• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

British Isis member Sally Jones 'killed in airstrike with 12-year-old son'

Apocalypse:

Where does it say exactly that only if the threat is vital and is one that poses a danger to the entire existence of the nation it has the right to defend its citizens? That if the threat is only to the lives of say a thousand people then the nation has no right to act immediately? Please do refer to where this is stated.
Click to expand...

The basis for this is the Caroline Test and the standards for state military action in self defence. The standard is below a threat that threatens "the entire existence of the nation" as you wrote but higher than armed raiding parties crossing the frontier and one state crossing borders for the purpose of supplying armed rebels with war materiel, according to traditional US interpretations of what is a justifiable self defence by states. That older US interpretation has somewhat softened since the 19th Century but the requirement that the threat be vital, immediate and large scale still exists even today. Up uniting recently the doctrine of a state's right to self defence was predicated on an actual attack occuring or about to occur across a frontier. Now the goal posts are being pushed to widen the preconditions in order to allow preemptive war in response to possible threats presented by both state and non-state actors.

Sally Jones herself was not an imminent or vital threat to the UK, the USA nor the rest of the world. She was dangerous to individuals (both the suicide bombers she recruited and indoctrinated and the potential victims of such bombings) but she was not a vital threat to any state. She was not an imminent threat because she was in flight at the time of her alleged death. So, no, I do not have to concede that she was an imminent threat to any state at the time of her alleged killing nor a vital threat for any state to claim the doctrine of self defence for her killing.

The comparison you make by the end of your post isn't really a logical and sound one as people who you accuse of "advocating for violence" against NK, Iran and others on this website aren't actively working towards that goal as the terrorist referred to used to do before she was eliminated by the US. (And we won't discuss here who has the right to self-defense from who in the case of those mentioned nations as it's quite irrelevant to the topic, but clearly my opinion differs than yours.)
Click to expand...

There are several posters here who claim to be part of governments and active members of military forces, including SOF who advocate for using serious military force against various nations. Furthermore the comment was made in the context of my first post where I argued that politicians, military personnel, pundits and editorial commentators often publicly advocate for and endorse both military and covert intelligence operations to harm other states. The point being that as a doctrine of preventative self defence expands it becomes more hazardous to openly express unpopular views which states may deem threatening.

I would liken Sally Jones to a Charles Manson, a beguiling and very dangerous criminal rather than vital military threat to any state. Therefore her fate should have been determined by law enforcement efforts and legal due process rather by extrajudicial killing via CIA controlled drone strike with supporting military targeting and acquisition. So, yes are opinions are divergent and are unlikely to be reconciled. I rationalise and also believe strongly that restrictive legal interpretations of a state's right to use the doctrine of self defence on individuals and groups is needed because in the final analysis states are far more dangerous to international peace than warped and violent individuals and militant radical groups.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Why is her death bad?
Click to expand...

I don't claim that Sally Jones' alleged death was a bad thing. I claim that the means by which that death was effected was unlawful and thus a bad thing. It sets legal and political precedents which may have more dire consequences to peace and human safety than most conventional terrorists are capable of threatening. The ends don't justify the means and some means are far more dangerous than the threat which they are employed to correct.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Fledermaus:

You use the term "covert" and suggest they are "essentially illegal and thus deniable"?

What was "covert" about taking her out?
Click to expand...

I used the word covert to describe an intelligence operation. Covert intelligence operations often require these agents of the state to use illegal methods to achieve their states' goals. Thus the importance of plausible deniability in such covert operations is well understood. What made the alleged killing of Sally Jones and others illegal extrajudicial killings was that a CIA drone controlled by a covert intelligence organisation unlawfully assassinated the woman, her son and others as they were in flight from Raqqa.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Fledermaus said:
GOALPOST MOVE

The territory does not matter as she was in an organization FIGHTING the Syrian government and not subject to Syrian law...

The rest is blah, blah, blah goalpost moving.
Click to expand...

Not a goalpost move at all. Just setting the wider legal context in which the alleged killing of Sally Jones took place in order to illustrate the endemic illegality and unlawfulness of the actions of the US and some Coalition members in using the state right of self-defence as a pretext for waging wars of national interest in and around Syria.

The territory does matter because the territory determines whether the killing and the wider action of which the drone strike was a part are lawful or not. In my opinion they are not.

As to the "blah-blah-blah" issue you are neither compelled to read nor compelled to respond to my posts so I am not sympathetic to the heavy burden of you having to wade through the "blahs". You do so out of choice and not necessity.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Fledermaus:



I used the word covert to describe an intelligence operation. Covert intelligence operations often require these agents of the state to use illegal methods to achieve their states' goals. Thus the importance of plausible deniability in such covert operations is well understood. What made the alleged killing of Sally Jones and others illegal extrajudicial killings was that a CIA drone controlled by a covert intelligence organisation unlawfully assassinated the woman, her son and others as they were in flight from Raqqa.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Your insistence that the operation was covert and that covert = illegal is rather laughable.

Especially since everyone knows what occurred.

Please explain what is wrong with killing terrorists.
 
Evilroddy said:
Not a goalpost move at all. Just setting the wider legal context in which the alleged killing of Sally Jones took place in order to illustrate the endemic illegality and unlawfulness of the actions of the US and some Coalition members in using the state right of self-defence as a pretext for waging wars of national interest in and around Syria.

The territory does matter because the territory determines whether the killing and the wider action of which the drone strike was a part are lawful or not. In my opinion they are not.

As to the "blah-blah-blah" issue you are neither compelled to read nor compelled to respond to my posts so I am not sympathetic to the heavy burden of you having to wade through the "blahs". You do so out of choice and not necessity.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Was she legally in Syria?

Was she a Syrian citizen?

Was the death of an ISIS member protested by Syria?
 
Evilroddy said:
I don't claim that Sally Jones' alleged death was a bad thing. I claim that the means by which that death was effected was unlawful and thus a bad thing. It sets legal and political precedents which may have more dire consequences to peace and human safety than most conventional terrorists are capable of threatening. The ends don't justify the means and some means are far more dangerous than the threat which they are employed to correct.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Your OPINION is noted.

Thankfully others make the decisions.
 
Evilroddy said:
Apocalypse:

This is a tangent but here we go. There are different sources for the origin of laws. In international law, which despite your protests to the contrary, has existed since Hittites and Egyptians entered into the first known treaty between states, there has been international law (IL). IL comes from international traditions (customary IL), from treaties and agreements (bilateral and multilateral treaty law), from the writings of legal scholars (doctrinal IL) and from supranational organisations compelling states to follow certain stated principles. You don't need a world government to create global legislation and to enforce it to have a body of IL.

Unenforcible law is still law. If a guy in Northern Canada breaks a law and avoids capture and all attempts at law enforcement, that does not moot Canadian National Law any more than a strong country flouting established international law moots IL. Laws exist beyond states' boundries and IL does not require a state to consent to it in order to be bound by it. If enough powerful states are willing to enforce IL then it can be and has been imposed upon unwilling states, nations and peoples.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

You aren't adding anything new.

Do note that in your example the guy merely avoids capture but the ones who are expcted to hunt him down still exist - the Canadian law enforcement.
No body to enforce a law means no laws, as simple as that. Nations forcing others to obey to their will isn't called law, it's called power. Agreements between nations aren't laws, they are agreements.
 
Evilroddy said:
Apocalypse:



The basis for this is the Caroline Test and the standards for state military action in self defence. The standard is below a threat that threatens "the entire existence of the nation" as you wrote but higher than armed raiding parties crossing the frontier and one state crossing borders for the purpose of supplying armed rebels with war materiel, according to traditional US interpretations of what is a justifiable self defence by states. That older US interpretation has somewhat softened since the 19th Century but the requirement that the threat be vital, immediate and large scale still exists even today. Up uniting recently the doctrine of a state's right to self defence was predicated on an actual attack occuring or about to occur across a frontier. Now the goal posts are being pushed to widen the preconditions in order to allow preemptive war in response to possible threats presented by both state and non-state actors.

Sally Jones herself was not an imminent or vital threat to the UK, the USA nor the rest of the world. She was dangerous to individuals (both the suicide bombers she recruited and indoctrinated and the potential victims of such bombings) but she was not a vital threat to any state. She was not an imminent threat because she was in flight at the time of her alleged death. So, no, I do not have to concede that she was an imminent threat to any state at the time of her alleged killing nor a vital threat for any state to claim the doctrine of self defence for her killing.



There are several posters here who claim to be part of governments and active members of military forces, including SOF who advocate for using serious military force against various nations. Furthermore the comment was made in the context of my first post where I argued that politicians, military personnel, pundits and editorial commentators often publicly advocate for and endorse both military and covert intelligence operations to harm other states. The point being that as a doctrine of preventative self defence expands it becomes more hazardous to openly express unpopular views which states may deem threatening.

I would liken Sally Jones to a Charles Manson, a beguiling and very dangerous criminal rather than vital military threat to any state. Therefore her fate should have been determined by law enforcement efforts and legal due process rather by extrajudicial killing via CIA controlled drone strike with supporting military targeting and acquisition. So, yes are opinions are divergent and are unlikely to be reconciled. I rationalise and also believe strongly that restrictive legal interpretations of a state's right to use the doctrine of self defence on individuals and groups is needed because in the final analysis states are far more dangerous to international peace than warped and violent individuals and militant radical groups.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

First of all we were in agreement all along that Sally Jones was not an existential threat to the US or UK so there's no need to argue that.
You were asked however to refer to where in international law (UN charter, Geneva Conventions, etc.) it states a nation has no right to defend itself from a threat if the threat isn't existential.
Either do it or admit to being wrong but don't stretch the argument to unnecessary lengths, if it doesn't show up in any of those agreements that are used as the basis for what is international law then it isn't international law plain and simple.

As to your rejection of the given fact that she was an imminent threat claiming she was "on the flight"; as she was working on the internet recruiting terrorists and aiding them it doesn't really matter whether she was on the move from one spot to another or not when she was finally killed, it's not at all a real supportive argument for your claims that attempt to deny the threat she posed.

As to the posters here, no one has the power to decide to actually harm say North Korea and indeed North Korea is never harmed because of posters on this board so that's enough to call the comparison a ridiculous one.
You should try and stick with sound and logical arguments and not weird allegations such as this one.
 
Fledermaus said:
Your insistence that the operation was covert and that covert = illegal is rather laughable.

Especially since everyone knows what occurred.

Please explain what is wrong with killing terrorists.
Click to expand...

Here is a CIA document from the 1970's which was released to the public in 2005 about whether or not to abandon the legal pretexts of covert operations and presidential plausible deniability. The decision was rejected as it was acknowledged that what the CIA and other similar intelligence services do is illegal and thus a legal jeopardy to presidents past and present. So is the CIA's own response a laughable insistence?

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP77M00144R001200060015-0.pdf

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Fledermaus said:
Was she legally in Syria?

Was she a Syrian citizen?

Was the death of an ISIS member protested by Syria?
Click to expand...

Was she legally in Syria? No.

Was she a Syrian citizen? No.

Did Syria protest her death? No, however it protested the presence of foreign troops operating in its territory and air space repeatedly including in the wake of this announcement.

Do any of the questions posed by you above make unlawful extrajudicial killing a legal exercise of a state's right to self defence? No.

The US state operated outside its legal jurisdiction, in contravention of American national law, customary and treaty based international law and the UN Charter to allegedly kill a woman on foreign soil without judicial due process. It did this in Syria, a country with which it is not at war and which the 2001 AUMF does not apply, while illegally operating in that sovreign nation. Much of this string of illegality flows from where and how Ms. Jones was allegedly killed. So once again territory very much matters. Location, location, location.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Apocalypse:

You were asked however to refer to where in international law (UN charter, Geneva Conventions, etc.) it states a nation has no right to defend itself from a threat if the threat isn't existential.
Click to expand...

