
UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia ruled lawful - sjcsjc
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40553741
======
pluma
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_
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-
lea...](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-
european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum)

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
> 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
> "there's been talk about a "British Bill of Rights" along these lines for
> years"

Some would say it already exists...

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA)

------
SEMW
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_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Provincial_Picture_Houses_Ltd_v_Wednesbury_Corp)

~~~
skummetmaelk
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?

~~~
SEMW
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)

------
alva
"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_Ki...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_Kingdom_relations)

~~~
cmahler7
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.

~~~
Theodores
This is an accurate assessment yet you have to read a lot online to get to
this understanding. Nobody in the mainstream media and no politician in the
Western media will help you get to understand things as they are, so it is an
interesting time we live in where more and more people are independently
informed yet the 'great leaders' still think everyone is stupid.

~~~
specializeded
I disagree with having to research it on your own. It’s a common enough theory
thrown around on reddit, Twitter, fb groups etc on the daily without any
further thought required on one’s part. Search petrodollar on any of those
sites and see.

To make it fun, drink every time you see mention of the Jews, Masons, and NWO
while looking through the results.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "I disagree with having to research it on your own."

Yes, but you need to have enough of your own curiosity to look into it. Not
everyone is curious about it, nor should they need to be, the world would be
less interesting if everyone had the same interests. However, it is useful for
non-curious people to have some grounding in current events, which is supposed
to be the function of the news media, but much of today's news media is utter
shite. Take any topic covered by the mainstream media that you know something
about and you'll easily find disinformation and lies by omission.

------
delegate
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 ?

~~~
icebraining
Home Office problem: [https://youtu.be/fHU6Pgr-
euA?t=8m25s](https://youtu.be/fHU6Pgr-euA?t=8m25s)

~~~
delegate
Thank you, that answered my question :). How fool of me to forget...

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

------
arethuza
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)

~~~
ars
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.

------
ZenoArrow
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
> _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
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
Exactly.

------
JulianMorrison
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.

~~~
Angostura
Which aspects of the legal judgement do you disagree with, specifically?

~~~
coldtea
The aspects where it bends over backwards to align with those in power.

~~~
matthewmacleod
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
> _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
"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.

~~~
coldtea
> _The courts can decide just on the legality._

Legality is just a way to enforce what we consider wrong and right -- that is,
morality.

What you describe (they only consider legality) is a bug not a feature -- and
a bug that has been exploited many times, from scammers exploiting loopholes,
to Jim Crow laws, to the Nuremberg trials.

Courts should (and under good judges do) strive to judge based on the spirit
of the law (morality) not the letter (legality).

(Not that morality here doesn't mean some prudish values as the word is
sometimes casually used -- I refer to the general concept of what's moral
(justice) vs what's merely permitted (law)).

~~~
dpark
What you're proposing is that the judicial branch takes legislative
responsibility from the legislative branch. The separation of these branches
is not an accident.

And courts typically do consider the spirit of the law. But they must consider
the spirit of the existing law, not the law you might wish exists.

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

~~~
enriquto
how do you know?

people who use your programs do not necessarily tell you

~~~
enriquto
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
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.

------
rwmj
The actual ruling is here (two PDF links):
[https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-on-the-
application-...](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/)

~~~
pjc50
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.

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

~~~
mrweasel
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
There are quite a few individuals who have this same problem.

------
Paul_S
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_.

~~~
opless
Rule of acquisition #34: War is good for business

~~~
robinduckett
#35: Peace is good for business

------
exabrial
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.

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

~~~
pjc50
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
> 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...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/16/third-of-saudi-
airstrikes-on-yemen-have-hit-civilian-sites-data-shows)

Saudi planes are also routinely bombing archaeological sites and old
monuments. [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/world/middleeast/yemen-
sa...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/world/middleeast/yemen-sana-
explosion-houthis-saudi-arabia.html)

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.

------
aerodog
(L)awful

