UK.gov finally unveils new parly spook-watching panel Prime Minister David Cameron has announced the long-awaited new line up of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve has been appointed to the spook-eyeballing panel. Other senior Tories include Sir Alan Duncan, who has described himself as a "respected voice on the Middle East within the …
In recent days, Cameron has come under attack from critics who have questioned Whitehall's decision to kill two British citizens fighting for terrorist group ISIS in Syria. The men were targeted in an RAF drone strike last month, the PM told MPs on Monday.
I note very few of the newspapers have noted that this was the deliberate pre-meditated murder of two British citizens by the RAF under orders from the Prime Minister. You can't call it a death sentence as there was no trial. They weren't killed in the process of committing a crime in the UK because they weren't in the UK. They were murdered. By their government. And people think this is a good thing.
That concerns me.
The case being suggested is that the two men were recently, or possibly immanently associated with a threat in the UK, co-ordinated from Syria.
If it could be shown that killing these two people directly prevented the threat from being carried out, then this would probably be justified under both UK and International law. After all, the police are allowed to use lethal force in the UK if this can be shown, so why would an already agreed combat zone in Syria be any different.
Slightly less legitimate, if it could be shown that they were involved in a past threat, either one that succeeded or one that was stopped by the relevant LEO or intelligence bodies, and that these people were likely to do the same again and could not realistically be apprehended to stand trial, then there could just about be suitable justification.
The problem is that this is speculation, and the information that could show it was legitimate is being withheld as "secret intelligence information" that would harm future operations if it were disclosed (i.e. a "National Secret").
What could defuse this situation somewhat would be either the Attorney General or another trusted person (or even a committee) well versed in UK and International law coming forward and saying "I've seen the information, and while I cannot disclose it, it provides valid and legal reason to have taken this action".
Their opinion could still be questioned, but it would at least not be a politician making the assertion.
What could defuse this situation somewhat would be either the Attorney General or another trusted person (or even a committee) well versed in UK and International law coming forward and saying "I've seen the information, and while I cannot disclose it, it provides valid and legal reason to have taken this action".
I can't remember where I heard it, but I was under the impression that this was indeed the case. I think it might actually have been the Attorney General that was consulted. If I had time to google it at work, I could go some way towards confirming / refuting this...
AFAIK, the Attorney General has said nothing about this. The Defence Secretary Michael Fallon gave an interview on the Today program on 8th September (it'll be on the BBC Radio Player for a few weeks more) who outlined the possible scenarios without officially confirming anything about the circumstances.
But he's a cabinet minister, and would be expected to support the action, whereas the AG (Jeremy Wright) would be expected to take a stance from a more legalistic standpoint. As he is the legal advisor to HMG for most things, what he would say would be very interesting and informative.
A quick goolging turns up the Grauniad's article on the matter:
"The attorney general, Jeremy Wright QC, was consulted about whether it would be legal to carry out the attack. His office referred all questions to No 10. The prime minister’s spokesman said the legal advice would not be published. The Foreign Office declined to comment on whether its legal advisers had been consulted."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/07/right-of-self-defence-legal-debate-syria-drone-strike
My bad wording. What I should have said is that the AG has not said anything to in public about this. I did not presume that he had not been consulted by No. 10, just that he had not commented what his advice was to the press.
It is part of his job, and the responsibility of the government to make sure that there is sufficient legal justification for any action the government takes.
"immanently associated with a threat" I see what you did there (or was it just a lucky typo?)
"What could defuse this situation somewhat would be either the Attorney General or another trusted person.."
Attorney General - trusted? Generally AG is a total government poodle, no government appoints AG who might rock the boat, the whole point of a chosen supine AG is to OK things that most legal experts would say no to.
I'm afraid it was a spelling mistake, although not a typo. I'm not that clever. I've always struggled with spelling (just ask my teachers, if any of them are still alive!), and I often don't notice this type of thing if a spelling checker doesn't throw it up. But the other meaning is, um, interesting.
The UK Attorney General is actually an appointment of the Crown (the post is one of providing legal advise to the Crown and their Government), although they are nominated by the incumbent government. As a result, it is theoretically possible for the Queen to object to the appointment if she sees a reason. And I'm sure she would at least question an appointment (by all accounts, she really cares and makes sure she knows relevant information) , although it will probably never be known if she's ever refused to appoint a nominee.
But generally, at least so far, they are have not been poodles, because what they say may at some point actually be examined in court and subsequent governments (past legal advice from the AG is, and must be for any continuity, available to the current Government). Of course, they're just one person, and they will have their own opinion, but one of the traits of the legal system in general is that they mostly try to retain some independence.
