British prime minister David Cameron stings officials, say sources, by striking Briton soldiers in Syria with drones last August as an action of “self-defense.” Now he must explain. The unmanned drones killed three British soldiers while they were in the line of duty. But wait. Britain is not in an active war, and British officials are hot to inquire as to why the strikes were made. Eyebrows are raising at Downing Street. This matter of defense could pose some serious problems in the near future for Britain’s prime minister.
After summer recess, Monday was the first day Cameron could update his ministers. Official evidence presented to Parliament showed that the militant soldiers admittedly slanted toward an Islamic-State mind-set. This, and more was proof enough for the prime minister to clearly understand that such official data posed a treat to national security. Fox News claims Cameron said, “British nationals based in Syria who were involved in actively recruiting Isil (ISIS) sympathizers and seeking to orchestrate specific and barbaric attacks against the West, including directing a number of planned terrorist attacks right here in Britain, such as plots to attack high-profile public commemorations, including those taking place this summer.” With essentials like this, the prime minister commanded an order to strike under the legal advice of his Attorney General.
Preparations for such a significant strike of defense for Britain took many months. Ministers of parliament met to scrutinized evidence where intelligence agencies briefed them of specifics; and, as reported by The Guardian, attorney general Jeremy Wright advised that a strike would be legal on the grounds of self-defense. Reported by sources, parliament “agreed an approach.” Orders were given by Cameron for RAF to find a most assiduous moment to send out unmanned drone to carry out the command. When it comes to the defense of its citizens, according to Independent UK, Michael Fallon, the Defense Secretary, this morning was quoted to say that the British government “would not hesitate.”
David Cameron may have stung officials by striking Britons in Syria with drones; however, why should he explain his actions to certain opposing parties and the public by defending his actions? The prime minister authorized air strikes at a meeting with senior members of the National Security Council months earlier, after receiving evidence about the Briton soldiers Khan and Hussain, with Islamic involvement and terrorist attack plans that would threaten much of the UK. Cameron indicated to the media that danger is far greater than one could imagine.
Some Parliament members feel such actions can become a problem for the UK. They could be accused of being counter-productive and possibly illegal in their actions. Nonetheless, Lord McDonald, the former director of public prosecutions, is in favor and support of Cameron’s actions.
Evidence indicates that the 21-year-old Kahan, one of the victims of this drone strike, was featured in a prominent ISIS video in 2014, announced The Guardian. Evidence enough was found to identify the Briton soldiers who were killed as having Islamic-State involvement. Cameron acted as prime minister with public commitments to defend the country that may not be in war, but has been threatened to receive terrorist attacks.
The Prime Minister of England already has become unpopular with his MP’s for his “inadequate” asylum process as so stated Britain’s democratic socialist party. Downing Street is concerned that the media focus will shift from immigrant and refugee issues, that have been at the forefront, to the prime minister’s action concerning the critical matter of the death of Britons in the battle fields in Syria. The process of accepting refugees into the UK consists of admitting only 20,000 refugees from Syria into the UK in the next five years. In comparison, France announced Monday, that it would welcome 24,000 into its country in the next two years. BBC reported that Sir Gerald Kaufman, veteran Labour MP, commented, “the UK’s efforts stood in stark contrast to that of Germany, which had effectively accepted 10,000 refugees in a single day.” The report continues saying that the Scottish National Party’s Westminster leader, Angus Robertson, called it “appalling.” These concerns will have to wait.
Cameron stings officials by striking Britons with air drones in Syria in defense of Britain? Endorsed disclosures of treats by militants to harm a country, publicly or otherwise, is terrorism. Parliament may not have been consulted before the actual drone strike took place; however, a decision had to be made. David Cameron, as prime minister stood up to defend his country under legal advice. This may be the first time in the modern history of UK that a prime minister has ever authorized such attacks. In view of the clear evidence found, Cameron acted as an astute defender of his country. He acted in line with his commitments. Sources claim that he also reserves the right to authorize action, without a vote from Parliament, in any event of emergency or when critical interest are at stake for Britain.
By Jeanette O’Donnal
Independent: Jeremy Corbyn Demands David Cameron Publishes Legal Basis For Drone Attack
The Guardian: David Cameron Justifies Drone Strikes in Syria Against Britons Fighting For Isis
BBC: News -UK
Fox News: British Drone Strike in Syria Kills 2 Isis Fighters Prime Minister Says
Feature Image: Courtesy of Brett Jordan – Backbenchers – Flickr – All Creative Commons License
Text Image: Courtesy of UK Ministry of Defence – Flickr – All Creative Commons License