BRITAIN FAILS TO JUSTIFY [LONG-STANDING] 'KILL LIST' OF BRITISH 'NATIONALS' IN BID TO STOP LEGAL CHALLENGES, THAT WILL STOP NATO WARS (09.09.2015)
The British regime’s now publicly admitted use of a ‘kill list’ anywhere against it’s ‘own’ nationals is distinguished from the U.S. because the UK have only been trying to cover up their existing dual national ‘kill list’ that came to light in 2007, because they are only actually trying to stop legal challenges that will stop NATO wars.
The specificity of recent British ‘government’ and ‘news’ media ‘kill list’ war propaganda is exposed through the duality of their trying to justify the extra-judicial murder of British nationals anywhere, for the purpose of their waging war on Syria & Iraq.
...the real 'kill list' was discovered during legal proceedings that exposed prime minister tony blair had given special branch a 'licence to kill' in january 2007 that was never revoked by any successive prime minister [it transpired the lethally armed robo-cop was a member of the PM's 'personal protection' hit team]
The Iraq War has not by any stretch of the imagination really finished.
The cesspit that is Westminster war propaganda could not get out of the starting gates fast enough to try and justify and cover up the real 'kill list' that includes the wholesale slaughter of unarmed civilian populations, they have always supported.
NATO war propaganda does not just happen but is a carefully choreographed process with an end product that is criminal.
The evidence is the British ‘government’ and ‘news’ media are collaboratively trying to make out a ‘case’ that the British ‘government’ can murder British nationals anywhere to try and avoid legal challenges in any courts of law that would stop the British ‘government’ murdering civilians everywhere.
In fact evidence of a 'kill list' first came to light in 2007 in extraordinary proceedings that we won, where the British regime then ridiculously sought/still seek a 'public immunity' in resulting civil claims, to try and cover it all up.
The falsity of the NATO War propaganda over 'kill lists' is exposed by the fact the British news media casually 'reported' the British Prime Minister saying he would [illegally] use the entire apparatus of the state to 'remove' our longstanding civilian resistance by any means, without so much as any questioning over how that would be done, while fully supporting him.
It is a matter of fact civilian populations are always the primary target of NATO wars because civilian populations are where all administrators of any government are drawn from etc, so it is civilian populations, who the occupying military must control.
The only possible identifiable reason for trying to justify a ‘hit-list of extra-judicial murders of British nationals anywhere which the British ‘government’ and ‘news’ media have failed to do, is to try and stop legal challenges that would stop war in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.
"TEHRAN (FNA)- Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Meqdad blasted Britain for conducting airstrikes in his country, and warned that any move against the ISIL terrorist group should first be coordinated with the Damascus government..."
The British & French governments could not pretend they care about civilian lives because then they would have to (for example) stop supporting all lethally armed so called ‘opposition’ to the Syrian government.
Indeed the world must not be dictated to by the lies of the likes of the British ‘government’ and ‘news’ media who all turn a blind eye to civilian society’s rule of law.
No doubt the NATO War propaganda machine did not like being told on August 21st 2015, that civilians would like to get an injunction to prevent their publishing war propaganda, which really is criminal.
The NATO War propagandist said:
'death from the sky': it's the 'policy' of arbitrary 'kill lists' by any means, by politicians and propagandists, the revolting nato troll segupta is avoiding
Segupta can't even contain his curious glee with 'death from the sky is here to stay' while actually trying to link drones with President Obama getting his Nobel 'Peace' Prize.
The badge and label brigade are obsessed with anything to hide behind.
Not many people in Europe boast about handing out a Nobel 'Peace' Prize to the latest Hitler on the block.
Unsurprisingly NATO's House of Lords 'lawyer' troll Baroness Helena Kennedy QC is going to try and gate-keep one set of legal proceedings with an 'inside job' by her 'Rights UK'
They are desperate to cover up the 'kill list' is not new as they have the usual circular conversation amongst themselves about entire civilian populations.
NATO War propaganda is the multi-billion dollar corporate business central to oiling the wheels to keep illegal wars ticking over.
"...Warns of more jihadis in Syria plotting attacks in UK, US and Australia [so the 'hit lists' are a joint operation by US/UK/Australian 'governments']
...Mr Cameron stunned [massive lie] the House of Commons yesterday with the revelation that for the first time in modern history the UK had carried out a military strike [on a British national] in a foreign country outside of a war..."
It is pretty desperate.
The Daily Mail have a brief dalliance with law and the reality facts don't fit the fiction after they have delivered their stock in trade war propaganda.
