ISIS clarification

[ditchman]

QUESTION

 

Has Britain declared (like France) WAR on ISIS...................?

 

if we have, then is it legal to execute spies and fighters that live within our and the EU community...that would do us harm.......does the "act of declaring war"...need a piece of paper...or can it be invoked verbally...like the French do constantly when something terrorist related happens

 

 

im not looking at this thread being closed down...im wanting answers as to whether or not we as a country are legally entitled , or not, to do this...

 

 

If we are, would it drive "the menace" further underground.....would "they" care ?....would it make them think twice about doing something ?......what is stopping us from stopping this disruption to our and other countries daily life..................if we and others continue as it is , its only going to get worse.........

 

what has got to happen before "we" acually do something.....??

 

thoughts not drum banging please...........

[ordnance]

The fact is it caint be stopped it will go for decades all can be done is keep it at a acceptable level of violence like they did here. Thinking you can stop terrorism is like thinking you can stop other crimes murder etc it has always happened and probably always will, people will just have to learn to live with it. We had and have had terrorism for decades the security forces their best and civilians just get on with it. Now other countries have to face what just used to happen in other places and deal with it.

Edited July 27, 2016 by ordnance

[winnie&bezza]

The fact is it caint be stopped it will go for decades all can be done is keep it at a acceptable level of violence like they did here. Thinking you can stop terrorism is like thinking you can stop other crimes murder etc it has always happened and probably always will, people will just have to learn to live with it. We had and have had terrorism for decades the security forces their best and civilians just get on with it. Now other countries have to face what just used to happen in other places and deal with it.

Trump can.

[ordnance]

Trump can.

Yes he is the man for the job.

[ditchman]

The fact is it caint be stopped it will go for decades all can be done is keep it at a acceptable level of violence like they did here. Thinking you can stop terrorism is like thinking you can stop other crimes murder etc it has always happened and probably always will, people will just have to learn to live with it.

 

 

i understand what you say..............but the difference is during "the troubles" of UK-N.I....a "state of war" was never declared....so thus..freedom fighters were treated accordingly..as criminals................

 

The reason i raised this topic was a couple of months ago listening to the French president speaking after an attack...he said "a state of war now exists between the french people and ISIS"..........

 

that sentence shocked me.....did he have the right to say it ? ...did he know what he was saying, and the implications attatched to it ?..............

[digger]

 

 

The fact is it caint be stopped it will go for decades all can be done is keep it at a acceptable level of violence like they did here. Thinking you can stop terrorism is like thinking you can stop other crimes murder etc it has always happened and probably always will, people will just have to learn to live with it. We had and have had terrorism for decades the security forces their best and civilians just get on with it. Now other countries have to face what just used to happen in other places and deal with it.

 

Spot on. It was freedom fighters until 9/11 then the word terrorist was first uttered state side.Had that happened here they would still have dropped a greenback in the Noraid tin.

Spain had it with the Basques, Germany with Bader Meinhoff. Other than that I can't think of another European country that has had to do as Ordnance says and live through it.

[figgy]

They should be found and dealt with quietly. Don't need a song and dance the security services of this country should just sort it.

[ordnance]

 

The reason i raised this topic was a couple of months ago listening to the French president speaking after an attack...he said "a state of war now exists between the french people and ISIS".

Thats all talk to try and look tough on terror, he has an election to think about.

[ditchman]

They should be found and dealt with quietly. Don't need a song and dance the security services of this country should just sort it.

 

 

and that happens in a lot of countries....................my point is.......does "a state of war exist between us and ISIS"....if it does then war time conditions therefore exist/apply....so we wouldnt have go pussy footing around....we could do it legally......

[toontastic]

Trump can.

How do you figure that

[ordnance]

 

 

and that happens in a lot of countries....................my point is.......does "a state of war exist between us and ISIS"....if it does then war time conditions therefore exist/apply....so we wouldnt have go pussy footing around....we could do it legally......

What do you have in mind that the UK realistically could do that they are not already doing.

[ditchman]

Trump can.

 

How do you figure that

 

 

 

yeah he would build a wall ...................

 

but laughing aside........if "a state of war" is in effect................we as a country and the EU.....could sort the problem....it would be brutal but legal.........which goes back to my original question...........does a state of war exist between us and ISIS..........LEGALLY............we are bombing them !!......but do we have a piece of paper that says we are at war

 

or is it poilticans mouths making appointments their brains cant keep...........

