, they are legitimate targets. But the UK sent a drone looking for this guy at a command center, not on the front lines. People use this excuse when trying to justify extrajudicial killings. It doesnt hold up to scrutiny.

Defectors were killed in WWII. But on the battlefield fighting allied powers. The ones who in the back lines were captured and usually given a trial. The battlefield distinction is a big one.

If the terrorist group has badly stepped over the line. By murdering many innocent people, in many attacks. Then shows intent to carry on these campaigns, for very long periods of time.
Then it does not seem too unreasonable, for the attacked/threatened country(s) involved. To take the necessary action(s), to stop that terrorist/organisation threat.

That seems to be what they (the UK government and military), seemed to have done.

But I agree. this could be the start of a worrying trend.

Does this mean that as soon as any UK citizens, leave the UK territory. They are potentially valid military targets, anywhere in the world. Under some circumstances ?

 

[Fenixgoon]

If there is a war on. A soldier being dressed up as a German soldier, located in Germany and/or occupied territory. Was a valid target, for the British military, during World war 2.

This ISIS thing, seems to be boiling down to a war between ISIS and some of the rest of the world.

If someone joins ISIS, then they can be killed (during a war), just like the German soldiers were killed, during the second world war.

really? against whom has congress declared war? please, tell me.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

really? against whom has congress declared war? please, tell me.

House votes to keep U.S. troops deployed against ISIS (Updated 2339 GMT (0639 HKT) June 17, 2015 |)

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/17/politics/aumf-isis-house-vote-fails-us-troops/

Full scale war declaration ?
NO.

But "*small*" attacks, seem to have been authorized against ISIS.
tl;dr
Big war = no
Small war = Yes

 

[Genx87]

If the terrorist group has badly stepped over the line. By murdering many innocent people, in many attacks. Then shows intent to carry on these campaigns, for very long periods of time.
Then it does not seem too unreasonable, for the attacked/threatened country(s) involved. To take the necessary action(s), to stop that terrorist/organisation threat.

That seems to be what they (the UK government and military), seemed to have done.

But I agree. this could be the start of a worrying trend.

Does this mean that as soon as any UK citizens, leave the UK territory. They are potentially valid military targets, anywhere in the world. Under some circumstances ?

Were there any bigger terrorists than the Nazis? Yet we didn't target individual defectors\citizens during the war. We followed the rule of law in civilized society and prosecuted them after they were captured.

 

[PingviN]

Were there any bigger terrorists than the Nazis? Yet we didn't target individual defectors\citizens during the war. We followed the rule of law in civilized society and prosecuted them after they were captured.

Times have changed the last 80 years. The battlefields of today are not the battlefields of the two world wars. The enemy is not wearing uniform, he does not follow the rules of war. Doesn't mean he is not an enemy combatant.

Terrorists caught [usually] get a trial, but you're not obligated to try and catch them all. It's fair game to bomb them back to Mecka, wherever you find them. This guy wasn't a criminal, he was the enemy in a military sense.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Were there any bigger terrorists than the Nazis? Yet we didn't target individual defectors\citizens during the war. We followed the rule of law in civilized society and prosecuted them after they were captured.

It would be much better, all round, if we had the technology to grab, suspect terroists, from Syria. But we don't (as far as I am aware), currently have any such technology.

It would probably help as well. Because we could learn some useful information, by interrogating and questioning the suspect(s).

Maybe in the future, we will have super-drones, which can pluck suspects, from the ground.
On the other hand, such technology has its own worrying risks (of abuse), as well.

They could have sent in ground troops, to apprehend the terrorists. But at the moment, I think that is politically unacceptable (sending in ground troops).

Because of the public's worries about getting into another long drawn out, and disastrous war. The public, usually finds the loss of soldiers, during such operations, as very hard to swallow.

But in answer to your question. Modern technology, and the modern fields of war, are somewhat significantly changing, compared to the past.

Previously (e.g. second world war), we would have been up against a large bunch of (German army) distinctively uniformed, highly organized, conventional army.

These days (or so I've heard), we are up against, civilian like people, wearing civilian cloths. Fully mingling amongst, normal homes/houses etc. Full of mostly innocent civilians, in the very near vicinity.
If you asked the terrorist, he would probably deny any involvement with being a terrorist. They would also look exactly like, the genuine, non-combatant civilians.
They would sometimes arm themselves, and travel on the back of motorbikes and/or Toyota pick up trucks. Perform their attacks and/or leave improvised Explosive device(s). Then return to looking and acting just like the other civilians.
A sort of gorilla warfare, I guess.

These techniques (NOT necessarily that modern, as they have been used previously. E.g. The French resistance, fighting the occupying German Soldiers).

My understanding, is that it is VERY difficult to deal with enemies like that.

 

[mikeymikec]

If there is a war on.

Some guys somewhere in the world want to plant a bomb (or something equally nasty) in my country and that's your definition of "being at war"?

Christ, when wasn't there a war on?

Let's just kill some people we don't like, claim that we have "intelligence" that they're actually bad people who are threatening our well-being, and it's all good?

I personally would define my country as legitimately being "at war" would be when we're under active threat of invasion and we're taking action to stop that threat. Going to war constitutes almost as enormous a risk as one is trying to mitigate. There are very few rules in the game of war, and any rules there once were tend to get broken in order to "win". Saying "we're at war" is basically a way of saying "anything goes". If you accept that we're in a state of war right now, you're basically giving your government carte blanche to use the most underhanded tactics it can to "win" in just about any set of circumstances. There will always be a bunch of nutters out there who want to kill you, and the more you kill, the more "reason" that more nutters will have to get in line to kill you, as well as victims of collateral damage who really do have a good excuse to exact revenge.

When Al-Qaeda massacred ~3000 civilians I'm pretty sure that they used the excuse to their people that they were "at war".

Also consider that there aren't many politicians out there who don't have a love of power, and the idea of a perpetual state of war and the power it promises is much more appealing than not having some bogeyman to wave around to distract and scare the masses with.

International laws are there for many reasons. An obvious one being that all of one country's interests are unlikely to match another country's. I very much doubt that there are going to be new international laws that give any country carte blanche to send a drone strike in when they want to kill someone who is working against their interests. How would America react if Russia executed a drone strike against some American undesirables on America's turf?

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Some guys somewhere in the world want to plant a bomb (or something equally nasty) in my country and that's your definition of "being at war"?

Christ, when wasn't there a war on?

Let's just kill some people we don't like, claim that we have "intelligence" that they're actually bad people who are threatening our well-being, and it's all good?

I personally would define my country as legitimately being "at war" would be when we're under active threat of invasion and we're taking action to stop that threat. Going to war constitutes almost as enormous a risk as one is trying to mitigate. There are very few rules in the game of war, and any rules there once were tend to get broken in order to "win". Saying "we're at war" is basically a way of saying "anything goes". If you accept that we're in a state of war right now, you're basically giving your government carte blanche to use the most underhanded tactics it can to "win" in just about any set of circumstances. There will always be a bunch of nutters out there who want to kill you, and the more you kill, the more "reason" that more nutters will have to get in line to kill you, as well as victims of collateral damage who really do have a good excuse to exact revenge.

When Al-Qaeda massacred ~3000 civilians I'm pretty sure that they used the excuse to their people that they were "at war".

Also consider that there aren't many politicians out there who don't have a love of power, and the idea of a perpetual state of war and the power it promises is much more appealing than not having some bogeyman to wave around to distract and scare the masses with.

International laws are there for many reasons. An obvious one being that all of one country's interests are unlikely to match another country's. I very much doubt that there are going to be new international laws that give any country carte blanche to send a drone strike in when they want to kill someone who is working against their interests. How would America react if Russia executed a drone strike against some American undesirables on America's turf?

Wars DON'T necessarily have to be big, or even against other countries.

If a viable quantity of individuals, are attacking, UK people and/or assets or other interests. The UK has a right to defend itself.

If a crazy (terrorist) group, is actively plotting to blow up the Queen, some of her relatives and a number of other UK citizens. The UK government/Military and Police are quite right to intervene and quench this horrible and illegal, viscous attempted attack(s).

If I was forced to make a decision, between the Queen, some of her relatives and a large number of innocent UK citizens being horribly killed, versus blowing up the terrorists.
I would go for, blowing up the guilty terrorists, rather than the innocent people, being hurt.

 

[mikeymikec]

Wars DON'T necessarily have to be big, or even against other countries.

If a viable quantity of individuals, are attacking, UK people and/or assets or other interests. The UK has a right to defend itself.

If a crazy (terrorist) group, is actively plotting to blow up the Queen, some of her relatives and a number of other UK citizens. The UK government/Military and Police are quite right to intervene and quench this horrible and illegal, viscous attempted attack(s).

If I was forced to make a decision, between the Queen, some of her relatives and a large number of innocent UK citizens being horribly killed, versus blowing up the terrorists.
I would go for, blowing up the guilty terrorists, rather than the innocent people, being hurt.

Defending ones self is usually in direct and immediate response to a threat. Look at the timeline of events leading up to this drone strike, they're anything but immediate (at least when compared against any events in the UK that have been deemed likely targets so far, furthermore the people killed in the drone strike were in the middle of a war zone far from the UK, what's the definition of immediate going to be, a long-range missile hidden beneath their car?).

You used the word 'if' in some major points in your response. Try this hypothetical scenario on for size:

How about I murder you on the pretext that you were planning an attack on the UK. I have super-secret intelligence that I can't show anyone of course, because that would harm my source(s). I'm sure your family will understand the need for secrecy and take my word for it that you're a bad guy because, you know, yay freedom and down with terrorists.

---

The last time that the US and UK had super-secret intelligence of a danger to our nations, they were allegedly so certain of it that they risked the lives of servicemen, civilians and the stability of an already not-particularly-stable region. The "intelligence" turned out to be bullshit, a scientist who tried to whistleblow on the scam ended up dead, and there was a very definite possibility that it was altered by those who wanted to start a war to offset American butthurt post 9/11, it has now destabilised Iraq AND Syria.

Eleven million refugees and thousands dead later... people are still swallowing the bullshit that governments put out about a state of war and we're "defending ourselves". How many of those affected are our people?

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Defending ones self is usually in direct and immediate response to a threat. Look at the timeline of events leading up to this drone strike, they're anything but immediate (at least when compared against any events in the UK that have been deemed likely targets so far, furthermore the people killed in the drone strike were in the middle of a war zone far from the UK, what's the definition of immediate going to be, a long-range missile hidden beneath their car?).

You used the word 'if' in some major points in your response. Try this hypothetical scenario on for size:

How about I murder you on the pretext that you were planning an attack on the UK. I have super-secret intelligence that I can't show anyone of course, because that would harm my source(s). I'm sure your family will understand the need for secrecy and take my word for it that you're a bad guy because, you know, yay freedom and down with terrorists.

---

The last time that the US and UK had super-secret intelligence of a danger to our nations, they were allegedly so certain of it that they risked the lives of servicemen, civilians and the stability of an already not-particularly-stable region. The "intelligence" turned out to be bullshit, a scientist who tried to whistleblow on the scam ended up dead, and there was a very definite possibility that it was altered by those who wanted to start a war to offset American butthurt post 9/11, it has now destabilised Iraq AND Syria.

Eleven million refugees and thousands dead later... people are still swallowing the bullshit that governments put out about a state of war and we're "defending ourselves". How many of those affected are our people?

Just because "intelligence information", has badly messed up in the past. Does NOT necessarily mean that we should permanently abandon using such methods.
On the other hand. If we are going to start another very big war, for similar reasons and intelligence. We should massively quadruple check, a thousand times or more. To make sure that we have got it right, this time.

Sometimes a police informant will end up giving false or misleading information. The Police may waste a lot of time, and end up arresting the wrong people. Causing many problems.
BUT the work of the Police is very important. Without them, society would probably come apart at the seams, and we would be left in a big state of anarchy.

Intelligence (Military, MI5 etc) are very important tools. We should NOT abandon them, just because they have gone wrong, sometimes.

But there are dangers, to what the UK government, has just done.

E.g. Someone could feed the "intelligence" system, false information, on purpose. To get some person or people or group, killed. For their own reasons.

Potentially leaving the UK, in a VERY embarrassing situation. A bit like when, shortly after the September the 7th, London transport terrorist bombings. The innocent "Death of Jean Charles de Menezes" was to occur.

It is VERY difficult to deal with terrorists. So if we don't want to get regularly attacked by terrorists, we may need to do something like this (drone attacks), more frequently.

 

[mikeymikec]

Just because "intelligence information", has badly messed up in the past. Does NOT necessarily mean that we should permanently abandon using such methods.

No, but IMO the UK government is not moving forward in a trustworthy fashion on issues like this, nor has it done for as long as I can remember.

As new offensive methods (such as drone strikes) become available, the conversation should occur openly as to what implications this new method has on the way that the UK defends itself or engages in military campaigns.

As a result of those conversations, new rules that the majority (of parliament or perhaps even referendum if the issue is big enough) agree upon.

Conversations like those and new rules published also serve to let other countries know where we stand on the uses of such technologies.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

No, but IMO the UK government is not moving forward in a trustworthy fashion on issues like this, nor has it done for as long as I can remember.

As new offensive methods (such as drone strikes) become available, the conversation should occur openly as to what implications this new method has on the way that the UK defends itself or engages in military campaigns.

As a result of those conversations, new rules that the majority (of parliament or perhaps even referendum if the issue is big enough) agree upon.

