The legality of the killing of Reyaad Khan and his fellow fash scum

September 8, 2015 at 5:38 pm (anti-fascism, apologists and collaborators, fascism, Human rights, islamism, Jim D, law, reactionay "anti-imperialism", Stop The War)

L to R: Asim Qureshi of Cage, John Rees of Stop the War Coalition and Cerie Bullivant answer questions at a press conference about Mohammed Emwazi. John Rees of Stop the War Coalition flanked by Cage representatives, making excuses for ‘Jihadi John’ earlier this year

I personally find it extraordinary that any sane person could have any moral or political objection to the British government’s killing of ISIS fascists. The organisations that have been bleating about this – CND, Reprieve and Stop The War, have long since exposed themselves as outfits who will sympathise with any forces, no matter how barbaric, who oppose the ‘West.’ At least Reprieve is in business to mount legal challenges to the government when it believes human rights are a stake (though they seem mightily selective about whose human rights they’re concerned with); but what the hell is CND doing commenting on this issue? As for the misnamed Stop The War Coalition – we all know that they operate on the basis of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” and will ally with some of the vilest organisations and individuals on the planet, in the name of supposed “anti-imperialism.”

But what about the legal grounds for the killings? Leading legal blogger Carl Gardner opines that the action was probably legal, but acknowledges that it’s not entirely clear-cut:


Some would argue that an armed attack has to be by a State, or attributable to one, before the UK can defend itself. Here, the RAF’s attack violated Syrian sovereignty but Khan’s plans, whatever they were, can’t obviously be blamed on the Syrian regime. But I don’t think this is a strong argument against the UK .

In any event, the insistence that self-defence can only be invoked against sovereign states seems to me unreal after 9/11. Either international law on the use of force is an ass, unfit for purpose in the 21st century; or its principles must be capable of application to today’s real threats to peace and security. I think the latter.

Read the rest of Gardner’s opinion here


  1. Glasgow Working Class said,

    When you are fighting genocidal islamists then the law can be set aside for a while. You just get on with wasting them and deport their apologists. Cage should not be allowed to exist would we have allowed Hitler to have had a press corp in Britain.

    • Political tourist said,

      Hitler, seriously.
      The old rightwing fash “let’s mention Adolf” when it suits our agenda.
      Btw, would Ukip have many Jewish members?

      • Steven Johnston said,

        Agreed, have the never heard of this?
        The right-wing equivelant would be to mention the Stasi…but that would not apply in this case.
        They talk about the legality, under capitalism, of the killings on a socialist site. Good grief!
        I wonder how many nurses salaries that drone could have paid for?
        How many food banks it would have stocked? Anyone have the figure for a drone?

  2. Paul Canning (@pauloCanning) said,

    Well said.

    • Glasgow Working Class said,

      Just laughing the three of them have beards. That will avoid decapitation.

  3. Steven Johnston said,

    May David Cameron drink the blood of every Jihadist in Syria! With apologies to Borat!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: