10 ms·

UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia ruled lawful

77 points by sjcsjc 9y ago

richev 9y ago
One of many reasons why I'm thankful I've been able to avoid working on software that has military applications. :-/
- enriquto 9y ago
  how do you know? people who use your programs do not necessarily tell you
  - enriquto 9y ago
    This is a legitimate question, it has happened to me. I published some codes for image processing and then learned that they were being used by a private armament company for missile guidance.
    - megamindbrian 9y ago
      We had a similar programming problem for a Capstone project. We were told it was for solar panel tracking, but it could have easily been applied to something else.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- SilasX 9y ago
  "I just work on the theory of prime numbers. No way will they ever find a military use for that!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_(cryptosystem)#Operation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_(cryptosystem)#Operation
arethuza 9y ago
I suspect the "closed material" was basically a financial statement saying how much the Saudis spend with the UK. There is plenty history in this area - particularly the Al-Yamamah arms deal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_deal
- albertgoeswoof 9y ago
  could be that could be something else could be anything at all
- ars 9y ago
  Or it could be that the UK prefers the current government over the rebels, and thus arming Saudi Arabia is in line with UK interests. Selling them arms also give you leverage over them - the UK might be able to use that to get them to do a better job with civilian casualties.
  - honestoHeminway 9y ago
    The road not taken, the option not chosen, the software released- the rebellion not victorious, they are always the best thing that never happened.
- 3131s 9y ago
  And the Al-Yamamah arms deal was propelled in large part by Bandar Bin Sultan, long-time Saudi ambassador to the US under Reagan all the way to GW Bush. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan_Al_Saud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan_Al_Saud "Bandar has formed close relationships with several American presidents, notably George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, the latter giving him the affectionate and controversial nickname 'Bandar Bush'." "Bandar helped negotiate the 1985 Al Yamamah deal, a series of massive arms sales by the United Kingdom to Saudi Arabia worth GB£40 billion (US$80 billion), including the sale of more than 100 warplanes. After the deal was signed, British arms manufacturer British Aerospace (now BAE Systems) allegedly funnelled secret payments of at least GB£1 billion (US$2 billion) into two Saudi embassy accounts in Washington, in yearly instalments of up to GB£120 million (US$240 million) over at least 10 years." "A court affidavit filed on 3 February 2015 claims that Zacarias Moussaoui served as a courier between Osama bin Laden and Turki bin Faisal Al Saud in the late 1990s, and that Turki introduced Moussaoui to Bandar.[68] Zacarias Moussaoui stated on oath and wrote to Judge George B. Daniels that Saudi royal family members, including Prince Bandar, donated to Al-Qaeda and helped finance the September 11 attacks.[69] The Saudi government continues to deny any involvement in the 9/11 plot, and claims there is no evidence to support Moussaoui's allegations in spite of numerous previous intense investigations, noting that Moussaoui's own lawyers presented evidence of his mental incompetence during his trial.[68] Leaked information from the redacted portion of the 9/11 Commission Report states that two of the 9/11 hijackers received $130,000 in payment from Bandar's checking account. [70]"
JulianMorrison 9y ago
The British courts have always been nearly as politically supine as the Russian ones. It's the main reason the Tories are obsessed with escaping ECJ jurisdiction, since that court doesn't take orders.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Angostura 9y ago
  Which aspects of the legal judgement do you disagree with, specifically?
  - coldtea 9y ago
    The aspects where it bends over backwards to align with those in power.
    - matthewmacleod 9y ago
