Russia Today reports that Britain’s ambassador to the UN is claiming Britain’s killing of Islamic State militants in Syria was legal because the drone strikes that caused the fatalities were launched to defend Iraq.
This is in complete divergence from David Cameron’s earlier claims that the strikes were carried out in defence of UK national security.
It’s being widely suggested this shifting narrative indicates the questionable legality of the action, given that the UK parliament voted down air strike in Syria back in 2013. Said newly-elected Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn yesterday:
The government appears to have used an additional and entirely separate justification for this covert strike in their letter to the UN, which was not mentioned in the prime minister’s statement to parliament.
Why did the government cite the [defense] of Iraq when justifying this strike to the UN, but not when doing so to parliament?”
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.
Read full story on Russia Today