Quinny wrote: I think the "shoot to kill" policy we're talking about refers to how armed police responds to a possible terrorist incident. Targetted drone strikes, in the case of Jihadi John (and Cameron didn't authorise that, btw - that was entirely an American mission) is altogether different: extrajudicial killings are wrong, and no Govt has the right to order the assassination of its (or any other) own citizens. The place for justice and punishment is in the courts (and it wasn't as is Jihadi John was a clear and present danger to anyone that moment he was killed).
Cameron authorised a syrian drone strike a couple of months ago taking out 2
"planners" originally from uk who intended to cause death of our citizens in
the uk. So the correct action was taken in my opinion if it prevented a repeat
of what we just witnessed in paris or tunisia. Cameron insisted that it would only be done
when "time and secrecy issues" are obviously needed to complete the operation successfully.
Jihadi john mission was done by an american drone but apparently again we had a
drone involved nearby in the operation.
As for justice etc the safety of our citizens comes first and if we cannot apprehend
then we do the correct thing and take them out. As long as there are no civilian
casualties which we are told great efforts are made in that regard.
Were not fighting conventional wars anymore now. We cannot wait for parliamentary
or juidicial approval to take action.
As for knowing of his pacifism I must admit to my ignorance on that matter.
It still begs the question why it wasn't brought up in the leader election or doesn't
national security matter to labour anymore.