I would certainly trust a statement from the UK AG more than the Prime Minister or any of their cabinet ministers!
...critics who have questioned Whitehall's decision to kill two British citizens fighting for terrorist group ISIS in Syria. The men were targeted in an RAF drone strike last month...
I note very few of the newspapers have noted that this was the deliberate pre-meditated murder of two British citizens by the RAF under orders from the Prime Minister. You can't call it a death sentence as there was no trial. They weren't killed in the process of committing a crime in the UK because they weren't in the UK. They were murdered. By their government. And people think this is a good thing.
That concerns me.
--
It probably doesn't bother most people because he was fighting for ISIS. In Syria. This means that he was an enemy combatant, in a war zone. There is a little, tiny, minute difference between an enemy combatant getting bombed (in Syria) and the RAF bombing somebody in the UK, you know?
What would you see as an appropriate method to deal with ISIS members fighting in Syria?
I am troubled because it appears that they were targeted specifically because they were Brits. If they happened to be killed as part of a wider operation, then yes, the 'being in a war zone' argument holds up but I suspect that killing them because they were Brits may have been done to make an example as much as it may have been to stop a future operation in the UK.
My strongly held belief about this is that anyone who has strongly held views that this was either absolutely right or absolutely wrong ... is absolutely wrong.
"But if those two British men were fighting for ISIS weren't they enemy combatants and therefore legitimate targets?"
Personally I think the important point is to ensure the government (or any government) never takes such decisions lightly, or believes those who take such decisions can carry on regardless when mistakes are made.
Everybody is accountable for their choices, especially those who act on behalf of the larger population because the actions are carried out in our names.
Please don't think that I am condoning what is being done, but the problem is that it is not actually possible to declare war on an organisation that has no recognition in International Law.
It is possible to declare war on a country or nation (see here for a definition), but neither the Taliban, nor ISIS (despite their self-styling) are either countries or nations. This means that there cannot be an official declaration of war against them.
If there is no war, the people fighting cannot be classed as legal combatants, nor once captured, can they be described as "prisoners of war". This is the reason why the "enemy combatant" was used. It's dodgy as hell and designed to be ambiguous, but once the US had decided they needed to hold these people, what else could they do other than define a new category of prisoner.
In addition, the establishment of the United Nations was meant to prevent declarations being made without international debate, but again, Taliban and ISIS are not nations, so the UN is hamstrung and impotent. If the Asad regime was in good stead with the international community, and invited help, things would be different, but taken respectively, they're not, and won't.
We're in a whole new and undefined area of conflict that is not adequately reflected in International Law. IMHO, the UN Charter needs serious revision to recognise extra-national organisations so that the position can be clarified.
Hmm, international law - well, though that is a good summary, it is incomplete, referring to the mostly codified by treaty law of states. But there is well established customary and case law to establish the powers of states with regard to both non state actors - pirates for example - quasi States, such as rebellions and others who claim territory but are not recognised as governments. As to how the UK or US (or in theory any other nation ) chooses to use force in such conflicts, apart from any domestic or military law, there are customary international rules - here the Caroline case justification is being used, involving necessity (impossible to judge without knowledge of secret information - but in principle capable of a judicial ruling - and proportionality, which seems on the first hand well enough targeted with apparently 3 people killed, of which all 3 were agents of the 'enemy' and at least one was the direct target. Whether any UK or indeed Syrian laws were broken is however a possibility. I'm fairly certain that British citizens serving in 'enemy' forces have been killed by British forces in combat before - perhaps sailors on US ships in 1812?
The UN can take action or authorise it, for example with regard to the intervention in Afghanistan, if it could agree.
With the news of IS destroying the remains of ancient cities in Syria, did you ever wonder what happened to the civilisations that built them? They succumbed the equivalent of IS of the day, who were far more willing to die for what they believed in, than the civilisation was prepared to defend itself.
We seem to be far more concerned about the fate of two British passport holders who allied themselves with a régime that has murdered tens of thousands of people, than the deaths of those tens of thousands of people or their declared intent bring the conflict to all other nations.
We need to wake up and get our priorities right, or it's the way of Assyrians or the Romans for us too.
Actually I think you'll find its a bit more complex than that. Quite often civilisations have fallen because of envrionmental factors (cf food price riots & Arab spring, Ankor Wat)
Rome fell to barbarians - many of whom had served in Roman armies, the legions were overly reliant on mercenaries at the end. The Hun invasion to the north displaced the Germanic tribes into Italy. Corruption was rife and the emperor role was bought and sold like a commodity. The rise of the Eastern Empire also brought into question Romes legitimacy.
Sounds familiar doesn't it - scared yet?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
