British government uses drones on own citizens

[Lee]

It's being reported that the UK government has used unmanned drones to take out two members of Isis.

The contentious issue is that the two in question Reyaad Khan (from Cardiff) and Ruhul Amin (from Aberdeen) were killed in the attack. The strike was ordered after they were suspected of planning a terrorist attack.

Now like it or not the UK does not have the death penalty. I am in two minds on this one, at the end of the day the UK has ordered a drone strike on two of its citizens whilst abroad.

On the other hand if the two in question were born outside of the UK we wouldn't even be having this debate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34181475

 

[Stone Cold Tea]

At the end of the day they felt like they had sufficient evidence that supported the fact we were under terrorist threat and they acted upon it. We don't know what 'Code' this was on the scale so the threat could have been extremely severe.

Although we don't have the death penalty sometimes common sense has to be exercised and thankfully they did. I hope that they would do it again if they believe we were under threat. In fact I implore them to do it again.

 

[Slyfox696]

I am, and have been for a while, of the mindset that if you actively declare war on your country, don't be surprised if your country declares war on you. I have no problem with attacks on those who have declared war on their country and actively aids in killing citizens.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

When I first heard this was an issue of concern in the US (a year ago?) I was surprised. American citizens get killed all the time by American police in the name of defense, protection, and safety and I didn't understand why this was all that different.

I still don't.

Seems sensationalized.

 

[Reflection]

Serves them right. They have already chosen the path of kill-or-die-killing, so why not make it quick and send them to hell before they kill some (or more) of your citizens. There are always gonna be some sensitive folks that go all "oh we shouldn't stoop to their level, killing is so barbaric..." We have these bastards in our country too, they show up each time a terrorist or rapist/murderer combo is captured. If the media is protesting just because the two were British citizens, then they really need to introspect and correct themselves. The best thing for us to do, is to ignore them... once we've tweeted them to shut the fuck up.

 

[Loveless]

So none of you have a problem with your government deciding it can act as judge, jury and executioner, in secret, against it's own citizens? Ok then

 

[Slyfox696]

So none of you have a problem with your government deciding it can act as judge, jury and executioner, in secret, against it's own citizens? Ok then

So if an armed criminal is firing an automatic weapon against the police, you think the police should just stand there and ask nicely for them to stop and be arrested?

No one is saying we don't have a problem, in theory, with government acting as judge, jury and executioner. What we ARE saying is that if you openly declare war against your country, don't be surprised if your country declares war on you.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I am, and have been for a while, of the mindset that if you actively declare war on your country, don't be surprised if your country declares war on you. I have no problem with attacks on those who have declared war on their country and actively aids in killing citizens.

This, except forget the "don't be surprised" part. If you actively declare war on your country, especially where your actions can be linked to having caused or soon-to-cause imminent harm to innocent citizens of the country, I have no issue with, in effect, your assassination.

Or fuck it, revoke their citizenship first. Then kill them. Problem solved.

 

[Loveless]

So if an armed criminal is firing an automatic weapon against the police, you think the police should just stand there and ask nicely for them to stop and be arrested?

That's not even remotely the same thing.

Firstly that's an immediate threat that needs to be dealt with.
Secondly the police are there to enforce and work within the law
Lastly the purpose of the police is to arrest the criminal, not kill them.

In comparison, what this government has done is essentially more like a Police Death Squad. Turn up, kill the bad guys before they've done anything, no-one is put in court, no-one is held accountable. That's just completely unacceptable.
Let's be clear here, this is not about this specific case, this is about the bigger picture. The law applies to everyone and it's totally unacceptable that the government can kill it's own citizens and then say "Yeah we killed them, but we cant tell you why" and there be absolutely no accountability to the law.

No one is saying we don't have a problem, in theory, with government acting as judge, jury and executioner. What we ARE saying is that if you openly declare war against your country, don't be surprised if your country declares war on you.

Even war has laws that have to be followed. This wasn't an act of war, he wasn't killed in battle, he wasn't killed in self-defence, this was an assassination of some idiot before he'd even done anything. Now because he's supposedly with IS, everyone will shake it off and say "Oh ok, don't care" but what applies to him, applies to everyone, because apparently this is legal now.

 

[Барбоса]

The problem is with such terrorists is that they are hoping to place the west in an inertia-inducing moral conundrum - do we do nothing remotely iffy and let them thrive or do we veer close to the line, risking becoming more like that which we claim to be fighting?

I always feel like my submerging myself in the politics and warfare of the ancient history clouds my thought processes when it comes to this kind of thing but for me, doing something is much better than doing nothing and the government killing enemy combatants in a war declared by that enemy is acceptable.

I would expect a British citizen who joined the German army in 1940 or the Viet Minh in 1960 to be killed in those conflicts. These guys are no different. The weapons are just different.

There is some worry that creeping towards and even over the ethical line can happen but despite their less than stellar reputations on the whole, I have faith that the more reputable media, politicians and courts will rein the government should it go too far.

