So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

[Patrick Thistle]

Apparently British drones are being used to kill British people who have gone over to fight for the Islamic State. (One of the men killed was from Cardiff, the other from Aberdeen.)

Cameron says this is legal. Others saying it's not.

Is it possible for a recognised country e.g. the UK, to declare war on a group within a nation (or several nations) i.e. Islamic State? I really don't know what the international legalities of this sort of thing is.

Pretty sure drone strikes without declaring way are illegal, aren't they?

[Patrick Thistle]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

Just realised this is kind of being covered in the Labour Leader thread.

[Guy Profumo]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

Jongudmund wrote: Just realised this is kind of being covered in the Labour Leader thread.

I don't think it's unreasonable to discuss it on its own merits, tbh.

[E10 Rifle]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

According to media blogger Peter Jukes's timeline on the Twitters, Reyaad Khan was actually killed in July, not August. We know this because, er, the British papers all reported it at the time.

We're in full-on drumbeat for war mode aren't we?

[ad hoc]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

I understood that the UK was opposed to the death penalty (and indeed, like all EU nations, vehemently so). Now we appear to have gone from that position to carrying out executions without trial in one fell swoop. There wasn;t even a wedge to have a thin end of here.

[E10 Rifle]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

I think Cameron – as his utterly characteristic of him - is as usual looking at the smallest picture possible here: a chance for a bit of gung-ho posturing about Our Brave Boys just as Labour elects an anti-war leader.

It's a measure of the man.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

The Media are reporting the fact that British drones are killing British people, but unless I'm missing something (and British intelligence is vastly better than I imagine it can possibly be) it's not JUST British people, is it? One of them was "travelling in a vehicle". So the drone was clever enough to work out what seat he was sat in and just take him out, was it?

[ad hoc]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

E10 Rifle wrote: I think Cameron – as his utterly characteristic of him - is as usual looking at the smallest picture possible here: a chance for a bit of gung-ho posturing about Our Brave Boys just as Labour elects an anti-war leader.

"Our brave boys"? Our brave drones, surely.

[Jimski]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

So-called pre-emptive self-defence in international law is only justified when a nation is under imminent threat, defined as: "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation."

I'll leave it up to everyone else to judge whether this case fits here.

[Geoffrey de Ste. Croix]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

Nice to see The Sun calling for a blitz on Jihadis and 24 hours later...

[Guy Profumo]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

ad hoc wrote:

I think Cameron – as his utterly characteristic of him - is as usual looking at the smallest picture possible here: a chance for a bit of gung-ho posturing about Our Brave Boys just as Labour elects an anti-war leader.

"Our brave boys"? Our brave drones, surely.

[Bored Of Education]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

[Guy Profumo]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

Raised.



(Via BBC)

[Errorist Sympathiser]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

Were they scumbags who deserved killing? Probably, although I likely don't know enough about them and the situation to absolutely make that judgement.

Was it legal? Given that the UK does not have the death sentence, and Parliament forbade military action in Syria... no.

[Guy Profumo]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

indysleaze wrote: Were they scumbags who deserved killing? Probably, although I likely don't know enough about them and the situation to absolutely make that judgement.

Was it legal? Given that the UK does not have the death sentence, and Parliament forbade military action in Syria... no.

Don't be ridiculous.

Nobody "deserves" to be killed.

[Patrick Thistle]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

Guy Potger wrote: Raised.



(Via BBC)

The Queen seems happy about it though according to that front page.

[sw2borshch]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

Guy, some people definitely do deserve to be killed. I'm basically against it because of the impossibility of rectifying mistakes and I'd rather they were punished than being given an easier way out, amongst other things.

[Bored Of Education]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

It was the fact that the Sun was doing the same thing 3 decades earlier I was pointing out really. It doesn't surprise me that there is appalling right wing headlines.

[Guy Profumo]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

Bored of Education wrote: It was the fact that the Sun was doing the same thing 3 decades earlier I was pointing out really. It doesn't surprise me that there is appalling right wing headlines.

OK. It's a fair cop.

[Anorak Smith]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

san2sboro wrote: Guy, some people definitely do deserve to be killed. I'm basically against it because of the impossibility of rectifying mistakes and I'd rather they were punished than being given an easier way out, amongst other things.

Could we start a new thread on 'people who definitely do deserve to be killed' and whether the preferred method is 'obliterated by drone strike' or 'put to sleep'? I could do with some interesting reading to while away another afternoon in the office.

Not wanting to go back to the dark ages (it was dark in 1965), but even the barbarity of our death penalty was at least backed up by a judicial process, even if it was, on occasion, flawed.

[Jimski]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

Agreed. The whole thing is deeply dubious. We're not at war. I'd like to see details of the imminent threat that justified this. (Perhaps they had WMDs that could be deployed within 45 minutes, for example?)

[E10 Rifle]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

And also, why is it being treated and announced as news when, seemingly, it isn't. It having already been announced as news in July? The cynical use of the media - and the media's own docile subservience - is almost as worrying

[Bored Of Education]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

I am trying to work out the chronology of the events. What events were they supposed to be planning to blow up when they were killed - in self defence?

[sw2borshch]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

If we tell you that, we'll compromise our strategic assets, people's lives, damn you!

Anyway, put me in the camp that sheds no tears over a few fascist pricks but is very worried that elected politicians get to choose which of their fellow subjects they get to bump off without trial.

[Anorak Smith]

So, British drone strikes in Syria then...

No sooner had I suggested (in jest) producing a list of people it was alright to obliterate by drone strike, David Cameron has drawn up a kill list for us.



Link's not showing up, but it's on the Independent's website, for reference.