Dave and the Drones – Part III
Every thriller needs a twist and turn
It started as:
Mr Cameron described the drone strikes as “an act of self-defence” which had to be carried out to protect Britain from terrorist attacks because “there was no alternative.
Now it’s become
Letter from British permanent representative to United Nations says airstrikes were justified on basis of ‘collective self-defence of Iraq’
Th(is) new explanation,
whichwas not disclosed to MPs at Westminster when David Cameron first told MPs about the killings……
The prime minister made no mention of defending Iraq when he told MPs on London that an RAF Reaper drone had killed two British jihadis, Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin, in the Syrian city of Raqqa, in a strike on 21 August.
“Is it because parliament previously voted against action in Syria, making this justification at odds with the will of the commons? The prime minister cannot face two ways on this issue – he needs to urgently explain this discrepancy.”
“David Cameron needs urgently to answer questions about whether there was genuinely an imminent threat to the UK or is this an expansion of the war against Isis without parliamentary approval? This argument was never raised in parliament. It can’t be both explanations.”
Rycroft’s personal involvement will also raise eyebrows. He was Tony Blair’s private secretary at the time of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
His name was on a key memo revealing that Britain and the US were planning five months before the invasion to take action against Saddam Hussein without a second UN resolution.
By coincidence, Iain Macleod, legal adviser at the Foreign Office, was also legal counsellor at the UK mission to the UN in New York in the run up to the Iraq invasion.
How many twists and turns and wriggles are needed to show the LIE?