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!
That is a time it would be fine for such evidence to come out not in advance of trials all over the media, if all the details were released not only may it hinder an ongoing investigation it may assist people evading arrest and a good defence lawyer will argue that it cannot be used in evidence as having been told to all and sundry it would mean their clients could not get a fair trial . It may also reveal how such information was gathered and could put the lives of any informants at risk.
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.
So what's your precedent for such evidence being allowed in camera?
Its beginning to look to me like lots of people are happy for extra judicial executions of the admin guys but equally happy to let off the people who were actually going to carry out the attacks.
Two people that fight against their own. I do not care.
They are dead. I am a little safer.
Worth pointing out too that they were part of an armed militia or guerilla army, in military uniform and in the general location of a civil war.....'terrorist' would be something of an understatement.
So what's your precedent for such evidence being allowed in camera?
Its beginning to look to me like lots of people are happy for extra judicial executions of the admin guys but equally happy to let off the people who were actually going to carry out the attacks.
Where on earth do you get that from? People want them all neutralised - whether that's by a drone attack in the Middle East wastelands created by ISIS, or through capture, conviction and prison here.
Where on earth do you get that from? People want them all neutralised - whether that's by a drone attack in the Middle East wastelands created by ISIS, or through capture, conviction and prison here.
I'm getting it from all the people saying the evidence has to be kept secret. That's not how we do trials in the UK. Yet again the self styled "patriots" trying to make us less and less British every day.
I'm getting it from all the people saying the evidence has to be kept secret. That's not how we do trials in the UK. Yet again the self styled "patriots" trying to make us less and less British every day.
You seem to be making things up as you go to defend your point of view.
I have not seen one poster say anything about not putting people on trial in this country. The thread is about dealing with people who we can't get to trial because they are holed up in ISIS controlled land.
I'm getting it from all the people saying the evidence has to be kept secret. That's not how we do trials in the UK. Yet again the self styled "patriots" trying to make us less and less British every day.
Any "evidence" that can, will or is likely to place future operational security at risk is not for public consumption.
At the end of the day, you're asking that members of our armed/security forces be put at risk, just to satisfy your curiosity.
You seem to be making things up as you go to defend your point of view.
I have not seen one poster say anything about not putting people on trial in this country. The thread is about dealing with people who we can't get to trial because they are holed up in ISIS controlled land.
Then go back and read the posts again that I've been replying to, they're saying the evidence can't be made public. In this country that pretty much means no trial except in very unusual circumstances.
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.
Good points, ducky. As I've said before, they shouldn't even have mentioned that there had been an action at all. Gibbs wouldn't have. Careless talk costs lives.
Any "evidence" that can, will or is likely to place future operational security at risk is not for public consumption.
At the end of the day, you're asking that members of our armed/security forces be put at risk, just to satisfy your curiosity.
News Flash: That is not going to happen.
No, I'm saying it seems odd to let people we are told were going to kill lots of people go free.
How revealing the contents of communication intercepts would put our security staff at risk is something I have no doubt you won't be able to satisfactorily explain.
Good points, ducky. As I've said before, they shouldn't even have mentioned that there had been an action at all. Gibbs wouldn't have. Careless talk costs lives.
Then go back and read the posts again that I've been replying to, they're saying the evidence can't be made public. In this country that pretty much means no trial except in very unusual circumstances.
No it doesn't. You can have trials if the perpetrators are caught in the UK. Any evidence that does not jeopardise our security can be held in open court and if it does that can be "in camera".
There can also be trials with a judge only as you say in very unusual circumstances. But they do happen and I would say in an incidence of terror would justify that where national security was paramount.
Back to the drone attack
We all have rights as you say but you cannot satisfy the rights of two opponents at the same time. In this case the right of an innocent person not to be killed against the right of the killer not to be killed if it prevents the killing of the innocent.
I'm getting it from all the people saying the evidence has to be kept secret. That's not how we do trials in the UK. Yet again the self styled "patriots" trying to make us less and less British every day.
Then go back and read the posts again that I've been replying to, they're saying the evidence can't be made public. In this country that pretty much means no trial except in very unusual circumstances.
No, I'm saying it seems odd to let people we are told were going to kill lots of people go free.
How revealing the contents of communication intercepts would put our security staff at risk is something I have no doubt you won't be able to satisfactorily explain.
You need to go back and read the thread again. No one has said a such thing.
I think your coming at this from entirely the wrong angle.
Any release of information to the general,public that might compromise future or current operations in the area around Syria shouldn't happen.
Our countries ability to do this again should not be compromised because some folk want the evidence.
