Okay. Tough shit to those burned alive and those children beheaded. Glad you clarified things.
I would have thought that if British citizens were committing these acts it would be our governments responsibility to ensure they are stopped which is what we have done
Because it would be a really good idea to tell everyone about what operations our security services are involved in along with the names and location or let us know who they have under surveillance
That would be damaging to our national security. But allowing our government to keep too many details surrounding incidents like this secret would be far more damaging to our national security.
Of course you do. The key is to find the proper balance between the need to keep some things secret, and the need for the government to have proper accountability to the public and not just some rubberstamping in-house "oversight".
Can't believe folks getting all bent out of shape over a couple of dead terrorists, I mean it's hardly likely they were budding scientists set on finding the cure to cancer. They were animals set on terror and mayhem and God knows who they were in cahoots with at home and what dastardly plans they had in the pipeline.
TLDR; Good riddance.
That would be damaging to our national security. But allowing our government to keep too many details surrounding incidents like this secret would be far more damaging to our national security.
The more details the government gives out about security the less safe we are , even saying that we have killed these two COULD have some nutcase carrying out a revenge attack on a soldier or his family
Of course you do. The key is to find the proper balance between the need to keep some things secret, and the need for the government to have proper accountability to the public and not just some rubberstamping in-house "oversight".
What a stupid thing for you to suggest, even as a joke.
You seem set on putting everything else to the scrutiny of Joe public about the procedures killing 2 jihadis, so why not?
Of course you do. The key is to find the proper balance between the need to keep some things secret, and the need for the government to have proper accountability to the public and not just some rubberstamping in-house "oversight".
You are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist.
We are talking here about the government having evidence of a possible attack on the UK. Do you think that is the type of info they should make public? And I'm not just talking about the knowledge, but how they have that knowledge, otherwise it can just be dismissed.
The more details the government gives out about security the less safe we are
True, the more details they give out the less safe we are against ISIS terrorists. But the more detail the government keep secret the less safe we are against terrorism from our own government. So terrorism exists at both extremes of the scale - Keeping everything secret, and keeping nothing secret. This is why we want to avoid the extremes and have an ideal middle ground. A middle ground where the government are accountable and their claims can be verified, while at the same time enough is kept secret not to give ISIS any significant advantage in fighting us.
That would be damaging to our national security. But allowing our government to keep too many details surrounding incidents like this secret would be far more damaging to our national security.
Not really, probably the reverse. The security services move in mysterious ways, and like all good magicians prefer not to reveal their secrets. Except Snowden and the Grauniad chose to, and so it got a bit harder for the services to do their job of protecting us. But as usual, it's really all down to how much we trust our government. There's been video and twitters from these ex-ISIL finest stating they'd committed multiple serious crimes and intended to committ more. So IMHO, not great loss to our gene pool. Confession may be good for the soul, but in this case it may also have provided targetting information.
But there are still grey areas, so I propose Eel's Law-
#include wafflybollix
#include std EU disclaimer
1. Any subject who takes up arms against the United Kingdom may be executed without trial or warning.
end
The EU dislaimer's the usual bit stuck on legislation saying we believe it's compatible with EU HRA. In this case we're lying, but this is traditional. But short and to the point and the only legal test necessary would be proving they'd taken up arms. So posing with an AK would be a bad idea for future ISIL recruits who aren't in a hurry to meet their virgins.
We are talking here about the government having evidence of a possible attack on the UK. Do you think that is the type of info they should make public?
Of course it should be made public because if there is a terrorist threat to the country doesn't the public deserve to know?
And I'm not just talking about the knowledge, but how they have that knowledge, otherwise it can just be dismissed.
This is where it gets more complicated, certain things do need to be kept secret. They can provide us evidence to back up such a claim without compromising intelligence gathering techniques and sources. The security services are experts at this kind of thing, because in their line of work they quite often need to act on a piece of intel without revealing how they got it, so they generate a plausible explanation for how it came to them that is different to the actual way they got the intel. So doing this would be trivial to them.
Not really, probably the reverse. The security services move in mysterious ways, and like all good magicians prefer not to reveal their secrets. Except Snowden and the Grauniad chose to, and so it got a bit harder for the services to do their job of protecting us. But as usual, it's really all down to how much we trust our government. There's been video and twitters from these ex-ISIL finest stating they'd committed multiple serious crimes and intended to committ more. So IMHO, not great loss to our gene pool. Confession may be good for the soul, but in this case it may also have provided targetting information.
Snowden and the Guardian went public because the security services WEREN'T doing their job, but were preferring to carry out mass surveillance against innocent people for no legitimate reason. In other words, they were wasting time spying on innocent people when they should have been doing their job and protecting us from terrorists. And mass surveillance does not protect us from terrorism.
True, the more details they give out the less safe we are against ISIS terrorists. But the more detail the government keep secret the less safe we are against terrorism from our own government. So terrorism exists at both extremes of the scale - Keeping everything secret, and keeping nothing secret. This is why we want to avoid the extremes and have an ideal middle ground. A middle ground where the government are accountable and their claims can be verified, while at the same time enough is kept secret not to give ISIS any significant advantage in fighting us.