 

[Slyfox696]

That's not even remotely the same thing.

Of course it is, it is dealing with a threat of lethal violence with lethal violence.

Firstly that's an immediate threat that needs to be dealt with.

As are plots to assassinate leaders to inspire terror.

Secondly the police are there to enforce and work within the law

And the government is there to protect its citizens.

Lastly the purpose of the police is to arrest the criminal, not kill them.

The purpose of the police is to uphold law and order. But if they are in a situation with a person who is trying to harm others, we grant them the ability to take lethal action.

In comparison, what this government has done is essentially more like a Police Death Squad. Turn up, kill the bad guys before they've done anything, no-one is put in court, no-one is held accountable. That's just completely unacceptable.

No, what they did was take lethal action against those who were actively planning and had publicly declared they were trying to take lethal action against innocent citizens.

Let's be clear here, this is not about this specific case, this is about the bigger picture. The law applies to everyone and it's totally unacceptable that the government can kill it's own citizens and then say "Yeah we killed them, but we cant tell you why" and there be absolutely no accountability to the law.

One of the men killed had already declared allegiance to ISIS and was being featured in ISIS recruiting videos. We know why he was targeted. The other person was killed because he was in the same vehicle as the first man.

There's no "we can't tell you why". We know why and we know it's legit.

Even war has laws that have to be followed.

Yes, and the most basic rule of war is if you declare war, you make yourself a target of war.

This wasn't an act of war

Yes it is. There is an active coalition military response to ISIS and Great Britain is part of said coalition.

he wasn't killed in battle

Sure he was, he just didn't realize there was a battle until it was over.

this was an assassination

He was killed by means of an airstrike. Just because the technology employed by Britain was vastly superior to the technology employed by ISIS, that doesn't make it any less of a "battle".

Now because he's supposedly with IS

If by "supposedly", you mean appears in a well publicized ISIS recruiting video, then sure.

everyone will shake it off and say "Oh ok, don't care" but what applies to him, applies to everyone, because apparently this is legal now.

It's legal to everyone who actively engages in warfare against their own country, yes. The good news for you is this nothing new in war.

 

[Lee]

I believe it was the right call by the government, the resulting action could have saved thousands of lives.

My concern is this setting a precedent. No parliament approval, in fact on the last vote on military action in Syria it was voted no. That exists to keep the matter transparent, it should be pushed through rather than being illegal.

I still think the action should have been done. As Sly (and NorCal) have pointed out they have declared war on the UK and US (among others). Why should we put up with their threats?

 

[X]

As I'm sure will shock all of you, I'm of the mindset that drone strikes without any kind of oversight or supervision is pretty despicable. We've killed countless innocent civilians with these strikes from the US, all in the sake of stopping hypothetical future crimes. It's practically Orwellian. Shit like this only creates more sympathy to ISIS and their groups in the communities that are affected by these strikes. But hey, that 12 year old in Yemen was obviously going to murder countless Americans, so thank fuck we wiped him and his family off the face of the Earth forever, I can sleep better now.

It's particularly bad in Pakistan. US drone strikes on average kill 50 civilians for every 1 "militant" killed. That's unacceptable and disgusting.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

now.

It's particularly bad in Pakistan. US drone strikes on average kill 50 civilians for every 1 "militant" killed. That's unacceptable and disgusting.

Just as unacceptable and disgusting as Pakistan doing everything in its power to hide and allow these people to be within their society and obstruct bringing justice against them, all the while trying to maintain a facade of innocence. Just as in other instances, they have EVERY oppurtunity and ability to deal with these individuals themselves, and not only do they not do that, they go out of their way to help them. I know you have heard the alternate but supposedly true version of the events which led to the death of Bin Laden. There is a reason shit went down the way it did. If you beleive for one second they didnt know he was there, if not straight up purposely sheltered the evilest motherfucker on earth, you are willfully niave.


If you dont want America coming to pay you unpleasant visits, maybe you should take care of shit in your own country, let alone provide asylum to these fucks.

 

[X]

Just as unacceptable and disgusting as Pakistan doing everything in its power to hide and allow these people to be within their society and obstruct bringing justice against them, all the while trying to maintain a facade of innocence.

No one is pretending Pakistan isn't a haven for Muslim extremists and has been for 30 years or so, but just because someone else does something bad, that doesn't excuse your behavior. That isn't logic.

Just as in other instances, they have EVERY oppurtunity and ability to deal with these individuals themselves, and not only do they not do that, they go out of their way to help them. I know you have heard the alternate but supposedly true version of the events which led to the death of Bin Laden. There is a reason shit went down the way it did. If you beleive for one second they didnt know he was there, if not straight up purposely sheltered the evilest motherfucker on earth, you are willfully niave.

Like I just said bud, I know full well Pakistan has basically state-sponsored terrorism for over 30 years. Again, what relevance is that to us killing innocent people? How does that in any way make it okay? Because they did it first? That's schoolyard logic, not something the greatest country on Earth should have any fucking time to waste thinking about.