      Right, in other words you have no actual argument. Arms sales to Saudi Arabia are awful, in my opinion, but it categorically not for the courts to decide if the are morally good. That’s a political issue.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        >Right, in other words you have no actual argument. On the contrary, I have the only meaningful argument (about the actual thing that matters, whether it should be approved or not) -- and the counter-argument put forward is just about the legality (and even that depends on ..."secret documents" not admitted to the public to judge the case). (Not to mention that courts make moral judgements all the time).
        DarkKomunalec 9y ago
        "the counter-argument put forward is just about the legality" The courts can decide just on the legality. "(Not to mention that courts make moral judgements all the time)." But they shouldn't - their duty and extent of power is only in interpreting the law, not morality. Now if you want to argue that the law should be different, or have some argument on how the arms sales could/should have been judge illegal, go ahead. You could also argue that the UK government should apply pressure on the arms manufacturers to stop selling to Saudi Arabia, by e.g. denying them government contracts, applying closer scrutiny when it comes to export licences, threatening to change the law (as governments so often like to do when it comes to copyright enforcement), and that their failure to do so shows how much influence and corruption the arms manufacturers hold. Influence that could well be considered traitorous, and result in criminal prosecutions. But that's all conjecture.
Paul_S 9y ago
Tangentially related: if selling bombs to our enemy who we are at war with would bring in more money than the cost of rebuilding and insurance claims we would do it. What sounds insane to you is criminal for an executive not to do.
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago
  "What sounds insane to you is criminal for an executive not to do." A common misconception: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
- opless 9y ago
  Rule of acquisition #34: War is good for business
  - robinduckett 9y ago
    #35: Peace is good for business
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  How? Could you cite the country and code that makes it illegal for an executive to have a moral respect for human life?
vegancap 9y ago
It may be lawful, but it's not necessarily moral.
- mrweasel 9y ago
  Both companies and governments often have a hard time understanding that you can do something wrong, while remaining on the right side of the law.
  - beobab 9y ago
    There are quite a few individuals who have this same problem.
rwmj 9y ago
The actual ruling is here (two PDF links): https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-on-the-application-of-campaign-against-the-arms-trade-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-international-trade-and-interveners/ https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-on-the-application-...
- pjc50 9y ago
  This is long, but well worth digging into. It includes an analysis of the Saudi process for avoiding incidents, which is critical to the ruling. Also some surprising information such as reports of Saudi anti-missile systems intercepting SCUD missiles aimed at Jeddah and Riadh from the Yemeni border.
coldtea 9y ago
Well, of course. After all those who sell the arms also get to make the laws.
aerodog 9y ago
(L)awful
pluma 9y ago
The British court has ruled that the British sale to Saudi Arabia is not unlawful. Is this the same British court that has ruled that the findings of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on Assange's UK-imposed situation being a gross human rights violation is invalid? Somehow I don't trust the UK courts when it comes to international human rights violations. Especially if you consider that May famously said that human rights will have to be neglected if they stand in the way of fighting terrorists.
- corin_ 9y ago
  It was recently that Theresa May talked about removing human rights to fight terrorism (I can't remember after which attack it was, but one of the ones in the past few months) - but her bad track record goes back further than that. Even before the Brexit referendum she was on the record, when she was Home Secretary, as wanting to leave the European Court of Human Rights. “The ECHR can bind the hands of parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights,” she said. “So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this: if we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court.” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-lea... Her reaction to the terrorist attack(s) is just her finding a new excuse to justify what doing what she wanted to do already. A horrible, horrible person.
  - gsnedders 9y ago
    > It was recently that Theresa May talked about removing human rights to fight terrorism (I can't remember after which attack it was, but one of the ones in the past few months) - but her bad track record goes back further than that. This has been her reaction to every single terrorist attack going back years and years. Note there's been talk about a "British Bill of Rights" along these lines for years, and there's still no proposal for how it would differ to the ECHR beyond removing jurisdiction of the ECtHR.
ZenoArrow 9y ago
Honestly, who gives a fuck that arms sales are lawful. The issue isn't legal, it's moral. I hate the fact that people in my country are assisting in the killing of innocent people in Yemen and Syria. No amount of legal precedence is going to take that hate away.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > who [cares if] arms sales are lawful People who care about the rule of law [1]. Once upon a time, we lived in a world where random people decided what is and isn't moral. It wasn't fun. So we decided to codify conventions in laws [2]. If your fellow countrymen disagree that the law should be changed, that's your problem, not the ruling. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
  - amelius 9y ago
    You are misinterpreting the commenter. They do not advocate to ignore the law. Instead they advocate simply to not sell those weapons, so the law does not apply in the first place.
    - ZenoArrow 9y ago
      Exactly.
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    Nope. I have no issue with the legal rights for arms companies to exist. My issue is with the moral choices of whom they sell to. Enforcing changes through the law is ineffective in cases like this, the companies can easily find loopholes, such as selling to a middleman who operates outside the legal jurisdiction in which they operate. The only way that's truly effective is to change the culture of those working within the arms companies, and you can do that most easily through hitting them where it hurts, i.e. their profits. There are ways and means of effectively resisting the actions of these companies, and if those that are pleased about this legal ruling believe that it will placate those that oppose them, they're dead wrong.
chiefalchemist 9y ago
I guess the question is: Will those weapons be used against other countries, or its own people?
- pjc50 9y ago
  The ones at question are for the Saudi side of the war in Yemen, so they'll be used against the Houthi forces (and whichever civilians have not been able to evacuate certain conflict areas).
  - idoubtit 9y ago
    > they'll be used against the Houthi forces (and whichever civilians have not been able to evacuate certain conflict areas) This is what the Saudi side claims, but when an independent survey analyzed 8600 bombings, they found that 37% had civilian targets, 42% had military targets, and 21% could not be determined. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/16/third-of-saudi-airstrikes-on-yemen-have-hit-civilian-sites-data-shows https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/16/third-of-saudi... Saudi planes are also routinely bombing archaeological sites and old monuments. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/world/middleeast/yemen-sana-explosion-houthis-saudi-arabia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/world/middleeast/yemen-sa... Please also note that the North Yemen that is bombed is not under the sole control of the Houthi forces. The followers of the previous (sunni) president, Saleh, are allied to the (unorthodox shia) Houthi.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    I was being sarcastic. But to your point, yes that might be true today. But that about tomorrow? Will there be perceived (psychological) threat by the people. If SA didn't have oil we'd marginalize them for their form of government.
alva 9y ago
"The judges said "closed material", which had not been made public for national security reasons, "provides valuable additional support for the conclusion..." I cannot wait to find out, although I expect to be an old man by that time, the true nature of our relationship with Saudi. Considering our extremely close involvement in all things Saudi since it's inception [0], I suspect our countries are more intertwined than most realise. All of the human rights abuses, funding of terrorism abroad, 9/11 etc it truly is a puzzle why they get away with so much with the West. It is quite easy to get conspiratorial about the whole thing. Could it be that the West has made a deal with Al Saud (oil, strategic geopolitical area), but the Ulama (separate from the Royals) are those who do not comply? Any recommended reading from someone who knows about this topic? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_Kingdom_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_Ki...
- pbadenski 9y ago
  We should find out in 20 years it seems (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/our-role/plans-policies-performance-and-projects/our-projects/20-year-rule/ http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/our-role/plans-poli...)
- cmahler7 9y ago
  It all comes down to the petrodollar. When you look at it through that frame everything makes sense. Saddam started selling oil in Euros so they had to take him out, despite all 9/11 guys being Saudis. Gaddafi was going to make a gold backed currency so he had to be taken out. Still nobody will tell us where the 200 billion in gold he had has gone. The Syria situation is over a pipeline to Europe, Russia doesn't want that to go through Qatar/Saudis/US do, so we fund rebels to overthrow the "dictator". Putin has said that the petrodollar must die, which is why he is public enemy #1, petrodollar is what keeps the US on top. This is what keeps the dollar demand strong despite nothing backing it. People only become dictators when they threaten our interests. We protect and overlook Saudis human rights abuses because they help push our agenda in the Middle East. The trillions made by the MIC is just icing on the cake.
  - 9y ago
delegate 9y ago
Aren't Saudi Arabia major financial and ideological sponsors of terrorist groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda ? Isn't terrorism (in the face of ISIS and the likes) one of the top menaces for the UK ? So isn't supplying arms to these guys similar to pouring gas onto the flame and then wondering why everything's on fire ?
- rwmj 9y ago
  > Isn't terrorism (in the face of ISIS and the likes) one of the top menaces for the UK ? Maybe in the top ten, but a long way after climate change, ill health, Brexit, etc etc.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Home Office problem: https://youtu.be/fHU6Pgr-euA?t=8m25s https://youtu.be/fHU6Pgr-euA?t=8m25s
  - delegate 9y ago
    Thank you, that answered my question :). How fool of me to forget...
SEMW 9y ago
Lots of people in this thread are acting as if the court held that the arms sale was moral, or even a good idea. Courts don't work like that (at least, Judicial Review cases in England don't). The court was asked to block arms sales on the grounds that the gov'ts decision to sell arms to Saudi Arabia was Wednesbury unreasonable. For a decision to be Wednesbury unreasonable, it must be so irrational that no sensible person could have arrived at it.[0] This is a really high bar. The court held that the decision to sell arms didn't meet this bar. This was the expected outcome — it's pretty rare for government decisions to be overturned for Wednesbury irrationality. This case was a long shot by the CAAT. This doesn't mean the court thought arms sale was good, moral, or anything else. But English courts doesn't have the power to strike down decisions (that are within the power of the government to make under statute or common law) for not being good or moral. (IANAL). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Provincial_Picture_Houses_Ltd_v_Wednesbury_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Provincial_Picture_...
- skummetmaelk 9y ago
  If government decisions are overturned for Wednesbury irrationality and Wednesbury irrationality requires that no sane person could have arrived at the decision, does the court imply that the government is run by insane persons?
  - epmaybe 9y ago
    No? You can't find one rational reason for the UK government to want extra cash?
  - SEMW 9y ago
    Heh. I think they tend to phrase it ".. so as to appear to have taken leave of [their] senses", to leave open the possibility of sanity :) http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs6/2001EWCACiv789.html http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs6/2001EWCACiv789.html is a good example of a case where a government decision was overturned on Wednesbury irrationality grounds. (Ctrl-f for "judgment of the court" and start reading there)
exabrial 9y ago
Not that the USA is perfect, but doing anything in the middle easy seems immoral these days. Everyone has their hand in something. Our own "allies" (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, et all) are committing atrocities of their own.

77 points by sjcsjc 9y ago

richev 9y ago

One of many reasons why I'm thankful I've been able to avoid working on software that has military applications. :-/

enriquto 9y ago
how do you know? people who use your programs do not necessarily tell you
- enriquto 9y ago
  This is a legitimate question, it has happened to me. I published some codes for image processing and then learned that they were being used by a private armament company for missile guidance.
  - megamindbrian 9y ago
    We had a similar programming problem for a Capstone project. We were told it was for solar panel tracking, but it could have easily been applied to something else.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
SilasX 9y ago
"I just work on the theory of prime numbers. No way will they ever find a military use for that!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_(cryptosystem)#Operation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_(cryptosystem)#Operation

arethuza 9y ago

I suspect the "closed material" was basically a financial statement saying how much the Saudis spend with the UK. There is plenty history in this area - particularly the Al-Yamamah arms deal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_deal

albertgoeswoof 9y ago
could be that could be something else could be anything at all
ars 9y ago
Or it could be that the UK prefers the current government over the rebels, and thus arming Saudi Arabia is in line with UK interests. Selling them arms also give you leverage over them - the UK might be able to use that to get them to do a better job with civilian casualties.
- honestoHeminway 9y ago
  The road not taken, the option not chosen, the software released- the rebellion not victorious, they are always the best thing that never happened.
3131s 9y ago
And the Al-Yamamah arms deal was propelled in large part by Bandar Bin Sultan, long-time Saudi ambassador to the US under Reagan all the way to GW Bush. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan_Al_Saud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan_Al_Saud "Bandar has formed close relationships with several American presidents, notably George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, the latter giving him the affectionate and controversial nickname 'Bandar Bush'." "Bandar helped negotiate the 1985 Al Yamamah deal, a series of massive arms sales by the United Kingdom to Saudi Arabia worth GB£40 billion (US$80 billion), including the sale of more than 100 warplanes. After the deal was signed, British arms manufacturer British Aerospace (now BAE Systems) allegedly funnelled secret payments of at least GB£1 billion (US$2 billion) into two Saudi embassy accounts in Washington, in yearly instalments of up to GB£120 million (US$240 million) over at least 10 years." "A court affidavit filed on 3 February 2015 claims that Zacarias Moussaoui served as a courier between Osama bin Laden and Turki bin Faisal Al Saud in the late 1990s, and that Turki introduced Moussaoui to Bandar.[68] Zacarias Moussaoui stated on oath and wrote to Judge George B. Daniels that Saudi royal family members, including Prince Bandar, donated to Al-Qaeda and helped finance the September 11 attacks.[69] The Saudi government continues to deny any involvement in the 9/11 plot, and claims there is no evidence to support Moussaoui's allegations in spite of numerous previous intense investigations, noting that Moussaoui's own lawyers presented evidence of his mental incompetence during his trial.[68] Leaked information from the redacted portion of the 9/11 Commission Report states that two of the 9/11 hijackers received $130,000 in payment from Bandar's checking account. [70]"

JulianMorrison 9y ago

The British courts have always been nearly as politically supine as the Russian ones. It's the main reason the Tories are obsessed with escaping ECJ jurisdiction, since that court doesn't take orders.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Angostura 9y ago
Which aspects of the legal judgement do you disagree with, specifically?
- coldtea 9y ago
  The aspects where it bends over backwards to align with those in power.
  - matthewmacleod 9y ago
    Right, in other words you have no actual argument. Arms sales to Saudi Arabia are awful, in my opinion, but it categorically not for the courts to decide if the are morally good. That’s a political issue.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >Right, in other words you have no actual argument. On the contrary, I have the only meaningful argument (about the actual thing that matters, whether it should be approved or not) -- and the counter-argument put forward is just about the legality (and even that depends on ..."secret documents" not admitted to the public to judge the case). (Not to mention that courts make moral judgements all the time).
      - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
        "the counter-argument put forward is just about the legality" The courts can decide just on the legality. "(Not to mention that courts make moral judgements all the time)." But they shouldn't - their duty and extent of power is only in interpreting the law, not morality. Now if you want to argue that the law should be different, or have some argument on how the arms sales could/should have been judge illegal, go ahead. You could also argue that the UK government should apply pressure on the arms manufacturers to stop selling to Saudi Arabia, by e.g. denying them government contracts, applying closer scrutiny when it comes to export licences, threatening to change the law (as governments so often like to do when it comes to copyright enforcement), and that their failure to do so shows how much influence and corruption the arms manufacturers hold. Influence that could well be considered traitorous, and result in criminal prosecutions. But that's all conjecture.

Paul_S 9y ago

Tangentially related: if selling bombs to our enemy who we are at war with would bring in more money than the cost of rebuilding and insurance claims we would do it. What sounds insane to you is criminal for an executive not to do.

DarkKomunalec 9y ago
"What sounds insane to you is criminal for an executive not to do." A common misconception: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
opless 9y ago
Rule of acquisition #34: War is good for business
- robinduckett 9y ago
  #35: Peace is good for business
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
How? Could you cite the country and code that makes it illegal for an executive to have a moral respect for human life?

vegancap 9y ago

It may be lawful, but it's not necessarily moral.

mrweasel 9y ago
Both companies and governments often have a hard time understanding that you can do something wrong, while remaining on the right side of the law.
- beobab 9y ago
  There are quite a few individuals who have this same problem.

rwmj 9y ago

The actual ruling is here (two PDF links): https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-on-the-application-of-campaign-against-the-arms-trade-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-international-trade-and-interveners/ https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-on-the-application-...

pjc50 9y ago
This is long, but well worth digging into. It includes an analysis of the Saudi process for avoiding incidents, which is critical to the ruling. Also some surprising information such as reports of Saudi anti-missile systems intercepting SCUD missiles aimed at Jeddah and Riadh from the Yemeni border.

coldtea 9y ago

Well, of course. After all those who sell the arms also get to make the laws.