The likes of the Daily Mail, Financial Times and Guardian et al 'lawyers' are all absolutely part and parcel of criminal propaganda.
"David Cameron said the circumstances of Reyaad Khan’s death were “relatively unique”, but in the House of Commons there was a dawning sense that something fundamental had changed.
This was a British citizen whose death was ordered by Mr Cameron and his senior colleagues, blown up by an RAF drone in a country with which the UK was not at war. It was, the prime minister conceded, “a new departure”.
The import of Mr Cameron’s statement — attached to a well-trailed declaration on Britain’s approach to the refugee crisis — took some time to sink in and will reverberate in political and legal circles for some time.
This, after all, was an attack conducted in Syria despite a Commons vote in 2013 when MPs refused to grant Mr Cameron permission to take military action against that country.
Mr Cameron was visiting apprentices in Norfolk on August 21 when the RAF killed Khan, a 21-year-old recruit to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis), thought to be planning attacks on military commemorations in Britain.
The prime minister had agreed the policy at a previous meeting with senior ministers and officials on the National Security Council; Michael Fallon, defence secretary, authorised the operation.
Mr Cameron was asked by MPs to explain why the attack — which also killed two other “[Isis] fighters” including Rahul Amin, another British citizen — was necessary and whether similar attacks might happen again.
On the latter point, Mr Cameron gave no quarter. “If it’s necessary to safeguard the UK and act in self-defence — and there is no other way of doing it — yes we would.”
He explained that this policy of extraterritorial attack in self-defence applied in the case of Syria and Libya, countries where no effective government existed and threats to UK national security could lie.
“I am clear that the action we took was entirely lawful,” he said. “The attorney-general was consulted and was clear there would be a clear legal basis for action in international law. We were exercising the UK’s inherent right to self-defence.”
Mr Cameron said Khan and Junaid Hussain — another Briton who was killed by a US air strike on August 24 — “were actively involved in recruiting [Isis] sympathisers and seeking to orchestrate specific and barbaric attacks against the west”.
As to whether the National Security Council had authorised a “kill list” of other potential British targets, Mr Cameron’s spokesman said the threat was “monitored closely”.
Mr Fallon had told the Commons in a written statement last October that RAF Reaper drones “are not authorised to use weapons in Syria; that would require further permission”. The defence secretary did not say at the time who might grant the permission or what process would be followed.
Labour’s acting leader Harriet Harman probed Mr Cameron, asking for the publication of the attorney-general’s advice — the prime minister refused — and asked for an independent review of the execution.
But Ms Harman knew Mr Cameron was likely to enjoy overwhelming public support for the killing of a Briton who had gone to Syria and was allegedly planning to cause mayhem and murder at home.
The mood in the Commons became restless as Ms Harman [another war criminal] pursued her line of inquiry. Labour officials later confirmed she was not criticising Mr Cameron.
Jeremy Corbyn, Labour leadership contender, rose to question the prime minister, but asked about refugees, not the killing of the suspected jihadist in Syria [because Labour and Corbyn's controlled opposition of the fake UK Stop the War Coalition are directly involved in the real 'kill list' against real anti-war campaigners]
Some Labour MPs suspect that Mr Cameron’s decision to authorise the air strike was part of a softening-up exercise, as the prime minister attempts to reverse the 2013 vote against military action in Syria.
Labour MPs say they are being sounded out on whether they will back a new Commons motion. Much depends on whether Mr Corbyn, sceptical about an intervention in Syria, wins the Labour leadership [it is illegal to even have a vote].
But for now Mr Cameron was insistent that this major break with military precedent was simply about halting the potential murder of British citizens.
On Monday, the prime minister told the House of Commons that a specific UK citizen had been killed deliberately by the UK state in a UK military operation:
The rather legalistic tone and phrasing was no accident; what the prime minister was telling the Commons was not only that the operation had been a success but that it was also “lawful”. Like a defence advocate in court, David Cameron was keen to show that all the required elements to justify an otherwise unlawful action were present: it was “self-defence”, it was necessary — “there was no alternative”, and it was proportionate — there was no other method to achieve the aim of eliminating this target. The statement was, in essence, a formal box-ticking exercise.[pointedly outside a court of law]
....In terms of “shoulds”, there can be no doubt that the UK government had a legitimate reason to bring about this person’s death.
But the law is not about “shoulds”. It is not about normative assertions about which human beings should die and not die. Such statements can vary from person to person; and while one can certainly sympathise with the sentiment that certain people should be put to death on sight, that does not by itself provide any lawful basis for the killing act. Law is not normative; it is positive. One’s subjective belief that somebody should be dead is not by itself enough to provide a legal basis for killing them.
It appears the UK government believes that the killing of Khan was an act of “self-defence”. Here the intention is to bring the action within the scope of Article 51 of the UN Charter, which provides:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
On the face of it, a preemptive attack (especially by a drone against a specific individual in the desert of Syria) is not within the scope of Article 51. But pre-emptive attacks are a permissible form of self-defence under the so-called Caroline Test, if the need for action was “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation”. These are intended to be strict conditions.
Some commentators have been quick to say that the UK government did have a lawful basis for this drone attack. Joshua Rozenberg assures us (with provisos) that on “the facts as we know them, this unprecedented attack on British would-be terrorists in Syria appears to be within the law”. The leading legal blogger (and former government lawyer) Carl Gardner is even more bold and does not need any troublesome provisos, declaring “this operation was lawful”.
Both Joshua Rozenberg and Carl Gardner are astute and expert legal observers (and, by way of disclosure, both are friends whose work I admire greatly); they both may well be right. But I think there is room for doubt, and for concern.
When someone is killed by state action “who deserves it” then it is always tempting to convert one’s normative view into a positive statement that the death was lawful. But for me, the legal problem with the killing of Khan is that to invoke Article 51 of the Charter is to perhaps push “self defence” beyond the limits of elasticity.
Article 51 is not a general “licence to kill” terrorists on sight wherever in the world they may be found — a “licence” here meaning something which permits an action which would otherwise be unlawful. Some may say that the UK government should have such a licence to kill; but that is not what the law actually says.
For me, this killing prompts various questions. What are the limits of “self-defence” when faced with international terrorism? Is the contention that any preemptive attack can be justified if the target is a terrorist? When does “self-defence” simply merge with a “shoot to kill” policy?
In 1988 the UK government sanctioned the killing of three IRA terrorists in Gibraltar. It must have seemed a good idea to the government at the time; but under scrutiny its account of what happened unravelled. Indeed, the government (and the security and police forces) do not have a great track record when pleading “terrorism” when killing people. There is a good reason why life and death should not depend on the executive’s fiat.
The death of an Isis operative does not matter; but what does matter is that a government capable of killing people does not fall into the habit of casual international homicide, believing it just has to shout “self-defence” and “terrorism” so as to get people to nod-along.
If the UK government wants to re-introduce a general “shoot to kill” policy, but one using drones rather than snipers, then it should say so plainly. The UK government should not hide behind legalistic invocations of Article 51. A “licence to kill” is the stuff of spy fiction, not of foreign policy.
It is this reality of the broad interpretation of a 'licence to kill' that civilians who are not sitting in the comfort of a well padded 'lawyers' armchair have to face.
What is being overlooked is the British regime's long broad interpretation of a 'licence to kill' entire civilian populations.
Other examples of NATO war propaganda include:
"...The National Security Council, which is chaired by the Prime Minister and meets weekly, authorised a list of about 10 jihadists earlier in the summer and included the two British Isis fighters who were killed by the RAF in a drone attack in Syria last month.
It means the RAF can launch another drone attack on anyone on the hit list without having to go back to the NSC or the Attorney General for approval..."
In legal terms, the British Prime Minister and Attorney General are still legally responsible.
Given a British Attorney General was jumping up and down losing his case that it was a Contempt of Court for our to record and publish a contemporaneous record of court proceedings in the UK, it is more than likely the UK Attorney General et al are a little more closely involved in 'kill lists' than they care to publicly admit.
The fact the British Prime Minister puts bounties on people's heads, while someone else gets paid to follow orders does not give him any kind of 'wriggle' room.
there is only a strong case for stopping this criminal kind of war propaganda
The British 'government' and their 'news' media have no lawful and legitimate aim that is convincingly established in criminal law, for them to be ignoring the sovereign rights of the Syrian government they are very obviously trying to incite the murderous and illegal overthrow of.
The Syrian government (not the British 'government' or their 'news' media) are the lawful authority in the universally recognized state of Syria.
"...the former Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, was also critical and described the killing as a “very draconian thing to do”.
“I strongly suspect it will lead to a legal challenge,” he told BBC Radio 4.
“It could be a precursor to extending air strikes to Syria – many people in both Houses would say not before time,” Lord Carlile said.
“Implicit in that is how we deal with Assad, who we very much don’t like, how we deal with the Iranian government, who we also very much don’t like..."
Jonathan Russell, the political liaison officer for counter-extremism think tank the Quilliam Foundation said....
....he accepted the legal justification given by the Prime Minister, adding: "Because no one will ever be given access to the intelligence, nor should they be, there’s no way of knowing if it’s true..."