If you dont want America coming to pay you unpleasant visits, maybe you should take care of shit in your own country, let alone provide asylum to these fucks.

You're right man! Shit why weren't we fucking dropping nukes on all of South America after WWII when half the fucking Nazis made their way there?

What does the fact that the state supports terrorism have to do with us murdering their INNOCENT CIVILIANS? I don't care if Pakistan had a weekly state sponsored television show called "Let's Murder an American Infant!", it doesn't excuse us murdering their civilians.

Not like we haven't done our fair share of atrocious war crimes in our history. Dresden anyone?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I don't care if Pakistan had a weekly state sponsored television show called "Let's Murder an American Infant!", it doesn't excuse us murdering their civilians.

I suppose that is were we differ, then.

 

[X]

I suppose that is were we differ, then.

I suppose so mate. I for one am of the belief that just because someone else does something fucked up, that in no way excuses you for doing something fucked up. If my neighbor shoots someone in the face, I'm not gonna say "Hey! Well shit! It's cool if I shoot someone in the face now too!!!!!", because that is fucking ******ed and completely immoral in every sense of the word "morality". We are the United States of America, not the 13 Year Old Vengeful ******** of America. If we have the balls to say we're the best nation on Earth, we sure as fuck better live up to the moral ideals of our nation, and that absolutely does not include MURDERING (you bet your ass that's the correct word) innocent 12 year old children for no fucking reason.

Seriously, how could anyone even attempt to defend murdering 50 innocent civilians for every one "enemy combatant" (who usually haven't even done a fucking thing against us yet, but who "might")? I don't get it. Someone raped a kid in your neighborhood? Let's go kill 50 random strangers! And then we'll get to him! YEAH MAN JUSTICE!!!!!!

 

[A11oftheLights]

In a democracy, the government has to be made accountable by the public. The public is unable to do this if the government refuses to tell people the details of these actions because they are threats to national security.

This is complete bullshit. The action has already been undertaken, informing the public is not going to hurt national security. We are currently having the same problem in Australia. Tony Abbott has and is doing whatever he wants in the name of "stopping the boats" (which goes against the policies of the UN). He was accussed of paying people smugglers, but says he cant talk about it because it's a matter of national security. Can someone explain to me how answering a yes/no question on paying people smugglers is threating national security?

On top of all this Tony Abbott then creates what is basically his own version of the Gestapo in the Australian Border Force but instead of hunting Jews they are hunting migrants by forcing people to carry their papers around with them. When questioned why they were doing this the response was again 'can't comment national security threats blah blah'

 

[Slyfox696]

In a democracy, the government has to be made accountable by the public. The public is unable to do this if the government refuses to tell people the details of these actions because they are threats to national security.

...but we know why these people were droned to death. They were droned to death because they had joined ISIS and were plotting attacks on innocents.

 

[A11oftheLights]

...but we know why these people were droned to death. They were droned to death because they had joined ISIS and were plotting attacks on innocents.

And in this one example, it's fine. But as I pointed out the are plenty of other examples of Governments not revealing important information afterwards. This leaves the voters uninformed and unable to judge if the government is doing a good job

 

[Slyfox696]

And in this one example, it's fine. But as I pointed out the are plenty of other examples of Governments not revealing important information afterwards. This leaves the voters uninformed and unable to judge if the government is doing a good job

I think so long as we know the people being droned are an active part of an organization dedicated to killing innocent civilians in America or Britain, I think that's about all the information we really need, don't you think?

 

[A11oftheLights]

I think so long as we know the people being droned are an active part of an organization dedicated to killing innocent civilians in America or Britain, I think that's about all the information we really need, don't you think?

You seem really keen on ignoring the fact that I said in the example of people joining ISIS it is fine and that is the appropriate amount of information, but that there are countless other situations were it hasnt been appropriate but the Government has done so anyway.

 

[Slyfox696]

You seem really keen on ignoring the fact that I said in the example of people joining ISIS it is fine and that is the appropriate amount of information, but that there are countless other situations were it hasnt been appropriate but the Government has done so anyway.

When? Most of the situations I'm aware of where the government has targeted by drone one of its citizens has come when they've been part of a group which declared war on the home country.

What are these countless other situations when they've used drones to attack a citizen who wasn't aligned with a group who had declared war?

 

[A11oftheLights]

When? Most of the situations I'm aware of where the government has targeted by drone one of its citizens has come when they've been part of a group which declared war on the home country.

What are these countless other situations when they've used drones to attack a citizen who wasn't aligned with a group who had declared war?

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT DRONE ATTACKS. THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO SAY TO YOU AND ITS CLEAR YOU DID NOT EVEN READ ALL OF MY ORIGINAL POST

 

[Slyfox696]

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT DRONE ATTACKS.

Then perhaps you are in the wrong thread? This thread is about government killing citizens without trial (usually by way of drone attacks) and whether it is acceptable if security deems it so.

Perhaps you ought to start your own thread if you want to talk about general government malfeasance.