The public has only ever been able to hold the government to account once every 4 - 5 years at a general election , you do know that some documents are only released after 100 years and that some never will be
True, the more details they give out the less safe we are against ISIS terrorists. But the more detail the government keep secret the less safe we are against terrorism from our own government. So terrorism exists at both extremes of the scale - Keeping everything secret, and keeping nothing secret. This is why we want to avoid the extremes and have an ideal middle ground. A middle ground where the government are accountable and their claims can be verified, while at the same time enough is kept secret not to give ISIS any significant advantage in fighting us.
Okay, I've read the BIB. That's enough for me - can't take anymore of this, sorry.
We had a narrow escape here in the Netherlands and Belgium in the Thalys train, thanks to some heroic passengers. This piss-stain was already in the sights of the security agency, still he was just stopped short of wiping out a train, by sheer luck.
I wonder how some of those opposing this kill would react if they had now not been killed, and then in a year blow up a train in the UK, and then the RAF would make public "yes, we had both of 'm in our cross-hairs, but it was un-ethical to pull the trigger.
The (IS) leave no doubt as to what their goals are, and have proved thet they put their money where their mouth is. It's nothing more than self-defence.
They took the gloves off a while ago, it's time the west did the same in regards to IS.
Of course you do. The key is to find the proper balance between the need to keep some things secret, and the need for the government to have proper accountability to the public and not just some rubberstamping in-house "oversight"..
How do you judge the public's opinion once any evidence is published? There will always be some who will believe anything they are told and some who would dismiss everything as a conspiracy.
If we do have spooks and special forces on the ground in Syria (as I'm sure we do), then we have to protect their identity, methods and their sources.
I would have thought that if British citizens were committing these acts it would be our governments responsibility to ensure they are stopped which is what we have done
Okay, I've read up to the BIB. That's enough for me - can't take anymore of this, sorry.
It is a sad truth of life that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If our government were able kill British citizens and not need to give any proof by saying "We have proof he was a terrorist but it's classified", I guarantee they would eventually abuse that power and kill innocent people, then label them terrorists to justify the killing. Perhaps not at first, they would probably handle the power responsibly for quite some time, but eventually someone in government would realize what a useful weapon it can be to get rid of opponents and frighten others into submission with the implication that it will be used on them next. Countless East Germans were murdered by the Stasi "neutralizing an enemy of the people" or "protecting our land from terrorist scum". This is why proper independent accountability is so vital. Even the most well meaning government will become corrupt if accountability isn't forced on them.
That would be damaging to our national security. But allowing our government to keep too many details surrounding incidents like this secret would be far more damaging to our national security.
You reckon?
Just consider this incident for a moment.
3 ISIS terrorists (2 British Citizens) are travelling in Syria in a car. The car is blown up using a Hellfire missile from a Predator drone.
Now - and this is the bit you really need to think about - the Predator was flying many thousands of feet above Syrian soil. There are many thousands of cars travelling on the (no doubt) many thousands of roads in that country.
Consider for a moment just how that Predator pilot sitting in Lincolnshire knew just which car, on which road and at what time, he/she had to fire on?
Once you figure it out - then maybe, just maybe, you'll realise that the details of the operation are on a need-to-know restriction and that you don't need to know.
How do you judge the public's opinion once any evidence is published? There will always be some who will believe anything they are told and some who would dismiss everything as a conspiracy.
I've already addressed this. There will always be conspiracy theorists who dismiss every bit of evidence that contradicts their theories, we can't do anything to change their mind, but that shouldn't stop that evidence being made available to others to examine. You might as well suggest that we abandon the idea of criminal trials altogether because some conspiracy theorists will always say the state has fabricated evidence.
3 ISIS terrorists (2 British Citizens) are travelling in Syria in a car. The car is blown up using a Hellfire missile from a Predator drone.
Now - and this is the bit you really need to think about - the Predator was flying many thousands of feet above Syrian soil. There are many thousands of cars travelling on the (no doubt) many thousands of roads in that country.
Consider for a moment just how that Predator pilot sitting in Lincolnshire knew just which car, on which road and at what time, he/she had to fire on?
Once you figure it out - then maybe, just maybe, you'll realise that the details of the operation are on a need-to-know restriction and that you don't need to know.
On that we just won't agree. You think the public don't need to do, I think that we do.
Comments
I would have thought that if British citizens were committing these acts it would be our governments responsibility to ensure they are stopped which is what we have done
That would be damaging to our national security. But allowing our government to keep too many details surrounding incidents like this secret would be far more damaging to our national security.
Of course you do. The key is to find the proper balance between the need to keep some things secret, and the need for the government to have proper accountability to the public and not just some rubberstamping in-house "oversight".
What a stupid thing for you to suggest, even as a joke.
TLDR; Good riddance.
The more details the government gives out about security the less safe we are , even saying that we have killed these two COULD have some nutcase carrying out a revenge attack on a soldier or his family
You seem set on putting everything else to the scrutiny of Joe public about the procedures killing 2 jihadis, so why not?
They are dead. I am a little safer.
You are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist.
