[matthew_w100]

I thought this was an extraordinary thing for a British Minister to say out loud...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42260814

We're exiling our citizens and then hunting down and killing them? I don't remember being asked to vote on this...

I'm also a bit uncomfortable that if you consort with one bunch of tribesmen you are subject to the death penalty, but if you're with a different bunch you are a "British Military Consultant". And which is which is constantly in flux.

[Miscellaneous]

I'd certainly agree that they should not be allowed back if they have fought against our principles and a dead terrorist is less likely to cause harm. About time politicians told it as it is!

[Flyin'Dutch']

Really?

So where is the boundary or is there None?

[johnm]

It gets worse and worse.

Simple-minded politicians with simple-minded and often brutal answers to problems they created and blame on someone (anyone) else

[Rob P]

Stripping it down to its bare bones

Daesh or IS or whatever has declared war on the non-Muslim fundamentalist world which includes the UK

Its fighters see themselves as soldiers

Those who left the UK to join this war should not, under any circumstances, be allowed back to the UK. Anyone who can propose a sane reason why they should be that doesn't include the words "their human rights" is welcome to table it for discussion

As soldiers killing them is not summary execution, it is warfare and perfectly legitimate under the Hague Convention and its derivatives.

A politician has now pointed this out. What's not to like? Don't we want politicians to tell us the truth any more?

Rob P

[johnm]

DAESH or call it what you will is a terrorist organisation much like the IRA or the UVF. As such they are not soldiers and we're not at war. They are violent organised criminals and we should be using the criminal justice system to address the issue.

If we don't do that we can stop claiming to be a civilised country.

[Flyin'Dutch']

If someone fighting for IS is killed in action then that is part of the deal.

To summarily kill someone outside the theatre of war is murder.

Those who have committed crimes outside of the UK Need to be brought to justice and dealt with accordingly just as we do with those who commit other crimes whilst being abroad.

[nallen]

Those who left the UK to join this war should not, under any circumstances, be allowed back to the UK. Anyone who can propose a sane reason why they should be that doesn't include the words "their human rights" is welcome to table it for discussion

And those who realised the error of their ways are not allowed repentance?

As soldiers killing them is not summary execution, it is warfare and perfectly legitimate under the Hague Convention and its derivatives.

A hotly contested legal issue, as it happens. When there is no longer a war, as understood by HagueC, do you still have soldiers, for example, or simply some men with guns (of which there are sadly an awful lot in the world)? Those three people sitting in a farmhouse in South Tyrone thinking about planting a bomb…drone strike there too?

[Rob P]

If someone fighting for IS is killed in action then that is part of the deal.

Too summarily kill someone outside the theatre of war is murder.

Agreed (except for the extraneous 'o'). But as the Jihad is worldwide there is no 'outside' in this case

Rob P

[Miscellaneous]

Really?
So where is the boundary or is there None?

I'm not sure what you're questioning FD?

Of course there has to be boundaries. Unfortunately the present boundaries favour the terrorist far too much. Generally in the name of human rights, ironically being afforded to those acting in the most inhuman fashion imaginable. Said human rights being a symptom of the present political correctness nonsense.

[map5623]

.......a civilised country.

Have heard this quoted over the years, but I usually read it as "we do not have the courage to act".
Nothing to do with being civilised, just a fudge.

[romille]

So called IS as the BBC likes to call them are a barbaric terrorist organisation that kills people in the most brutal ways imaginable, my view is that they should be excluded from the protection that human rights law affords. I remember back in the days of the NI troubles, when the IRA executed a policeman at his home, that was fair game, but when the boot was on the other foot they were bitching about the security forces having a shoot to kill policy, seems the terrorist always want to play the card that favours them most.

[johnm]

So called IS as the BBC likes to call them are a barbaric terrorist organisation that kill people in the most brutal ways imaginable, my view is that they should be excluded from the protection that human rights law affords. I remember back in the days of the NI troubles, when the IRA executed a policeman at his home, that was fair game, but when the boot was on the other foot they were bitching about the security forces having a shoot to kill policy, seems the terrorist always want to play the card that favours them most.

The whole point about terrorists is that they want to disrupt civilisation and subjugate the population through the population being terrified of them. Refusing to play them at their own game and dealing with them through the processes they seek to destroy is what preserves a civilised society.

Playing them at their own game as far as catching them is fine, once caught, the system of justice must deal with them.

Sometimes that system must recognise it has duty to keep its officers and citizens safe so far as possible and that can mean that the only option is to shoot the terrorist, before he commits his terror. That's a risk reward equation and must always be the exception rather than the rule. So a shoot to kill policy....no, sometimes shooting to kill when left with little option, that's OK.

[romille]

The whole point about terrorists is that they want to disrupt civilisation and subjugate the population through the population being terrified of them. Refusing to play them at their own game and dealing with them through the processes they seek to destroy is what preserves a civilised society.

Playing them at their own game as far as catching them is fine, once caught, the system of justice must deal with them.

Catching them and locking them up clearly does not work as they just spread their vitriol from behind bars, becoming political prisoners and recruiting sergeants in the eyes of their fellow terrorists. Good examples of that are Bobby Sands and the pair the executed Lee Rigby, who are constantly raising legal challenges and claiming compensation, costing the people they are trying to terrorise hundreds of thousands of pounds in Legal Aid costs.

[johnm]

Martyrs are certainly more powerful than prisoners and expecting any sort of rational behaviour from terrorists is a bit pointless.

I do agree that the PC brigade is more tolerant than any civilised country needs to be and there is no need for civilised society to allow total mickey taking in order to remain civilised