Obviously the so called 'expert' brigade are only experts in taking money to spin whatever lie they are told.
The most deceitful and dangerous war propaganda is Russell completely throwing civilians society's rule of law out the window by saying civilian populations should not have any rights ever.
It is really evil and criminal war propaganda that says civilians have no choice but to believe what the British 'government' and 'news' media tell them through cretins like Russell.
"...Mohammed Emwazi, identified as Jihadi John, and a number of other terrorists are thought to be on a secret list of people to be legally [the fact the government and news media say anything, does not make what they do lawful] targeted
...It's extremely dangerous because these are... potentially attacks on members of our armed forces..."
"The proper question to ask of these actions is, who has benefited? The answer has to be the forces of violence in the Middle East..."
Simon Jenkins is a very sly and nasty warmonger typically blaming someone...else for what he will admit is the criminality of the British regime.
Of course any idea that a 21 year old British ‘Jihadi’ obviously recently recruited into the British ‘intelligence’ services as a poster boy for the war on Syria, had anything other than a following from the 77th Brigade and the Daily Mail is preposterous.
The British state can obviously routinely wash intelligence assets through a similar process to witness protection, where they can just blend in somewhere else in a world of 6 billion.
The war propaganda of the 77th Brigade that intersects with and feeds the likes of the corporate Daily Mail tills with the propaganda they disseminate, really should be shut down.
It is doubtful the 77th brigade could find a single truth to tell any High Court jury they have ever told !
The first casualty of war is the truth quote, is of itself war propaganda.
The trite quote distorts the reality that the first casualty of war is always a civilian who was murdered because of criminal war propaganda.
Brigadier Alastair Aitken, commander of the new brigade, explained its role in an address on Tuesday to a conference on Land Warfare organised by the Royal United Services Institute, (RUSI), a London-based military and security thinktank.
The brigade is responsible, he said, for the “delivery of all non-lethal and non-military effects...”
Its job was to enable commanders to “get at the real motivations of why people fight...and start to target their motivations with the right non-lethal weapon system”.
Aitken said the brigade was recruiting from “the widest possible talent of the nation”, including “award winners from the creative arts”.
Army commanders had learned the hard way in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Aitken. “We must have the capability to counter potential adversaries and we must be able to defend information, especially defence of the truth as the very lowest bar”.
It is self-evident that Brigadier Alistair Aitken is only 'motivated' to bend over for the British Prime Minister David Cameron as long as he is paid to.
It is no co-incidence that the the alleged ‘drone strike’ on August 21st 2015 was the very same day this civilian told the British ’news’ media to cease and desist their war propaganda which is a criminal device that is central to their illegally waging war.
This was at the same time we discovered/disrupted the Mayor of London’s plot to try and hijack our civilian resistance by illegally preventing our using our display, while passing it off as his own.
That is not dissimilar to the con-artist Mark Wallinger with his 'State Britain' rip off of our civilian resistance to NATO in 2007.
It is one thing for the ‘government’ and ‘news’ media to whip up any kind of frenzy to go to war, but when what is their cacophony of criminal lies is all said and done, all that is really necessary is a legal challenge in a court of law, which is what they are really trying to stop, because that exposes there are no legal grounds to wage war.
Whether it is ‘government’ or ‘news’ media lawyers all they are doing is generating and publishing entire volumes upon volumes of lies to try and cover up the simple truth that their wars are illegal.
The British ‘government’ and ‘news’ media are still desperately trying to cover up and prevent the very simple legal challenge to their Iraq War lie, because that is the only way they can continue with their Syria war lies.
The British ‘government’ and ‘news’ media want to stop a simple legal challenge to any war vote because it reduces the cacophony of volumes of war propaganda down to a simple question of legal grounds to wage war in Syria, which the British government do not have.
The reality that the British ‘government’ are still threatening and trying to murder any British national anywhere who would bring a legal challenge, of itself shows they have no legal grounds to wage war.
Syria is an internationally recognized sovereign state not threatening anyone else.
The British government do not have any legal grounds to invade that sovereign state with lethal weapons under any guise including through the use of their own lethally armed mercenaries or their British military.
It is that truth that peels away all of what are the very, very many layers of war propaganda, which is a criminal device because it is purposefully used to try and deceive people that the British ‘government’ can murder civilian populations anywhere.
Please note: Our long-standing civilian resistance that began on June 2nd 2001 is not a 'news' media outlet. We only publish information to help save civilian lives
Our information draws upon a very many years of our own unique first hand knowledge and experience of the entire apparatus of the lawless violent Genocidal British regime, used against our own civilian resistance.