In these cases I'm quite happy for the Govt to continue targeting murderers and criminals who would not bat an eyelid while sawing off your head with a bread knife.
Yes, if we had captured them, then they should face UK justice but in my opinion they signed away all of their rights when they took up arms against the UK to fight for a totally totalitarian religious extremist regime.
[QUOTE=Black Sheep;79573558In these cases I'm quite happy for the Govt to continue targeting murderers and criminals who would not bat an eyelid while sawing off your head with a bread knife.[/quote]
This only works as long as you trust that the government are always telling the truth when they say Mr X was a terrorist. The days of trusting them and the security services to have our best interests at heart are long gone though, which is why independent oversight is essential.
No it doesn't. You can have trials if the perpetrators are caught in the UK. Any evidence that does not jeopardise our security can be held in open court and if it does that can be "in camera".
There can also be trials with a judge only as you say in very unusual circumstances. But they do happen and I would say in an incidence of terror would justify that where national security was paramount.
I've yet to be convinced that communication intercepts are that secret, especially in the light of the Snowden revelations.
Back to the drone attack
We all have rights as you say but you cannot satisfy the rights of two opponents at the same time. In this case the right of an innocent person not to be killed against the right of the killer not to be killed if it prevents the killing of the innocent.
Human rights don't work that way, that's why I keep citing the right not to be tortured. As an example, there's no balancing right of innocent people that lets people be tortured. The only balancing rights are those expressly provided for, like being able to jail criminals.
Yes, if we had captured them, then they should face UK justice but in my opinion they signed away all of their rights when they took up arms against the UK to fight for a totally totalitarian religious extremist regime.
Again this is around keeping it legal. You can't really sign away your rights these days given UN, EU and UK 'uman rights legislation and other laws. So if we're at war with ISIL, the laws of war apply in addition to regular laws. This complicates life and means we end up with pretty loose interpretations of the Article 51 self-defence rules.
If in this case the plot was to attack VE/VJ celebrations or other events, they appeared to pass peacefull and the plotters were killed some weeks later. So it may not have been an immediate threat, and so pushing it to claim self-defence.
But what happened is probably no bad thing and from statements made by the deceased, they're no loss to civil society.. But we should sort out the legalities or sooner or later someone's going to successfully challenge Article 51. One way would be to re-introduce the death penalty, or we could potentially look at old laws concerning outlaws, banditry etc. Saying 'we're at war' gives nutjobs more status and semi-legitmises them as enemy combatants, and calling them 'terrorists' does much the same. Most of what they do are common crimes covered by existing legislation, so we should treat them as common criminals.
Here's a thought, why didn't they kill Baghdadi instead of some low level foot soldiers?
Because it won't work. Its like a pyramid. You take the top off and the rest still stands. The government of this country wouldn't collapse if Cameron dropped down dead this morning. You have to go for those who pose the most immediate threat.first.
Ultimately you have to realise what you're fighting isn't an army. It's an idea. They are far more dangerous.
Once you counter the ideology you stop recruitment and support starts drifting away. Once the lower levels of the pyramid are gone. The upper levels start to crumble and eventually falls.
I'm getting it from all the people saying the evidence has to be kept secret. That's not how we do trials in the UK. Yet again the self styled "patriots" trying to make us less and less British every day.
If you don't like the way we do things here, my best advice to you is flee this country and seek asylum in a state that will guarantee you they will not seek out and destroy the murderous rapists of isil. Go get a rubber dingy from argos and set off with your gps phone, I am sure the Saudi, Qatari or Emirates coast guard will be only to pleased to greet you.
Because it won't work. Its like a pyramid. You take the top off and the rest still stands. The government of this country wouldn't collapse if Cameron dropped down dead this morning. You have to go for those who pose the most immediate threat.first.
Ultimately you have to realise what you're fighting isn't an army. It's an idea. They are far more dangerous.
Once you counter the ideology you stop recruitment and support starts drifting away. Once the lower levels of the pyramid are gone. The upper levels start to crumble and eventually falls.
Ah I see and the best way to do that is for extra judicial killings
Ah I see and the best way to do that is for extra judicial killings
If that's what you suggest that's your business. I'd take the different approach I'd mentioned though. It avoids all the unnecessary legal complications.
Comments
That is a time it would be fine for such evidence to come out not in advance of trials all over the media, if all the details were released not only may it hinder an ongoing investigation it may assist people evading arrest and a good defence lawyer will argue that it cannot be used in evidence as having been told to all and sundry it would mean their clients could not get a fair trial . It may also reveal how such information was gathered and could put the lives of any informants at risk.
Eh? How would that help convict UK based terrorists? Withholding the evidence?
So what's your precedent for such evidence being allowed in camera?
Its beginning to look to me like lots of people are happy for extra judicial executions of the admin guys but equally happy to let off the people who were actually going to carry out the attacks.
Worth pointing out too that they were part of an armed militia or guerilla army, in military uniform and in the general location of a civil war.....'terrorist' would be something of an understatement.
Where on earth do you get that from? People want them all neutralised - whether that's by a drone attack in the Middle East wastelands created by ISIS, or through capture, conviction and prison here.
I'm getting it from all the people saying the evidence has to be kept secret. That's not how we do trials in the UK. Yet again the self styled "patriots" trying to make us less and less British every day.
You seem to be making things up as you go to defend your point of view.
I have not seen one poster say anything about not putting people on trial in this country. The thread is about dealing with people who we can't get to trial because they are holed up in ISIS controlled land.
Any "evidence" that can, will or is likely to place future operational security at risk is not for public consumption.
At the end of the day, you're asking that members of our armed/security forces be put at risk, just to satisfy your curiosity.
News Flash: That is not going to happen.
Then go back and read the posts again that I've been replying to, they're saying the evidence can't be made public. In this country that pretty much means no trial except in very unusual circumstances.
Good points, ducky. As I've said before, they shouldn't even have mentioned that there had been an action at all. Gibbs wouldn't have. Careless talk costs lives.
No, I'm saying it seems odd to let people we are told were going to kill lots of people go free.
How revealing the contents of communication intercepts would put our security staff at risk is something I have no doubt you won't be able to satisfactorily explain.
I think the enemy probably already knew...
Who exactly is suggesting we do that?
No it doesn't. You can have trials if the perpetrators are caught in the UK. Any evidence that does not jeopardise our security can be held in open court and if it does that can be "in camera".
There can also be trials with a judge only as you say in very unusual circumstances. But they do happen and I would say in an incidence of terror would justify that where national security was paramount.
Back to the drone attack
We all have rights as you say but you cannot satisfy the rights of two opponents at the same time. In this case the right of an innocent person not to be killed against the right of the killer not to be killed if it prevents the killing of the innocent.
You need to go back and read the thread again. No one has said a such thing.
I think your coming at this from entirely the wrong angle.
Any release of information to the general,public that might compromise future or current operations in the area around Syria shouldn't happen.
Our countries ability to do this again should not be compromised because some folk want the evidence.
In these cases I'm quite happy for the Govt to continue targeting murderers and criminals who would not bat an eyelid while sawing off your head with a bread knife.
Yes, if we had captured them, then they should face UK justice but in my opinion they signed away all of their rights when they took up arms against the UK to fight for a totally totalitarian religious extremist regime.
The previous posters I've been replying to who say the evidence needs to stay secret.
This only works as long as you trust that the government are always telling the truth when they say Mr X was a terrorist. The days of trusting them and the security services to have our best interests at heart are long gone though, which is why independent oversight is essential.
Again this is around keeping it legal. You can't really sign away your rights these days given UN, EU and UK 'uman rights legislation and other laws. So if we're at war with ISIL, the laws of war apply in addition to regular laws. This complicates life and means we end up with pretty loose interpretations of the Article 51 self-defence rules.
If in this case the plot was to attack VE/VJ celebrations or other events, they appeared to pass peacefull and the plotters were killed some weeks later. So it may not have been an immediate threat, and so pushing it to claim self-defence.
But what happened is probably no bad thing and from statements made by the deceased, they're no loss to civil society.. But we should sort out the legalities or sooner or later someone's going to successfully challenge Article 51. One way would be to re-introduce the death penalty, or we could potentially look at old laws concerning outlaws, banditry etc. Saying 'we're at war' gives nutjobs more status and semi-legitmises them as enemy combatants, and calling them 'terrorists' does much the same. Most of what they do are common crimes covered by existing legislation, so we should treat them as common criminals.
Because it won't work. Its like a pyramid. You take the top off and the rest still stands. The government of this country wouldn't collapse if Cameron dropped down dead this morning. You have to go for those who pose the most immediate threat.first.
Ultimately you have to realise what you're fighting isn't an army. It's an idea. They are far more dangerous.
Once you counter the ideology you stop recruitment and support starts drifting away. Once the lower levels of the pyramid are gone. The upper levels start to crumble and eventually falls.
Ah I see and the best way to do that is for extra judicial killings
If that's what you suggest that's your business. I'd take the different approach I'd mentioned though. It avoids all the unnecessary legal complications.