Posted on 09/27/2015 6:38:19 AM PDT by lbryce
Britain's government is facing a legal challenge Thursday over its use of a drone to kill two British Islamic State (IS) group jihadists in Syria, even though it is not part of military action there.
Prime Minister David Cameron announced this month that a British drone had killed two British jihadists and another unidentified militant in the group's stronghold of Raqqa in August.
That was the first such strike carried out by Britain in a country where it is not at war and prompted fierce criticism from human rights campaigners.
Now two leading members of Britain's Green Party and legal rights charity Reprieve have said they are preparing to launch court action against the move.
Their lawyers claim that the government has either failed to draw up a "targeted killing policy" or failed to publish it, both of which are illegal.
"The Raqqa strike, and the intention of the government to pre-authorise targeted killings in the future in countries where the UK is not at war, is of concern to the claimants and many others," they said.
(Excerpt) Read more at spacewar.com ...
The idea that traitors who are fighting overseas with our enemies deserve protection in the courts is ludicrous. They don’t merit any refuge in law as they are treasonists abroad.
An enemy combatant is an enemy regardless of citizenship.
What’s more important; what ever happened to OpSec?
UAV strikes are simply dropping a bomb on a bad guy and the pilot just happens to be far away from the platform.
What is the difference between a fighter pilot flying an F-15E over-head the tgt-area and dropping a JDAM, or a fighter pilot flying an F-15E miles and miles away and dropping a SDB-II (glides VERY FAR) or a fighter pilot sitting in an UAV "cockpit" (easy-chair) in Nevada (with better resolution screens than found in the cockpit overhead the tgt) and dropping a JDAM .
No difference. . .and who gives a darn about terrorists and due process while in a combat zone.
This is a war. People shooting at you/your allies or supporting your enemies are completely legitimate military targets.
Hasn’t obama already been doing this in Yemen?
Define “ combat zone”
Is it anywhere a president or prime minister decided it is?
Or just in countries with governments too weak or too unpopular to the West , like Syria and Yemen, to gain any concerns about unilateral military acts in ther countries?
Define 'national security interest'
Define LOAC.
Define ROE and how it relates to LOAC.
Define legal and illegal combatants.
Define double-effect and proportionality.
Define Just War?
Who are the NCA and what do they do?
What are theater CINCs and what do they do and who do they report to?
Who are the service chiefs what do they do in war?
How does the Pentagon fight wars? (trick question)
What is a 'stand-off weapon' and why is it important?
Do we want to be as good as we can be or only as good as our enemy?
Do we want a fair fight?
What is a fair fight?
Under LOAC, can you shoot an enemy that is not capable of shooting you? Define 'hostile intent' and 'hostile act' and how they affect ROE.
What are theater CINCs and what do they do?
What is a FLOT?
What is a FEBA?
What is a FSCL?
Do we still have them?
What does a JFACC and LCC do?
What is a JTAC?
What does a JTAC do?
Etc. . . .
Finding answers to my questions will give you an understanding just how complicated your question is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.