We are talking here about the government having evidence of a possible attack on the UK. Do you think that is the type of info they should make public? And I'm not just talking about the knowledge, but how they have that knowledge, otherwise it can just be dismissed.
Are you really suggesting they should do that?
True, the more details they give out the less safe we are against ISIS terrorists. But the more detail the government keep secret the less safe we are against terrorism from our own government. So terrorism exists at both extremes of the scale - Keeping everything secret, and keeping nothing secret. This is why we want to avoid the extremes and have an ideal middle ground. A middle ground where the government are accountable and their claims can be verified, while at the same time enough is kept secret not to give ISIS any significant advantage in fighting us.
Not really, probably the reverse. The security services move in mysterious ways, and like all good magicians prefer not to reveal their secrets. Except Snowden and the Grauniad chose to, and so it got a bit harder for the services to do their job of protecting us. But as usual, it's really all down to how much we trust our government. There's been video and twitters from these ex-ISIL finest stating they'd committed multiple serious crimes and intended to committ more. So IMHO, not great loss to our gene pool. Confession may be good for the soul, but in this case it may also have provided targetting information.
But there are still grey areas, so I propose Eel's Law-
#include wafflybollix
#include std EU disclaimer
1. Any subject who takes up arms against the United Kingdom may be executed without trial or warning.
end
The EU dislaimer's the usual bit stuck on legislation saying we believe it's compatible with EU HRA. In this case we're lying, but this is traditional. But short and to the point and the only legal test necessary would be proving they'd taken up arms. So posing with an AK would be a bad idea for future ISIL recruits who aren't in a hurry to meet their virgins.
Of course it should be made public because if there is a terrorist threat to the country doesn't the public deserve to know?
This is where it gets more complicated, certain things do need to be kept secret. They can provide us evidence to back up such a claim without compromising intelligence gathering techniques and sources. The security services are experts at this kind of thing, because in their line of work they quite often need to act on a piece of intel without revealing how they got it, so they generate a plausible explanation for how it came to them that is different to the actual way they got the intel. So doing this would be trivial to them.
Snowden and the Guardian went public because the security services WEREN'T doing their job, but were preferring to carry out mass surveillance against innocent people for no legitimate reason. In other words, they were wasting time spying on innocent people when they should have been doing their job and protecting us from terrorists. And mass surveillance does not protect us from terrorism.
The public has only ever been able to hold the government to account once every 4 - 5 years at a general election , you do know that some documents are only released after 100 years and that some never will be
Okay, I've read the BIB. That's enough for me - can't take anymore of this, sorry.
I wonder how some of those opposing this kill would react if they had now not been killed, and then in a year blow up a train in the UK, and then the RAF would make public "yes, we had both of 'm in our cross-hairs, but it was un-ethical to pull the trigger.
The (IS) leave no doubt as to what their goals are, and have proved thet they put their money where their mouth is. It's nothing more than self-defence.
They took the gloves off a while ago, it's time the west did the same in regards to IS.
Personally, I think a cockroach has more rights.
How do you judge the public's opinion once any evidence is published? There will always be some who will believe anything they are told and some who would dismiss everything as a conspiracy.
If we do have spooks and special forces on the ground in Syria (as I'm sure we do), then we have to protect their identity, methods and their sources.
I guess Andykn walks a different path.
You'd need to tell that to our elected representatives who chose not to intervene.
Even now, we've only very selectively knocked off two out of thousands, two who directly threatened us rather than Syrians.
It is a sad truth of life that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If our government were able kill British citizens and not need to give any proof by saying "We have proof he was a terrorist but it's classified", I guarantee they would eventually abuse that power and kill innocent people, then label them terrorists to justify the killing. Perhaps not at first, they would probably handle the power responsibly for quite some time, but eventually someone in government would realize what a useful weapon it can be to get rid of opponents and frighten others into submission with the implication that it will be used on them next. Countless East Germans were murdered by the Stasi "neutralizing an enemy of the people" or "protecting our land from terrorist scum". This is why proper independent accountability is so vital. Even the most well meaning government will become corrupt if accountability isn't forced on them.
You reckon?
Just consider this incident for a moment.
3 ISIS terrorists (2 British Citizens) are travelling in Syria in a car. The car is blown up using a Hellfire missile from a Predator drone.
Now - and this is the bit you really need to think about - the Predator was flying many thousands of feet above Syrian soil. There are many thousands of cars travelling on the (no doubt) many thousands of roads in that country.
Consider for a moment just how that Predator pilot sitting in Lincolnshire knew just which car, on which road and at what time, he/she had to fire on?
Once you figure it out - then maybe, just maybe, you'll realise that the details of the operation are on a need-to-know restriction and that you don't need to know.
Don't you think our lives are worth saving then?
I've already addressed this. There will always be conspiracy theorists who dismiss every bit of evidence that contradicts their theories, we can't do anything to change their mind, but that shouldn't stop that evidence being made available to others to examine. You might as well suggest that we abandon the idea of criminal trials altogether because some conspiracy theorists will always say the state has fabricated evidence.
On that we just won't agree. You think the public don't need to do, I think that we do.