 

 

its this question of WAR

[iano]

You touch on a complex and interesting point.

 

Usually, in a state of war, the Geneva convention applies. This sets out a) what an 'army' is [must wear a uniform, not hide behind civilians, etc] and how 'armies' are to be treated when captured.

 

If you are fighting a terrorist group, the Geneva convention doesn't really apply so the rules of 'war' don't apply. However, you refer to the treatment ISIS members in the UK who won't get the benefit of the Geneva convention and therefore will be subject to local law, which will be terrorist law (most likely).

 

You could see this with the IRA when they were running amuck - terrorist laws meant that suspects could be held for a month, etc etc.

 

Even at the worst of the Troubles, the IRA were a terrorist threat and therefore were dealt with terrorist legislation. There was never a risk of an 'invasion' or mass uprising etc (in England)

 

The ISIS point is different - say you had taken in 100,000 refugees and lets say 5,000 were ISIS members. The risk now moves beyond terrorism and into Emergency legislation.

Lets say that these ISIS members were mostly in Birmingham and riots were breaking out. Parliament could pass emergency legislation to deal with the threat as what is the on the books at the moment wouldn't suffice.

 

In short, for as long as the risk is terrorism, the governing laws will probably be terrorist law (as was the case in the IRA). If the risk moves beyond that, Emergency legislation might be enacted but you would need to see large scale risk and uprisings taking place to justify that. This was done in Northern Ireland, where people were interned and the Army were acting as a police force. This was because locally, in NI, there was the risk of mass uprising.

This isn't to say that the security services and army wouldn't be running their own operations, dealing with the issue in their own way (as they did with the IRA).

 

I'm talking more about the specific legalities.

Edited July 27, 2016 by iano

[Pheasant Feeder]

Given that ISIS or Daesh is not a recognised nation state, is it possible to declare war on an ideology or a group of people?

[ditchman]

You touch on a complex and interesting point.

 

Usually, in a state of war, the Geneva convention applies. This sets out a) what an 'army' is [must wear a uniform, not hide behind civilians, etc] and how 'armies' are to be treated when captured.

 

If you are fighting a terrorist group, the Geneva convention doesn't really apply so the rules of 'war' don't apply. However, you refer to the treatment ISIS members in the UK who won't get the benefit of the Geneva convention and therefore will be subject to local law, which will be terrorist law (most likely).

 

You could see this with the IRA when they were running amuck - terrorist laws meant that suspects could be held for a month, etc etc.

 

Even at the worst of the Troubles, the IRA were a terrorist threat and therefore were dealt with terrorist legislation. There was never a risk of an 'invasion' or mass uprising etc (in England)

 

The ISIS point is different - say you had taken in 100,000 refugees and lets say 5,000 were ISIS members. The risk now moves beyond terrorism and into Emergency legislation.

Lets say that these ISIS members were mostly in Birmingham and riots were breaking out. Parliament could pass emergency legislation to deal with the threat as what is the on the books at the moment wouldn't suffice.

 

In short, for as long as the risk is terrorism, the governing laws will probably be terrorist law (as was the case in the IRA). If the risk moves beyond that, Emergency legislation might be enacted but you would need to see large scale risk and uprisings taking place to justify that. This was done in Northern Ireland, where people were interned and the Army were acting as a police force. This was because locally, in NI, there was the risk of mass uprising.

This isn't to say that the security services and army wouldn't be running their own operations, dealing with the issue in their own way (as they did with the IRA).

 

I'm talking more about the specific legalities.

 

 

Interesting answer ...thank you..............the above ..highlighted in bold is "obviously" what F. Hollande had taken into consideration when he made his speech........(not)....but yet again ISIS...have a uniform...and refer to their people as "soldiers"...........

 

i hate drawing a parallel with Northern Ireland...as 1. it should never had happened and 2. ISIS is different...their domination of the middle east and the creation of a super massive "caliph"...or rather the creation of.....is different to N.I....................

 

i would much rather deal with a parallel that is akin the the 2nd world war

 

 

 

its the loose way presidents and prime ministers bandy about the word ..WAR........do they really know what that implies..?

