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.
So you want them to make up a story to make you happy
I think they are better keeping it as it is. I'm sure they have the support of the vast majority of the population.
So you want them to make up a story to make you happy
No I don't. I'm happy with sensitive details of sources being changed or even completely removed but the basics have to be there. The days of trusting the security services word when they tell us that Mr X was a terrorist are long gone.
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.
There's a big difference between a criminal case with 12 jurors being directed by a judge and putting secret evidence out to public opinion.
Say the evidence is put out and you don't agree with it. What would you do about it?
No I don't. I'm happy with sensitive details of sources being changed or even completely removed but the basics have to be there. The days of trusting the security services word when they tell us that Mr X was a terrorist are long gone.
I agree, I know I'm in the minority here.
The basics are there. We already know that the targeted killing was carried out because they were considered an imminent threat to the UK. So you have your 'story'.
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.
A lot of posters on here are kind of stupid or are so engrossed in their misguided social warrior justice campaigns against the establishment that they cannot thing logically.
It's pretty self evident and obvious why the operational details of something like this cannot be made public.
A lot of posters on here are kind of stupid or are so engrossed in their misguided social warrior justice campaigns against the establishment that they cannot thing logically.
It's pretty self evident and obvious why the operational details of something like this cannot be made public.
It doesn't have to be the operational details but it would be a bit peculiar if we knew enough about the threat to kill these two but not enough to convict anyone in the UK.
No I don't. I'm happy with sensitive details of sources being changed or even completely removed but the basics have to be there. The days of trusting the security services word when they tell us that Mr X was a terrorist are long gone.
You need the security services to tell you that Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin were members of ISIS?
It doesn't have to be the operational details but it would be a bit peculiar if we knew enough about the threat to kill these two but not enough to convict anyone in the UK.
For which the evidence would need to be provided.
If any of the useful details had to be left out then what would remain?
The evidence would say something like: "we would like to launch an attack on <redacted> who lives at <redacted> on at <dedacted> O'clock on <redacted> date. Here is a photo of <redacted> taken by <redacted> which shows him <redacted>. If you think we should bomb <redacted> text Yes to 2345. To respect his human rights text No."
If any of the useful details had to be left out then what would remain?
The evidence would say something like: "we would like to launch an attack on <redacted> who lives at <redacted> on at <dedacted> O'clock on <redacted> date. Here is a photo of <redacted> taken by <redacted> which shows him <redacted>. If you think we should bomb <redacted> text Yes to 2345. To respect his human rights text No."
We could get Simon Cowell to lead the jury and Ant and Dec can give a running commentary and then show edited highlights of the drone strike , I think you've hit on a winning formula that should keep those complaining about it happy
If any of the useful details had to be left out then what would remain?
The evidence would say something like: "we would like to launch an attack on <redacted> who lives at <redacted> on at <dedacted> O'clock on <redacted> date. Here is a photo of <redacted> taken by <redacted> which shows him <redacted>. If you think we should bomb <redacted> text Yes to 2345. To respect his human rights text No."
I would expect the evidence to say something like "Here's emails to and from the deceased with instructions to make a bomb this way and to plant it at such and such an event to the accused"
Otherwise we kill the planner miles away but let the perpetrators on our doorstep go free to carry out the next one.
Unless you'd like them taken out a la Jean Charles de Menezes...
I would expect the evidence to say something like "Here's emails to and from the deceased with instructions to make a bomb this way and to plant it at such and such an event to the accused"
That isn't evidence, that is a story.
As for any actual communications intercepted (I wouldn't expect it to be an email). You want the UKs surveillance techniques to be exposed?
.. I think you've hit on a winning formula that should keep those complaining about it happy
Run it on commercial TV and we could also have sponsored missiles. This Hellfire brought to you by Crunchy Nut Cornflakes. Would help keep the costs down.
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.
What they probably do is implant a tracking device in everyone when they are born.
It doesn't have to be the operational details but it would be a bit peculiar if we knew enough about the threat to kill these two but not enough to convict anyone in the UK.
For which the evidence would need to be provided.
No it wouldn't - in the UK you would prove membership of a terrorist organisation from his youtubes saying so , and his associates and posssion of illegal literature , and if he was engaged in terrorist activity, from physical and surveillance evidence - bombs. manuals guns and obvious sources such as photos and bugged conversations. If you have more, the evidence would be revealed in camera, or not used, to preserve its source.
Any evidence gathered from hostile territory in a war zone - where the terrorist is surrounded by 30,000 armed mates, is by definition going to come from sources terrorists are not aware of. ts not a policeman with a camera or tap on his phoneline. There are obviously not going to be anything that you could reveal or the terrorists - would kill any human source or block the technical ones.
Nor are you going to reveal what precisely you know - because what you know not only reveals how you know it , but also what you don't know, and who else you know about, or don't know about.
So what do you do about the UK based people who were actually going to carry out this attack on UK soil if you don't present the evidence at trial!
As you know, people are regularly arrested for plotting terror attacks. That's what will eventually happen in this case if at all possible; I have no doubt investigations of the direct links between the dead terrorists and their admiring pals here are being investigated right now.
Security services will follow chains of intelligence to identify contacts of contacts, overseas links, analyse threat levels and how imminently any action needs to be taken etc. That's their skill, not the general public's.
If there is an imminent threat to public safety they will bring an investigation to a swift conclusion with raids and arrests, if not they will continue to follow the money and weapons to identify more brainwashed nutters.
We don't need a government statement and running commentary with fine details of what undercover security agents are doing.. here or abroad.
Comments
So you want them to make up a story to make you happy
I think they are better keeping it as it is. I'm sure they have the support of the vast majority of the population.
No I don't. I'm happy with sensitive details of sources being changed or even completely removed but the basics have to be there. The days of trusting the security services word when they tell us that Mr X was a terrorist are long gone.
I agree, I know I'm in the minority here.
There's a big difference between a criminal case with 12 jurors being directed by a judge and putting secret evidence out to public opinion.
Say the evidence is put out and you don't agree with it. What would you do about it?
In some cases arguments are made only to the judge and not in front of the jury as is some evidence
Now just why do you "need" to know details of the operation?
The basics are there. We already know that the targeted killing was carried out because they were considered an imminent threat to the UK. So you have your 'story'.
A lot of posters on here are kind of stupid or are so engrossed in their misguided social warrior justice campaigns against the establishment that they cannot thing logically.
It's pretty self evident and obvious why the operational details of something like this cannot be made public.
It doesn't have to be the operational details but it would be a bit peculiar if we knew enough about the threat to kill these two but not enough to convict anyone in the UK.
For which the evidence would need to be provided.
Why can't you answer it?
You need the security services to tell you that Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin were members of ISIS?
No he wants the government to prove that everyone we kill in a war was an enemy
If any of the useful details had to be left out then what would remain?
The evidence would say something like: "we would like to launch an attack on <redacted> who lives at <redacted> on at <dedacted> O'clock on <redacted> date. Here is a photo of <redacted> taken by <redacted> which shows him <redacted>. If you think we should bomb <redacted> text Yes to 2345. To respect his human rights text No."
Because it wasn't my implication you were questioning.
We could get Simon Cowell to lead the jury and Ant and Dec can give a running commentary and then show edited highlights of the drone strike , I think you've hit on a winning formula that should keep those complaining about it happy
I would expect the evidence to say something like "Here's emails to and from the deceased with instructions to make a bomb this way and to plant it at such and such an event to the accused"
Otherwise we kill the planner miles away but let the perpetrators on our doorstep go free to carry out the next one.
Unless you'd like them taken out a la Jean Charles de Menezes...
That isn't evidence, that is a story.
As for any actual communications intercepted (I wouldn't expect it to be an email). You want the UKs surveillance techniques to be exposed?
Utter nonsense.
Run it on commercial TV and we could also have sponsored missiles. This Hellfire brought to you by Crunchy Nut Cornflakes. Would help keep the costs down.
So what do you do about the UK based people who were actually going to carry out this attack on UK soil if you don't present the evidence at trial!
What they probably do is implant a tracking device in everyone when they are born.
The public don't get to hear the evidence. Just like in this case.
However, the majority of the time they will gather further evidence after their arrest to convict them.
No it wouldn't - in the UK you would prove membership of a terrorist organisation from his youtubes saying so , and his associates and posssion of illegal literature , and if he was engaged in terrorist activity, from physical and surveillance evidence - bombs. manuals guns and obvious sources such as photos and bugged conversations. If you have more, the evidence would be revealed in camera, or not used, to preserve its source.
Any evidence gathered from hostile territory in a war zone - where the terrorist is surrounded by 30,000 armed mates, is by definition going to come from sources terrorists are not aware of. ts not a policeman with a camera or tap on his phoneline. There are obviously not going to be anything that you could reveal or the terrorists - would kill any human source or block the technical ones.
Nor are you going to reveal what precisely you know - because what you know not only reveals how you know it , but also what you don't know, and who else you know about, or don't know about.
No I'm telling you that public interest immunity can be used where necessary.
As you know, people are regularly arrested for plotting terror attacks. That's what will eventually happen in this case if at all possible; I have no doubt investigations of the direct links between the dead terrorists and their admiring pals here are being investigated right now.
Security services will follow chains of intelligence to identify contacts of contacts, overseas links, analyse threat levels and how imminently any action needs to be taken etc. That's their skill, not the general public's.
If there is an imminent threat to public safety they will bring an investigation to a swift conclusion with raids and arrests, if not they will continue to follow the money and weapons to identify more brainwashed nutters.
We don't need a government statement and running commentary with fine details of what undercover security agents are doing.. here or abroad.