SHARE

David Cameron today announced plans to double the unmanned drone fleet and to beef up SAS operations in the country.

The Government is preparing to hold a parliamentary vote authorising the extension of British strikes into Syria.

The Government lost a Commons vote two years ago to authorise air strikes against the forces of Syrian President Assad, the situation has however changed a great deal in the region since then.

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said:

“This is no time for Britain to retreat from the world, to let terror triumph, or to put our people in peril.”

The Government are however facing a legal challenge over the decision to target Islamic State fighters in Syria recently without Parliamentary approval.

It is understood that military commanders who planned the strike demanded lawyers were present at all stages of the process according to the Sunday Times, to ensure the operation was legally watertight. It was reported that the Director of Special Forces was determined to have “legal top cover” before approving the mission.

Green Party MP Caroline Lucas and Baroness Jones have joined with human rights charity Reprieve to take the first step towards a judicial review.

In addition to American, French and other nations becoming more involved, Russian aircraft have bombed five more Islamic State targets in Syria this week, according to the Russian defence ministry.

According to defence ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov as quoted by RIA Novosti:

“Russian Sukhoi Su-24M and Sukhoi Su-25M conducted eight flights to strike five IS targets.

We have prevented Islamic State fighters from reestablishing a command post in the Hama province that had been destroyed in our air strikes on September 30.”

Last month the Russian Federation Council approved the use of Russian military in Syria to fight Islamic State at a request from the Syrian President Bashar Assad. Airstrikes against rebel targets started the same day.

8 COMMENTS

  1. Taking something rather startling from the article. Planning now requires lawyers as an integral element?

    Personally I am finding this trend somewhat disturbing. We have moved from discussing what is ‘right’, ‘just’, ‘morally correct’ or just plain necessary to following the ‘letter’ of the law. We need to have open discussion of what aims or goals we would have as a coalition and as a country/people. Where these aims clash with the most objective interpretation of law we need to consider our goals ‘and’ the laws themselves.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here