[iano]

Actually, if I remember correctly - your Queen needs to declare war for it to be valid. And this is usually subject to a UN resolution.

 

Anything outside of that is speech writing / call to arms / political puffery.

 

So ditchman - in short, war hasn't been declared but that actually doesn't prevent what you talked about happening the UK (as I outlined above).

[winnie&bezza]

How do you figure that

It was in gest after he claimed he will stop crime in America. In other words both can never be stopped.

[ditchman]

Given that ISIS or Daesh is not a recognised nation state, is it possible to declare war on an ideology or a group of people?

 

 

National socialism..............was that a recognised ideology ?............did we recognise Dah fatherland...as a nation state ?...............what is in a word .....

[iano]

 

i hate drawing a parallel with Northern Ireland...as 1. it should never had happened and 2. ISIS is different...their domination of the middle east and the creation of a super massive "caliph"...or rather the creation of.....is different to N.I....................

 

 

I'm Irish, it's always awkward discussing it. Ignoring the cause and reasons, there are stains on both our nations histories. But enough of that, in the main we have moved on and I've always felt welcome in the UK and hope I've always been welcoming to British people here.

[ditchman]

Actually, if I remember correctly - your Queen needs to declare war for it to be valid. And this is usually subject to a UN resolution.

 

Anything outside of that is speech writing / call to arms / political puffery.

 

So ditchman - in short, war hasn't been declared but that actually doesn't prevent what you talked about happening the UK (as I outlined above).

 

 

 

HHmmmmmmmm... .............so to sort this out do we need to walk down a different path ??

[iano]

Given that ISIS or Daesh is not a recognised nation state, is it possible to declare war on an ideology or a group of people?

 

 

 

 

National socialism..............was that a recognised ideology ?............did we recognise Dah fatherland...as a nation state ?...............what is in a word .....

 

Since 1945 or so, 'war' can only be declared by the United Nations (well for the 95% of countries that recognise it).

 

Lacking a UN declaration, it isn't war.

The UN and EU see them as a Terrorist group I think, as opposed to an 'army'.

 

 

 

HHmmmmmmmm... .............so to sort this out do we need to walk down a different path ??

 

To be more precise - she can declare war all she wants, it just won't be a 'legal' war unless approved by the UN.

Edited July 27, 2016 by iano

[ditchman]

 

 

 

Since 1945 or so, 'war' can only be declared by the United Nations (well for the 95% of countries that recognise it).

 

Lacking a UN declaration, it isn't war.

The UN and EU see them as a Terrorist group I think, as opposed to an 'army'.

 

To be more precise - she declare war all she wants, it just won't be a 'legal' war unless approved by the UN.

 

 

so until a change or concensous happens there................its going to be "buisness as usual"...

 

 

cheers for that you boys............ .........the "highlighted" above im sure is fuel for anther thread sometime.........im going back to watch the democrat convention rally......and all the tears and slimballs and bottom lickers.........its sickendly funny and excruciating at the same time ...

[UKPoacher]

It is certainly a new phenomenon to declare war on people of a certain faith, belief or membership of an organisation. It has been declared illegal in the past such as with the IRA and certain right wing groups, but not 'war'. I think it was Dubbya who first declared war on an adjective with his 'War on Terror'.

 

For my part I think the latest atrocities in France and Germany will have the effect of speeding up deportation of those strongly suspected of being involved in terrorism or strict internment if deportation isn't a viable option. Guantanamo Bay style holding areas will become more common in my opinion. The public have more right to be protected than a suspected terrorist has to operate freely.

[Muddy Funker]

They should be found and dealt with quietly. Don't need a song and dance the security services of this country should just sort it.

 

I've got no doubt they do, in this country and abroad.

 

I'm not part of the tin foil hat brigade but I'm sure certain people that pose the biggest threats are rubbed out and disappear without us knowing who they ever were.

 

Proper cloak and dagger stuff!

[old man]

 

I've got no doubt they do, in this country and abroad.

 

I'm not part of the tin foil hat brigade but I'm sure certain people that pose the biggest threats are rubbed out and disappear without us knowing who they ever were.

 

Proper cloak and dagger stuff!

I don't belieeeeve it!

Just not cricket old chap?

 

Didn't someone say " yesterdays freedom fighter , tomorrows statesman?"