Conversations like those and new rules published also serve to let other countries know where we stand on the uses of such technologies.

You have set me thinking. Changing the subject, a bit.

What happens, sooner or later. When countries with way worse human rights, less quality, bad laws/regulation and lots of corruption, compared to the usually high standards of the UK.

Get hold of (or make their own), versions of these types of drone.

Does it mean that you can visit North Korea as an innocent tourist. Look at their leader, in a slightly funny way.

Later that day, you get followed by a powerful drone, armed with a pile of hell-fire and long range military machine guns.

It gets closer and closer. It also seems to be armed and wanting to do nasty stuff.

NOT easy to avoid its deadly capabilities.

What if a terrorist group, hacks into drone(s). Then uses them against us ?

 

[bshole]

Drone Operators Not Always Certain Who They Are Killing

Allowing politicians to use drones to kill with impunity is something that this old Dog Soldier finds distasteful. Not to mention counter productive and unlikely to win any wars...

Uno

In theory I agree with that, as a counter I would be extremely reluctant to risk the lives of American citizens to capture/kill these guys. As long as they are only killing each other over there in the cesspool of the Middle East, there is no reason to attack them. If on the other hand they are planning and executing attacks on us, then I am not too bothered if they are killed by drones. It is an extremely sticky issue with a ton of grey area. I do not believe there is any moral high ground to be found on this topic because we have to be violating international law in bombing these excreta on sovereign foreign territory. This is something I would strongly object to if another country did it to us. Since might makes right, we must be in the right.....

 

[Brian Stirling]

In theory I agree with that, as a counter I would be extremely reluctant to risk the lives of American citizens to capture/kill these guys. As long as they are only killing each other over there in the cesspool of the Middle East, there is no reason to attack them. If on the other hand they are planning and executing attacks on us, then I am not too bothered if they are killed by drones. It is an extremely sticky issue with a ton of grey area. I do not believe there is any moral high ground to be found on this topic because we have to be violating international law in bombing these excreta on sovereign foreign territory. This is something I would strongly object to if another country did it to us. Since might makes right, we must be in the right.....

Tell that to the Europeans that are seeing thousands of people fleeing the cesspool and winding up on there doors. Germany made the mistake of announcing they'd take in over 800,000 and now the countries between them and Turkey and Greece are being inundated with people from a region that has only ever known violence and religious dictated hatred.

Me thinks this is all a recipe for an explosion of right wing reactionary response -- in Germany! Right wing activity has been growing in Europe for some time and I expect this will add pure Oxygen and fuel to the fire.

This is what's known as blowback!


Brian

 

[Bock]

blah blah blah, check out the names of the 2 British citizens...

Reyaad Khan & Ruhul Amin. I'm actually surprised they even bothered to find out their identities. Those 2 dudes look local to the ME & were willing to die in the ME fighting for their cause. Not sure about British law but that should count as voluntarily surrendering your citizenship.

 

[Victorian Gray]

"The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials."

 

[WelshBloke]

Were there any bigger terrorists than the Nazis? Yet we didn't target individual defectors\citizens during the war. We followed the rule of law in civilized society and prosecuted them after they were captured.

If they were fighting on behalf of the enemy we shot, bombed or generally disposed of in whatever way we could.

We didn't target individuals because we didn't have the ability to do that at range, we did burn down entire cities.

 

[DrPizza]

Then have the trial. Prosecute them, find them guilty, then carry out the punishment.

If someone's running toward a crowd, carrying a gun, shouting that he's going to kill the people in the crowd, he's an immediate threat and the police can use whatever means necessary to stop him. If they cannot physically stop him in a non-lethal manner, use of lethal force is permitted. This situation parallels a case where lethal force may be used. I don't have any ethical or moral problems with what was done based on the evidence at hand.

 

[WelshBloke]

I don't have any ethical or moral problems with what was done based on the evidence at hand.

Given what the guy was boasting about doing on twitter I'm not sure why anyone is upset at the outcome.

 

[mikeymikec]

If someone's running toward a crowd, carrying a gun, shouting that he's going to kill the people in the crowd, he's an immediate threat and the police can use whatever means necessary to stop him. If they cannot physically stop him in a non-lethal manner, use of lethal force is permitted. This situation parallels a case where lethal force may be used. I don't have any ethical or moral problems with what was done based on the evidence at hand.

I guess both of them were using those special extremely-long-range pistols... in Syria... aiming at a crowd in the UK... and it took months to make the decision to use a drone strike...

 

[JEDIYoda]

THE RULE OF LAW, do you understand the concept?

hahahahaaaa...you cracked a funny!!!