aerodog 9y ago

(L)awful

pluma 9y ago

The British court has ruled that the British sale to Saudi Arabia is not unlawful. Is this the same British court that has ruled that the findings of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on Assange's UK-imposed situation being a gross human rights violation is invalid? Somehow I don't trust the UK courts when it comes to international human rights violations. Especially if you consider that May famously said that human rights will have to be neglected if they stand in the way of fighting terrorists.

corin_ 9y ago
It was recently that Theresa May talked about removing human rights to fight terrorism (I can't remember after which attack it was, but one of the ones in the past few months) - but her bad track record goes back further than that. Even before the Brexit referendum she was on the record, when she was Home Secretary, as wanting to leave the European Court of Human Rights. “The ECHR can bind the hands of parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights,” she said. “So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this: if we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court.” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-lea... Her reaction to the terrorist attack(s) is just her finding a new excuse to justify what doing what she wanted to do already. A horrible, horrible person.
- gsnedders 9y ago
  > It was recently that Theresa May talked about removing human rights to fight terrorism (I can't remember after which attack it was, but one of the ones in the past few months) - but her bad track record goes back further than that. This has been her reaction to every single terrorist attack going back years and years. Note there's been talk about a "British Bill of Rights" along these lines for years, and there's still no proposal for how it would differ to the ECHR beyond removing jurisdiction of the ECtHR.

ZenoArrow 9y ago

Honestly, who gives a fuck that arms sales are lawful. The issue isn't legal, it's moral. I hate the fact that people in my country are assisting in the killing of innocent people in Yemen and Syria. No amount of legal precedence is going to take that hate away.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> who [cares if] arms sales are lawful People who care about the rule of law [1]. Once upon a time, we lived in a world where random people decided what is and isn't moral. It wasn't fun. So we decided to codify conventions in laws [2]. If your fellow countrymen disagree that the law should be changed, that's your problem, not the ruling. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
- amelius 9y ago
  You are misinterpreting the commenter. They do not advocate to ignore the law. Instead they advocate simply to not sell those weapons, so the law does not apply in the first place.
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    Exactly.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  Nope. I have no issue with the legal rights for arms companies to exist. My issue is with the moral choices of whom they sell to. Enforcing changes through the law is ineffective in cases like this, the companies can easily find loopholes, such as selling to a middleman who operates outside the legal jurisdiction in which they operate. The only way that's truly effective is to change the culture of those working within the arms companies, and you can do that most easily through hitting them where it hurts, i.e. their profits. There are ways and means of effectively resisting the actions of these companies, and if those that are pleased about this legal ruling believe that it will placate those that oppose them, they're dead wrong.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

I guess the question is: Will those weapons be used against other countries, or its own people?

pjc50 9y ago
The ones at question are for the Saudi side of the war in Yemen, so they'll be used against the Houthi forces (and whichever civilians have not been able to evacuate certain conflict areas).
- idoubtit 9y ago
  > they'll be used against the Houthi forces (and whichever civilians have not been able to evacuate certain conflict areas) This is what the Saudi side claims, but when an independent survey analyzed 8600 bombings, they found that 37% had civilian targets, 42% had military targets, and 21% could not be determined. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/16/third-of-saudi-airstrikes-on-yemen-have-hit-civilian-sites-data-shows https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/16/third-of-saudi... Saudi planes are also routinely bombing archaeological sites and old monuments. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/world/middleeast/yemen-sana-explosion-houthis-saudi-arabia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/world/middleeast/yemen-sa... Please also note that the North Yemen that is bombed is not under the sole control of the Houthi forces. The followers of the previous (sunni) president, Saleh, are allied to the (unorthodox shia) Houthi.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  I was being sarcastic. But to your point, yes that might be true today. But that about tomorrow? Will there be perceived (psychological) threat by the people. If SA didn't have oil we'd marginalize them for their form of government.

