Killing British ISIL traitors is perfectly legal

PC types can't understand it is not necessary to wait for a terrorist to strike before retaliating so long as it is ‘proportionate and necessary’. Taking out a pair of fanatical killers before they had caused maybe 100 or more casualties as at 7/7 could not be more ‘proportionate’

Raf_drone
RAF drone preparing for business
Robin_mitchinson
Robin Mitchinson
On 12 September 2015 09:00

Was the liquidation of a couple of traitorous barbarians legal? Not according to the mouthy minorities who get disproportionate media coverage.

The human rights watchers are asking the wrong question; they seem not to understand that there is no requirement to prove that an action is legal. Everything is legal until shown to be illegal.

In fact the only ‘law’ -- and a very vague and elderly one devised before terrorism became the modern style of making war -- is UN Article 51, which requires that an attack is occurring or imminent.

It is not necessary to wait for a terrorist to strike before retaliating so long as it is ‘proportionate and necessary’. Taking out a pair of fanatical killers before they had caused maybe 100 or more casualties as at 7/7 could not be more ‘proportionate’.

And who gives a toss, other than the usual defenders of everybody’s human rights except ours, including the next Leader of the Labour Party who described the termination of the biggest mass-killer of modern times as ‘a tragedy’? And attended a Conference in Cairo that advocated ‘military struggle’ against British forces in Iraq, possibly accompanied by ‘friends’ from Hamas and Hezbollah.

This brings to ten the number of ‘British’ killed by US and UK drones. One got his comeuppance in Pakistan; he was involved in 7/7. It seems that five more jihadis are on the UK hit-list, chief of which is Jihadi John. Will the human rights tendency mourn his termination and accuse the UK of extra-judicial killings?

The position that they appear to be taking is that if the intelligence services get wind of a planned attack, they should wait until the atrocity has been committed before acting. Imagine the reception if Cameron got up in the Commons and said that we knew that attack was coming but waited until it had been carried out before doing anything about it.

His political career would be measured in milliseconds.

But this begs another question. Why did Cameron make an announcement at all? Why was there no DA Notice that would have prevented disclosure that the SIS was infiltrating the jihadis? The objective of the DA-Notice System is ‘to prevent inadvertent public disclosure of information that would compromise UK military and intelligence operations and methods, or put at risk the safety of those involved in such operations, or lead to attacks that would damage the critical national infrastructure and/or endanger lives’.

This case would seem to be a perfect fit.

The chatterati appear not to understand is that Jihadism is war by other means. It is the 21st Century’s world war and will last for decades.

Get used to it.

Robin Mitchinson is a Contributing Editor to The Commentator. A former barrister, living in the Isle of Man, he is an international public management specialist with almost two decades of experience in institutional development, decentralisation and democratisation processes. He has advised governments and major international institutions across the world

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus