• 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'

Evilroddy said:
Apocalypse:

Poppycock! My "claims" are based on the UN Charter (sections 2 and 51), the Geneva Conventions, customary international law on the doctrine of a state's right to self defence like the Caroline Test, etc. It has been your counter-claims which have been largely baseless. But I am both patient and dogged, so I shall wait and hope that you'll rise to the challenge of a better documented rebuttal.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

When I claimed that nations have the right to defend themselves I did refer to the UN charter, and not just to the natural and logical expectation from a government to be a protector of its citizens.

If you need me to base anything else I say refer to the statement and ask for basis. That's what I've done with your claims.
When I say something that while not given a basis remains an opinion, I always give it a basis - either a documented one or a logical one.
For example the claim that the threat is real and imminent has been based logically on the fact that ISIS carried out and will carry out attacks against innocents in Western countries.

That you say here your claims have been based on the UN charter and Geneva Conventions shows how you're missing the point. Your claims that required basis are referring to the case specifically. You were required to show why your opinion that "it wasn't a vital, real and imminent threat" is based somehow on logic and reality. You failed to do so. It is merely your opinion that it wasn't vital, your opinion that it wasn't real and your opinion that it wasn't imminent. And you're clearly wrong on all of those points.
 
Apocalypse:

Are counter-terrorism operations in foreign states acts of war? If they are, then a declaration of war is required and the laws of war then apply. Under wartime conditions and operating under a "military paradigm" an enemy can be attacked and killed without due process during the course of hostilities. But that only applies during wartime conditions during a declared war. If there is no declared war, then the military paradigm does not apply and counter terrorism operations must follow more strict constraints as per law enforcement operations where summary extrajudicial killing is not allowed, except when armed terrorists immediately threaten or harm the agents of the enforcing authority. This is the "peacetime paradigm". The peacetime paradigm constrains the powers and options of the state in order to limit the danger from the state to the rights, freedoms and protections of the citizenry and the wider population.

Under wartime paradigms states are granted much greater power and much wider latitude to achieve their goals with the understanding that such a mandate is temporary and will be rescinded upon the completion of the military operations. This granting of power is temporary because the concentration of power and discretion placed into the hands of the state is a huge threat to the liberties and the well-being of the people of the state. A war on terror will likely never be completed and thus will never end. So the military paradigm, when applied to counter-terrorism operations abroad will result in a forever-war in which Western states will wield unprecedented power with ever-widening latitude for abuse while trying to achieve the state's goals. This has and will likely lead to the loss of rights, freedoms and protections for citizens, peaceful foreign nationals and persons accused of being, but not proved to be, terrorists. Thus the military paradigm being applied outside of war in counter-terrorism operations is far more dangerous than the threat posed by the terrorists themselves.

This is the crux of the issue. The West is arguing that it is entitled to follow a military paradigm in its counter-terrorism operations abroad but is unwilling to be constrained by the laws of war and the constraints of claiming a state's right to self defense. It is using non-military assets to prosecute the war. It is acting "treacherously" as per the 1907 Haguevaccords on the prosecution of war. It is acting disproportionately in contravention to the Caroline Test. It is acting against hypothetical threats as opposed to real threats in contravention to Article 51 of the UN Charter. It is claiming that although it is conducting military operations under a wartime justification, it need not declare war and that it is not going to treat its adversaries abroad as lawful combatants or civilians as defined by the Geneva Conventions. In essence it wants to conduct unrestricted total war against non-state actors while disregarding the state sovereignty of state actors.

This unbridled power and freedom of action by Western states is a far greater danger to Western ways of life than even a nuclear terrorist attack and thus must be stopped before it is too late. The only thing restraining states are laws and the threat that the state's population will rise up violently to stop the state's abuses. These laws are being attacked, eroded and undermined by this mixing of peace and wartime/military paradigms and if this trend continues then the laws and the rule f law will fail as an effective constraint to the powers of the state. At the moment of that failure the extraordinary powers and wide latitude of action which the state now enjoys will be directed against the state's own citizens as they attempt to forcefully correct the abusers of the state. That is why protecting the Sally Jones from arbitrary power and extrajudicial killing is so important for us even though her dangerous acts were vicious and she herself is contemptible. The rule of law cannot withstand the might of a militarised state which has grown too used to wielding great power with wide latitude during a protracted faux-war.

As to the legality of extrajudicial killings, I remind you that it was only ten years ago when Avi Dichter was prevented from traveling abroad for fear of arrest and prosecution for his roles in Israeli targeted killings of Palestinians, by UK and Spanish authorities. Politics and partially manufactured anti-ISIL/anti-caliphate hysteria have removed that threat for the moment but the fact that the UK and Spain were willing to permit such prosecutions to go forward shows that the legality of such state-effected extrajudicial killings is very much a matter for legal debate.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.