alva 9y ago

"The judges said "closed material", which had not been made public for national security reasons, "provides valuable additional support for the conclusion..." I cannot wait to find out, although I expect to be an old man by that time, the true nature of our relationship with Saudi. Considering our extremely close involvement in all things Saudi since it's inception [0], I suspect our countries are more intertwined than most realise. All of the human rights abuses, funding of terrorism abroad, 9/11 etc it truly is a puzzle why they get away with so much with the West. It is quite easy to get conspiratorial about the whole thing. Could it be that the West has made a deal with Al Saud (oil, strategic geopolitical area), but the Ulama (separate from the Royals) are those who do not comply? Any recommended reading from someone who knows about this topic? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_Kingdom_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_Ki...

pbadenski 9y ago
We should find out in 20 years it seems (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/our-role/plans-policies-performance-and-projects/our-projects/20-year-rule/ http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/our-role/plans-poli...)
cmahler7 9y ago
It all comes down to the petrodollar. When you look at it through that frame everything makes sense. Saddam started selling oil in Euros so they had to take him out, despite all 9/11 guys being Saudis. Gaddafi was going to make a gold backed currency so he had to be taken out. Still nobody will tell us where the 200 billion in gold he had has gone. The Syria situation is over a pipeline to Europe, Russia doesn't want that to go through Qatar/Saudis/US do, so we fund rebels to overthrow the "dictator". Putin has said that the petrodollar must die, which is why he is public enemy #1, petrodollar is what keeps the US on top. This is what keeps the dollar demand strong despite nothing backing it. People only become dictators when they threaten our interests. We protect and overlook Saudis human rights abuses because they help push our agenda in the Middle East. The trillions made by the MIC is just icing on the cake.
- 9y ago

delegate 9y ago

Aren't Saudi Arabia major financial and ideological sponsors of terrorist groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda ? Isn't terrorism (in the face of ISIS and the likes) one of the top menaces for the UK ? So isn't supplying arms to these guys similar to pouring gas onto the flame and then wondering why everything's on fire ?

rwmj 9y ago
> Isn't terrorism (in the face of ISIS and the likes) one of the top menaces for the UK ? Maybe in the top ten, but a long way after climate change, ill health, Brexit, etc etc.
icebraining 9y ago
Home Office problem: https://youtu.be/fHU6Pgr-euA?t=8m25s https://youtu.be/fHU6Pgr-euA?t=8m25s
- delegate 9y ago
  Thank you, that answered my question :). How fool of me to forget...

SEMW 9y ago

Lots of people in this thread are acting as if the court held that the arms sale was moral, or even a good idea. Courts don't work like that (at least, Judicial Review cases in England don't). The court was asked to block arms sales on the grounds that the gov'ts decision to sell arms to Saudi Arabia was Wednesbury unreasonable. For a decision to be Wednesbury unreasonable, it must be so irrational that no sensible person could have arrived at it.[0] This is a really high bar. The court held that the decision to sell arms didn't meet this bar. This was the expected outcome — it's pretty rare for government decisions to be overturned for Wednesbury irrationality. This case was a long shot by the CAAT. This doesn't mean the court thought arms sale was good, moral, or anything else. But English courts doesn't have the power to strike down decisions (that are within the power of the government to make under statute or common law) for not being good or moral. (IANAL). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Provincial_Picture_Houses_Ltd_v_Wednesbury_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Provincial_Picture_...

skummetmaelk 9y ago
If government decisions are overturned for Wednesbury irrationality and Wednesbury irrationality requires that no sane person could have arrived at the decision, does the court imply that the government is run by insane persons?
- epmaybe 9y ago
  No? You can't find one rational reason for the UK government to want extra cash?
- SEMW 9y ago
  Heh. I think they tend to phrase it ".. so as to appear to have taken leave of [their] senses", to leave open the possibility of sanity :) http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs6/2001EWCACiv789.html http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs6/2001EWCACiv789.html is a good example of a case where a government decision was overturned on Wednesbury irrationality grounds. (Ctrl-f for "judgment of the court" and start reading there)

exabrial 9y ago

Not that the USA is perfect, but doing anything in the middle easy seems immoral these days. Everyone has their hand in something. Our own "allies" (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, et all) are committing atrocities of their own.