The term existential is incorrect. The descriptors used in international law are vital, immediate, necessary and proportional as I have described. I have cited the UN Charter, the Caroline Test, the Republic of Nicaragua vs. The United States case law and have referred to the Fourth Geneva Convention. So I have cited and referred to where in international law a state's right to self-defence is legally limited and denied but you are ignoring such citations and references for reasons only known to yourself. You on the other hand have produced no substantiation for your assertions in this thread. You have tried to argue that there is no such thing as international law, which flies in the face of fact and reality.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Apocalypse:

As to your rejection of the given fact that she was an imminent threat claiming she was "on the flight"; as she was working on the internet recruiting terrorists and aiding them it doesn't really matter whether she was on the move from one spot to another or not when she was finally killed, it's not at all a real supportive argument for your claims that attempt to deny the threat she posed.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. In order for a state to successfully claim self-defence to legitimise an attack across international frontiers the threat must be vital, immediate and real. The military response must be necessary and proportional. Sally Jones did not pose a vital threat to America. She did not pose an immediate threat to America. Her recruiting and indoctrination presented a hypothetical but not a real threat to America. The drone strike was not a military response. The drone strike was not necessary as the US and UK had other avenues through which to counter her propaganda, which did not necessitate military action. The US and UK had not exhausted all other avenues for thwarting her propagandist behaviour. The drone strike was not proportional to the threat which she posed as a propagandist to America. Finally the US nor the UK did not report the operation immediately to the UN as required by Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Thus her killing was not a justifiable act of military self-defence and instead was an illegal and unlawful extrajudicial killing done in sovreign Syrian territory in contravention to the UN Charter, the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Laws of Armed Conflict.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Did Syria protest her death? No, however it protested the presence of foreign troops operating in its territory and air space repeatedly including in the wake of this announcement.
Click to expand...

There is no viable/legitimate government in Syria. The presidential election of 2014 returned impossible [fabricated] numbers/percentages even though Syria has the largest refugee population in the world.

And in 2014, the entire country was engulfed in total war. Assad forces controlled, at the most, 30% of Syria and Assad-held territory was shrinking.
 
Evilroddy said:
Here is a CIA document from the 1970's which was released to the public in 2005 about whether or not to abandon the legal pretexts of covert operations and presidential plausible deniability. The decision was rejected as it was acknowledged that what the CIA and other similar intelligence services do is illegal and thus a legal jeopardy to presidents past and present. So is the CIA's own response a laughable insistence?

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP77M00144R001200060015-0.pdf

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Was or was not the whacking of THIS terrorist "covert"?
 
Evilroddy said:
Was she legally in Syria? No.

Was she a Syrian citizen? No.

Did Syria protest her death? No, however it protested the presence of foreign troops operating in its territory and air space repeatedly including in the wake of this announcement.

Do any of the questions posed by you above make unlawful extrajudicial killing a legal exercise of a state's right to self defence? No.

The US state operated outside its legal jurisdiction, in contravention of American national law, customary and treaty based international law and the UN Charter to allegedly kill a woman on foreign soil without judicial due process. It did this in Syria, a country with which it is not at war and which the 2001 AUMF does not apply, while illegally operating in that sovreign nation. Much of this string of illegality flows from where and how Ms. Jones was allegedly killed. So once again territory very much matters. Location, location, location.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

The answers no, no and no means the your blathering about her being in Syria is irrelevant to the discussion.

Location, location, location = Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant.

And you continue to use the word "unlawful". Please show what law was violated.
 
Evilroddy said:
Apocalypse:



You are wrong. In order for a state to successfully claim self-defence to legitimise an attack across international frontiers the threat must be vital, immediate and real. The military response must be necessary and proportional. Sally Jones did not pose a vital threat to America. She did not pose an immediate threat to America. Her recruiting and indoctrination presented a hypothetical but not a real threat to America. The drone strike was not a military response. The drone strike was not necessary as the US and UK had other avenues through which to counter her propaganda, which did not necessitate military action. The US and UK had not exhausted all other avenues for thwarting her propagandist behaviour. The drone strike was not proportional to the threat which she posed as a propagandist to America. Finally the US nor the UK did not report the operation immediately to the UN as required by Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Thus her killing was not a justifiable act of military self-defence and instead was an illegal and unlawful extrajudicial killing done in sovreign Syrian territory in contravention to the UN Charter, the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Laws of Armed Conflict.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Now you are arguing "proportional" force?

