Gavin Williamson

[Harrowby Hall]

So, we now appear to have cabinet minister who believes in the elimination of people whose motives he doesn't like.

We have been free from judicially-imposed capital punishment for a long time, but it seems that politicians should now have the right to order the killing of British citizens without any legal process.

[Shaker]

Can you point out what's wrong with what he said? I admit that "a dead terrorist can't harm us" is a statement of the bleeding obvious but that's certainly how I'd like to see terrorists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suspect he puts grey highlights in his hair.

[Shaker]

You ought to change your name to Corporal Jones.

[Harrowby Hall]

Can you point out what's wrong with what he said? I admit that "a dead terrorist can't harm us" is a statement of the bleeding obvious but that's certainly how I'd like to see terrorists.

What part of the concept of "Rule of Law" don't you understand?

[Shaker]

What part of the concept of "Rule of Law" don't you understand?

What part of "enemy combatants aiding and abetting a terrorist group against this country and its citizens" don't you understand?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You ought to change your name to Corporal Jones.

Not really.
My general advice is to panic.

[Sebastian Toe]

You ought to change your name to Corporal Jones.

Pike, surely?
You know, the one that is the "stupid boy"!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pike, surely?
You know, the one that is the "stupid boy"!

Your avatar is very dark........are you trying to save money?

[Owlswing]

So, we now appear to have cabinet minister who believes in the elimination of people whose motives he doesn't like.

We have been free from judicially-imposed capital punishment for a long time, but it seems that politicians should now have the right to order the killing of British citizens without any legal process.

This post, in time of war, would come under the heading of "giving aid and succour to the enemy". i e let the trerrorists kill and maim us but you mustn't kill them or maim them whilst trying to kill them.

[Shaker]

This post, in time of war, would come under the heading of "giving aid and succour to the enemy". i e let the trerrorists kill and maim us but you mustn't kill them or maim them whilst trying to kill them.

Pretty much, yes.

I never realised there was so much soft-soaping about eliminating people whose motives we don't like when those motives include trying kill our citizens and destroy our way of life. AFAIC even if you started out with it, you give up British citizenship as soon as you sign up to that.

[Owlswing]

Pretty much, yes.

I never realised there was so much soft-soaping about eliminating people whose motives we don't like when those motives include trying kill our citizens and destroy our way of life.

It's a Christian pacifist thing.

[Udayana]

Can you point out what's wrong with what he said? I admit that "a dead terrorist can't harm us" is a statement of the bleeding obvious but that's certainly how I'd like to see terrorists.

He has a point, in fact, "dead ministers can't harm us" is also obvious.

[Udayana]

This post, in time of war, would come under the heading of "giving aid and succour to the enemy". i e let the trerrorists kill and maim us but you mustn't kill them or maim them whilst trying to kill them.

Bollocks.

[Udayana]

It's a Christian pacifist thing.

Bollocks twice!

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not sure Williamson's comments are quite what HH thinks but it's quite difficult to work out. It's not clear to me he's actually arguing for assassination, even if the combatant is unarmed, or indeed may not pursuing any aggression at all but it can be read that way. In which case we're talking about an avoidance of due process. I don't think to be concerned about due process is a either a pacifist in general, or a specifically Christian pacifist thing.

[Nearly Sane]

This post, in time of war, would come under the heading of "giving aid and succour to the enemy". i e let the trerrorists kill and maim us but you mustn't kill them or maim them whilst trying to kill them.

I think that's an odd misreading of HH's post.

[Owlswing]

 I think that's an odd misreading of HH's post.

In what way?

[wigginhall]

I thought that the original rule was that you can kill someone if an attack is imminent, and also assuming that you're not at war (which we're not).   However, this rule has been subject to mission creep, particularly by the US, and they now see it as legal to kill someone who has attacked you in the past, or whom you think may be plotting.

It also obviously depends on the physical context.   A drone strike in the Syrian desert is probably considered legal, providing that the there is sufficient evidence of an attack, past or future; it's less likely in a bed-sit in Basingstoke.   Of course, if an attack is imminent in Basingstoke, then the main rule applies.

I suppose arguments arise with people who want to renounce IS, and want to come home.   It seems a bit harsh to shoot them at Heathrow, as they get off the plane.

[jeremyp]

This post, in time of war, would come under the heading of "giving aid and succour to the enemy". i e let the trerrorists kill and maim us but you mustn't kill them or maim them whilst trying to kill them.

We are not in time of war and even in war, you are not allowed to just kill enemy combatants if you have captured them or they have surrendered.

[Owlswing]

We are not in time of war and even in war, you are not allowed to just kill enemy combatants if you have captured them or they have surrendered.

[/quote]

And we have done this when?

Where is this action ptroposed in the quoted article?

[wigginhall]

Which quoted article?

[jeremyp]

And we have done this when?

Where is this action ptroposed in the quoted article?

Who said anything about an article. You made a claim about what not enemy combatants would be in time of war. I pointed out that we are not in a time of war, which renders your post completely irrelevant to the current situation.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

So, we now appear to have cabinet minister who believes in the elimination of people whose motives he doesn't like.

We have been free from judicially-imposed capital punishment for a long time, but it seems that politicians should now have the right to order the killing of British citizens without any legal process.

He is playing to the gallery. Another distraction from the Brexit farce.

[Nearly Sane]

In what way?

I think HH's reading of Williamson's remarks is that we could effectively assassinate any individual we suspected in any way of beings terrorist even if they currently presented no danger, or indeed may have renounced their previous actions. This doesn't seem to !ran anything like you should never kill terrorists. Yes