LEGAL CHALLENGE TO BRITGOVT: "FULLY DISCLOSE YOUR AUTHORIZATION & LEGAL GROUNDS FOR USING MILITARY FORCE IN SYRIA"(21.10.2014)
The British government albeit illegally rely on continuing UN 'resolutions' on Iraq to illegally be in Iraq, (which we already have groundbreaking High Court legal proceedings against the British government in the UK over) while there are no legal grounds etc for their latest proposed military mission in Syria.
The fact there may be British hostages in Syria does not, as one 'news' source claims provide the necessary legal grounds, for the claim there 'will be authorization' (which is not in any event the same as fully disclosing an actual written authorization' for) British military to enter Syria.
It is clear that 'hostages' voluntarily chose to enter what they knew was a war zone in Syria, that they knew the British government and military did not have any legal authority to act in.
Subject: FAO UK DEFENCE SECRETARY: DISCLOSE WRITTEN & SIGNED AUTHORIZATION & LEGAL GROUNDS FOR (ILLEGAL) USE OF UK MILITARY IN SYRIA, FOR LEGAL CHALLENGE. (21.10.2014)
Date: 21 October 2014 16:06:44 CEST
FAO UK DEFENCE SECRETARY: DISCLOSE WRITTEN & SIGNED AUTHORIZATION & LEGAL GROUNDS FOR (ILLEGAL) USE OF UK MILITARY IN SYRIA, FOR LEGAL CHALLENGE. (21.10.2014)
This serves as notice to confirm that the British government and their military have failed to publicly disclose:
a) any legal grounds or
b) written and signed authorisation from a named public official, to use UK military drones or Rivet Joint aircraft to violate Syrian airspace.
21.10.2014 MOD: ’SURVEILLANCE’ OVER SYRIA ‘WILL BE AUTHORIZED’
21.10.2014 INDEPENDENT EXCLUSIVE BRIEFING BY ANONYMOUS OFFICIAL OVER SYRIA
21.10.2014 RT: MOD CLAIMS APPROVAL GIVEN FOR UK MILITARY IN SYRIA.
Disclose by return email the written and signed authorisations with the accompanying legal grounds the British government rely on, from a named official in the British government, so they can be legally challenged.
I remind of email I sent dated 16.06.2013, and that the British Defence Secretary is ‘authorised' by law, to respond by email, which will be published, and filed with the necessary legal challenge in court.
The purpose of this notification is to keep the British military out of Syria.
Parliament Square Peace Campaign
this unprofessional 'will be' nonsense does not constitute legal paperwork of any kind: official paperwork in public office really does as a starting point, actually need to be signed and on official letterhead, before one even gets into the contents.
There are very obviously no legal grounds for the British military to enter Syria.
In a written ministerial statement, Fallon said Reaper drones would be starting operations “very shortly” and would be used alongside Rivet Joint planes.
“As well as their operations over Iraq, both Reapers and Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft will be authorised to fly surveillance missions over Syria to gather intelligence as part of our efforts to protect our national security from the terrorist threat emanating from there,” he told MPs.
“Reapers are not authorised to use weapons in Syria; that would require further permission.”
Asked why parliament had not been consulted about the use of UK drones to conduct surveillance over Syria, Cameron’s deputy official spokesman said it was because it did not amount to military action.
“We are using these assets to enhance our capability to gather intelligence and protect Britain from threats emanating from Syria,” she said. “The prime minister and government have made clear that we would return to parliament for a separate decision if we were proposing to take military action. This is about intelligence-gathering.
“We’ve also made clear that, if there was a critical national interest at stake or we needed to act swiftly to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, we would act immediately and explain to parliament afterwards. I think our approach is consistent with that.”
She said the legal case had been set out at the time of the House of Commons debate on action in Iraq, where the prime minister had made clear the government believed military action was allowable in both countries on the basis of “national and collective defence”.
Asked if there had been any discussions with the Syrian government, she said: “We’re clear what the legal case is and that is national and collective self defence … focused on the Isil threat.”
The spokeswoman declined to comment on the purpose of the intelligence to be gathered or whether it would be shared with the US, which is currently leading air strikes in Syria.
“The nature of this approach has been: how do we best protect our national security and how do we work with international allies to do that?” she said.
Pressed on whether it was a step towards inevitable UK military action in Syria, the official stressed that Cameron would return to parliament to seek approval for any such move.
“This is about looking at the nature of the conflict, looking at the nature of the assets we have, and thinking: how can we best deploy those to support our efforts to protect the UK and keep British people safe?”
The British government cannot make out legal grounds they are protecting the UK or British people.