What is proportional when fighting a terrorist organization that regularly attacks US people, interests and allies?

Tell you what. File a grievance with the UN. Go to the Hague and tell it all on the steps.
 
Fledermaus said:
Was or was not the whacking of THIS terrorist "covert"?
Click to expand...

Fledermaus:

It was a covert attack made by the CIA in a foreign country in which they were operating illegally and which the US did not disclose to the UN immediately after. So yes, it was covert and was not self-defence.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Fledermaus said:
The answers no, no and no means the your blathering about her being in Syria is irrelevant to the discussion.

Location, location, location = Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant.

And you continue to use the word "unlawful". Please show what law was violated.
Click to expand...

Fledermaus:

US Executive order 11905. US Executive order 12333, The UN Charter Section 15 and the Fourth Geneva Convention for published law and regulation and a huge body of customary international law too.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Quite frankly, no government wants their ISIS volunteers returned alive.

Foreigners who joined IS faced almost certain death in Raqqa
Click to expand...

Rogue Valley:

From the article which you linked to (bolded text is mine):

The forces fighting the remnants of the Islamic State group in Syria have tacit instructions on dealing with the foreigners who joined the extremist group by the thousands: Kill them on the battlefield.
Click to expand...

The instructions are tacit because such action is illegal and anyone in power who formally calls for such action could face legal and civil jeopardy. What you are illustrating is an international lynch-mob mentality and cannot be construed as legitimate state policy unless such orders are formally made. It is notable that France and Germany differ on this given their historical experiences in the last century. Maybe the Germans finally learned what the French never knew - militarism is an ideological pathogen which sickens and kills the societies which embrace it. Do you really want to become like Turkey or North Korea?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Fledermaus said:
Now you are arguing "proportional" force?
Click to expand...
What is proportional when fighting a terrorist organization that regularly attacks US people, interests and allies?

Tell you what. File a grievance with the UN. Go to the Hague and tell it all on the steps.
Click to expand...

Fledermaus:

Now you are arguing "proportional" force?
Click to expand...

No' I have been doing so since post # 90 when I laid out the conditions for legal military action under the doctrine of self-defence as per the Caroline Test and international law.

As to petitioning the Hague, no need to, that's already being done. This is more about getting people to think about what their states are doing and why and pointing out the legal and political dangers which may flow from these legal abuses of foreigners today for citizens tomorrow.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Fledermaus:



No' I have been doing so since post # 90 when I laid out the conditions for legal military action under the doctrine of self-defence as per the Caroline Test and international law.

As to petitioning the Hague, no need to, that's already being done. This is more about getting people to think about what their states are doing and why and pointing out the legal and political dangers which may flow from these legal abuses of foreigners today for citizens tomorrow.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Define "proportional" when dealing with ISIS.
 
Fledermaus said:
Define "proportional" when dealing with ISIS.
Click to expand...

Fledermaus:

Proportionality is a function of the act or the imminently threatened act and is not a function of the identity of the threatening body, so I cannot answer your question. If ISIL made or was found to be about to launch a car-bomb attack the proportional response would be different from that used to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear attack. It is the act or imminently threatened act and not the organisation which determines proportionality in the state's right to self-defence.

The threat which Sally Jones posed to any state did not rise to justifying illegal and unlawful extrajudicial killing or the violation of Syrian state sovereignty.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Fledermaus:

Proportionality is a function of the act or the imminently threatened act and is not a function of the identity of the threatening body, so I cannot answer your question. (1) If ISIL made or was found to be about to launch a car-bomb attack the proportional response would be different from that used to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear attack. (2) It is the act or imminently threatened act and not the organisation which determines proportionality in the state's right to self-defence.

The threat which Sally Jones posed to any state did not rise to justifying illegal and unlawful extrajudicial killing or the violation of Syrian state sovereignty. (3)

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

1. And a Drone strike against an ISIS asset (thereby limiting collateral loses) is fine with me. She was an important part of a terrorist entity.

2. Dodge noted.

3. Your (repeated) OPINION is noted. Good thing people who defend the US and her allies disagreed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom