205
206

RAF killed Briton in Syria strike - PM (bbc.co.uk)

Suofficer が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]AgrajagPrime -11ポイント-10ポイント  (29子コメント)

I really don't know when we introduced capital punishment without a trial in the UK.

Obviously, he had the capacity to do awful things and I don't doubt he was planning on doing them, but basically, a British National was executed for what most accurately could be called 'aiding the enemy' or perhaps even 'treason'.

I know it's between a rock and a hard place, it just doesn't sit well with me.

[–]daninmontreal 9ポイント10ポイント  (4子コメント)

If you join a terrorist organization like Daesh and go to Syria to actively participate in mass genocide and the slaughter of innocents you don't get to have a trial. He wanted war, he fucking got it. Should we bring IS fighters to court instead to hear their side of the story? This is not how wars are fought.

[–]Soulsiren -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Are we at war in Syria? Didn't parliament explicitly vote to reject that?

[–]DetlefKroeze 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The rejected motion seems to be explicitly tied to the August 21 chemical attack, so would probably not extend as a blanket rejection of any military action in/over/or against the Syrian government/Assad regime (whichever you prefer).

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmagenda/ob130829.htm

Or at least that is how I read and interpret the damned thing.

[–]Soulsiren 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

In which case -- if we are at war in Syria -- should we not have then had a seperate vote to affirm that?

Since, after all, when there was a vote regarding Iraq, the motion noted that "this motion does not endorse UK air strikes in Syria as part of this campaign and any proposal to do so would be subject to a separate vote in Parliament".

Though at another point, Cameron said that "if there was a moment when it looked as though there could be an urgent humanitarian need for intervention, I would be prepared to order that intervention and then come to the House and explain why", I am not of the feeling that he has actually followed through on this convincingly. Would you disagree?

[–]AgrajagPrime -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

We're not at war with them though.

[–]Grytpype-Thynne 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, when you or someone else can go and get a guy like this, then maybe we can try them. Until then, the sole act of joining a terrorist organisation warrants a combat death.

[–]greytusk 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree. The lynch mob mentality reddit cannot understand how separation of powers in a civilized state should work. UK parliament voted against military intervention in Syria a year ago, UK is not at war with Syria and so executing nationals over there is very worrying. We'd be furious if Russia or Iran did it, so why the hypocrisy?

They should learn from Awlaki story. Didn't do much good to the US, did it?

[–]Soulsiren 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Rights are something that should be upheld on principle. If we don't uphold people's rights when it is unpalatable to do so, if we ignore people's rights when we personally find their actions at fault, what is the point of having those rights?

[–]CircularMatrix 0ポイント1ポイント  (17子コメント)

What other purpose could they have for being in Syria? It is not like there were aid workers. That is enough proof for me to convict and kill them. It is also enough to put their families under surveillance for the forsee able future.

[–]Soulsiren -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yeah, the thing is that "enough proof for me" and "enough proof for the judicial system" are -- and should be -- different. We see this issue pretty often with these emotive subjects. It's pretty natural for us to have that sort of reaction, but the whole point of the having rights is that we uphold them on principle regardless of the case, and that we avoid these sort of trials by emotive response. Imagine if it was a case that you didn't agree with the verdict on an emotional level. Ignoring rights just because we agree with a given case defeats the point of having those rights. Even when I agree that the people in question are really awful, it makes me a bit uncomfortable to see people saying that this justifies taking their rights away -- because that is potentially such a dangerous slippery slope, and not something I want to see the government engaging in.

[–]CircularMatrix 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

There is no police force in Syria. It is either kill them or let them continue plotting attacks. Those are the only two options. So you take them out and keep their families under surveillance for two reasons:

  1. Their own protection.

  2. Someone may get in contact with them from ISIS.

[–]Soulsiren 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't agree that those are necessarily the only options -- you could also try to foil the attacks as they come.

Regardless, my qualms are basically two. Firstly, the decision to use lethal force on a British citizen (whereas in Britian we don't have the death penalty). Here, I can see some argument regarding practicality, as you have made.

Second is a qualm with the process in making that decision. The lack of a police force in Syria really doesn't affect the British judicial process (after all, there is precedent for in absentia trials). I am simply not very confident in the process regarding terrorism charges. In large part, this is because of the way that the government has used terrorism over the last 14 years: it has consistently been one of the chief rhetorical justifications of a movement towards the erosion of people's rights. It is something like the case of the boy who cried wolf. I have heard so much rhetorical exagerration of the terrorist threat to freedom (often in order, it seems, to impose upon that freedom) that it becomes difficult not to be skeptical of any case of the government justifying any of its actions via protecting our country from terrorist plots.

[–]anautisticpotato -4ポイント-3ポイント  (13子コメント)

What other purpose could they have for being in Syria?

How about fighting the cultish, oppressive Syrian regime that is killing their friends and family?

[–]CircularMatrix 1ポイント2ポイント  (12子コメント)

They why did they go in secret? Why did they not join any of the groups devoted to that?

[–]anautisticpotato -3ポイント-2ポイント  (11子コメント)

We won't know now, will we?

[–]CircularMatrix -1ポイント0ポイント  (10子コメント)

We do know. They went in secret because they wanted to join ISIS.

[–]anautisticpotato -2ポイント-1ポイント  (9子コメント)

Prove it.

[–]CircularMatrix 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

Simply because you don't like the answer doesn't make it any less true.

[–]anautisticpotato -3ポイント-2ポイント  (7子コメント)

And your assertion without proof is meaningless.

[–]CircularMatrix 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

You have yet to give any other meaningful reason asto why they would sneak into Syria. Occam's Razor gives us that. They were there to join ISIS.

[–]KingJewffrey 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's not capital punishment, it's war! This individual joined an enemy military organization, Britain is part of a coalition making war against that organization. Are you seriously saying that every member of ISIS should be arrested and trialed? Is this how you think war should be made? By capturing every enemy combatant and putting him on trial? I guess then that every German that died in WW2 received a capital punishment as well.

[–]AgrajagPrime [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

1: we're not at war, the UK government explicitly voted against going to war or any operations in syria.

2: it's not foreign combatants, it's a British national.

[–]KingJewffrey [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

  1. Apparently you are. " On 16 January 2015, during a joint press conference at the White House alongside President Barack Obama, Prime Minister David Cameron stated that the UK was the second-largest contributor to the anti-ISIL coalition, contributing over 100 airstrikes.[343]". If UK government is against it, how come they are bombing the shit out of ISIS in Iraq and Syria?
  2. His nationality doesn't matter, he joined a foreign enemy military, the fact that he happens to be British doesn't entitle him to any special treatment over other ISIS combatants.

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intervention_against_ISIL#British_airstrikes