The problem here is that the West is mixing and combining these two paradigms in an ad hoc manner and this melange is a very dangerous one for the safety and security of others not involved in the terrorism.
 
My I-pad went wonky and I messed up the above post. Please ignore it. Below are the corrected versions.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Apocalypse:

Are counter-terrorism operations in foreign states acts of war? If they are, then a declaration of war is required and the laws of war then apply. Under wartime conditions and operating under a "military paradigm" an enemy can be attacked and killed without due process during the course of hostilities. But that only applies during wartime conditions during a declared war. If there is no declared war, then the military paradigm does not apply and counter terrorism operations must follow more strict constraints as per law enforcement operations where summary extrajudicial killing is not allowed, except when armed terrorists immediately threaten or harm the agents of the enforcing authority. This is the "peacetime paradigm". The peacetime paradigm constrains the powers and options of the state in order to limit the danger from the state to the rights, freedoms and protections of the citizenry and the wider population.

Under wartime paradigms states are granted much greater power and much wider latitude to achieve their goals with the understanding that such a mandate is temporary and will be rescinded upon the completion of the military operations. This granting of power is temporary because the concentration of power and discretion placed into the hands of the state is a huge threat to the liberties and the well-being of the people of the state. A war on terror will likely never be completed and thus will never end. So the military paradigm, when applied to counter-terrorism operations abroad will result in a forever-war in which Western states will wield unprecedented power with ever-widening latitude for abuse while trying to achieve the state's goals. This has and will likely lead to the loss of rights, freedoms and protections for citizens, peaceful foreign nationals and persons accused of being, but not proved to be, terrorists. Thus the military paradigm being applied outside of war in counter-terrorism operations is far more dangerous than the threat posed by the terrorists themselves.

The problem here is that the West is mixing and combining these two paradigms in an ad hoc manner and this melange is a very dangerous one for the safety and security of others not involved in the terrorism. This is the crux of the issue. The West is arguing that it is entitled to follow a military paradigm in its counter-terrorism operations abroad but is unwilling to be constrained by the laws of war and the constraints of claiming a state's right to self defense. It is using non-military assets like intelligence operatives and contractors to prosecute the "war" covertly in foreign states without a formal declaration of war. It is acting "treacherously" as per the 1907 Hague accords on the prosecution of war. It is acting disproportionately in contravention to the Caroline Test and is causing such extensive damage through collateral damage that it is effectively recruiting more terrorists and sympathisers than it kills. It is acting against future and hypothetical threats, as opposed to immediate and real threats, in contravention to Article 51 of the UN Charter. It is claiming that although it is conducting military operations under a wartime justification, it need not declare war and that it is not going to treat its adversaries abroad as lawful combatants or civilians as defined by the Geneva Conventions. In essence it wants to conduct unrestricted total war against non-state actors while disregarding the state sovereignty of state actors. It wants its cake and to eat it too.

This unbridled power and very wide freedom of action by Western states is a far greater danger to Western ways of life than even a realistic but unlikely nuclear terrorist attack and thus must be stopped before it is too late. The only thing restraining states are laws and the threat that the state's population will rise up violently to stop the state's abuses. These laws are being attacked, eroded and undermined by this mixing of peacetime and wartime/military paradigms and if this trend continues then the laws and the rule of law will fail as an effective constraint to the powers of the state. At the moment of that failure the extraordinary powers and wide latitude of action which the state now enjoys under this new hybrid of war-not-war will be directed against the state's own citizens as they attempt to forcefully correct the abuses of the state. We ourselves will be treated a future Sally Jones. That is why protecting the Sally Jones of the world from arbitrary power and extrajudicial killing is so important for us even though her dangerous acts were vicious and she herself is contemptible. Proper prosecution if and when possible is far safer for us than blowing her up just because the state can. The rule of law cannot withstand the might of a militarised state which has grown too used to wielding great power with wide latitude during a protracted faux-war.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Apocalypse:

As to the legality of extrajudicial killings, I remind you that it was only ten years ago when Avi Dichter was prevented from traveling abroad for fear of arrest and prosecution for his roles in Israeli targeted killings of Palestinians, by both UK and Spanish authorities. Politics and partially manufactured anti-ISIL/anti-caliphate hysteria have removed that threat for the moment but the fact that the UK and Spain were willing to permit such prosecutions to go forward shows that the legality of such state-effected extrajudicial killings is very much a matter for legal debate and is not settled.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Apocalypse:

As to the legality of extrajudicial killings, I remind you that it was only ten years ago when Avi Dichter was prevented from traveling abroad for fear of arrest and prosecution for his roles in Israeli targeted killings of Palestinians, by both UK and Spanish authorities. Politics and partially manufactured anti-ISIL/anti-caliphate hysteria have removed that threat for the moment but the fact that the UK and Spain were willing to permit such prosecutions to go forward shows that the legality of such state-effected extrajudicial killings is very much a matter for legal debate and is not settled.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Wrong, this is not an issue of "the legality of extrajudicial killings", this was an issue of the local state laws that allowed the local police to arrest people who had important roles in the government of other states due to mere allegations of war crimes. Meaning Obama for example could come to the UK and be arrested due to some people filing a lawsuit against him in the local courts claiming he had committed crimes against humanity. That was changed in the UK, I wasn't following the situation in Spain though, but regardless it is irrelevant to this kind of discussion as it doesn't provide any supporting argument to the claim that all such killings are bad and unjustified and does not remove the right of a nation to defend itself be it from Palestinian terrorists or from ISIS members in Syria.
 
Evilroddy said:
This is the crux of the issue. The West is arguing that it is entitled to follow a military paradigm in its counter-terrorism operations abroad but is unwilling to be constrained by the laws of war and the constraints of claiming a state's right to self defense. It is using non-military assets to prosecute the war. It is acting "treacherously" as per the 1907 Haguevaccords on the prosecution of war. It is acting disproportionately in contravention to the Caroline Test. It is acting against hypothetical threats as opposed to real threats in contravention to Article 51 of the UN Charter. It is claiming that although it is conducting military operations under a wartime justification, it need not declare war and that it is not going to treat its adversaries abroad as lawful combatants or civilians as defined by the Geneva Conventions. In essence it wants to conduct unrestricted total war against non-state actors while disregarding the state sovereignty of state actors.

This unbridled power and freedom of action by Western states is a far greater danger to Western ways of life than even a nuclear terrorist attack and thus must be stopped before it is too late. The only thing restraining states are laws and the threat that the state's population will rise up violently to stop the state's abuses. These laws are being attacked, eroded and undermined by this mixing of peace and wartime/military paradigms and if this trend continues then the laws and the rule f law will fail as an effective constraint to the powers of the state. At the moment of that failure the extraordinary powers and wide latitude of action which the state now enjoys will be directed against the state's own citizens as they attempt to forcefully correct the abusers of the state. That is why protecting the Sally Jones from arbitrary power and extrajudicial killing is so important for us even though her dangerous acts were vicious and she herself is contemptible. The rule of law cannot withstand the might of a militarised state which has grown too used to wielding great power with wide latitude during a protracted faux-war.

As to the legality of extrajudicial killings, I remind you that it was only ten years ago when Avi Dichter was prevented from traveling abroad for fear of arrest and prosecution for his roles in Israeli targeted killings of Palestinians, by UK and Spanish authorities. Politics and partially manufactured anti-ISIL/anti-caliphate hysteria have removed that threat for the moment but the fact that the UK and Spain were willing to permit such prosecutions to go forward shows that the legality of such state-effected extrajudicial killings is very much a matter for legal debate.
Click to expand...

As I said in a previous post I have no interest to discuss the issue in general terms as it tends to get us away from solving the issue discussed. The question regarding this case is whether or not nations have the right to go after those who actively work at present time to bring the murder of innocent people who are the citizens of that nation. The answer as shown already is yes, of course they do. Promoting the belief that nations have no right to defend themselves - that innocents can be placed under threat - is immoral and wrong.

I'm not looking to understand why you do it. I realize you have your opinions, your belief in the threat coming from Western governments and all, your actual belief that the removal of a terrrorist means one day people who are citizens and who aren't terrorists and the state just doesn't like could be removed as well. You have the right to hold that opinion, that belief, as mistaken and illogical as I believe it is. That is not the point. The point is whether or not a government, as the sole protector of its citizens, should just ignore a threat to their lives and do nothing. So far you only proposed "counter-propaganda" but that is hardly a real solution based on logics, research and reality. The only sensible solution is to arrest the person and if sending people to arrest that person puts them in great danger as is the case in ISIS controllled territories in Syria, then the use of force is as legitimate as it can get.

In the end you have two options - to remove the threat and protect the citizens or to ignore it and place innocent lives in danger. It is crystal clear which is the moral decision and which is the horribly immoral one. Even if one person dies because the terrorist could be removed but wasn't, the people responsible for that decision not to act have practically murdered the citizen themselves.
 
I am very pleased to read of her death. She was murderous scum. I have mixed feelings about the death of her child. There is no doubt in my mind he was being raised as a radical. While tragic that a child has had to die, it may very likely mean that some others will get to live. That bitch is responsible for her child's death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom