This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/24/drone-strike-challenge-us-relations
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Drone strike challenge could harm US relations | Drone strike challenge could harm US relations |
| (8 days later) | |
| Legal scrutiny in court of Britain's collaboration with US drone strikes could compromise foreign relations and national security, Foreign Office lawyers argued on Wednesaday. | Legal scrutiny in court of Britain's collaboration with US drone strikes could compromise foreign relations and national security, Foreign Office lawyers argued on Wednesaday. |
| The government made the claim at a high court hearing into the first legal challenge in English courts to the drones campaign, which has been brought by a Pakistani man whose father was killed in an air strike near the Afghan border. | The government made the claim at a high court hearing into the first legal challenge in English courts to the drones campaign, which has been brought by a Pakistani man whose father was killed in an air strike near the Afghan border. |
| Noor Khan is arguing that Britain sharing intelligence to target unmanned aircraft could amount to complicity in murder or even war crimes. But James Eadie, representing the foreign secretary, said legal scrutiny of the drone campaign in an English criminal court would harm national security interests. | Noor Khan is arguing that Britain sharing intelligence to target unmanned aircraft could amount to complicity in murder or even war crimes. But James Eadie, representing the foreign secretary, said legal scrutiny of the drone campaign in an English criminal court would harm national security interests. |
| If a court ruled US actions to be illegal, "the potential for real damage to international relations is clear", he said. "You damage national security, you damage the protection to the public." | If a court ruled US actions to be illegal, "the potential for real damage to international relations is clear", he said. "You damage national security, you damage the protection to the public." |
| Eadie argued that the case should be heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), set up in 2000 to examine complaints about surveillance by government agencies. Martin Chamberlain, counsel for Khan, argued that the IPT was not competent to rule on whether the reported UK practice of sharing intelligence with the US for use in drone strikes was unlawful. | Eadie argued that the case should be heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), set up in 2000 to examine complaints about surveillance by government agencies. Martin Chamberlain, counsel for Khan, argued that the IPT was not competent to rule on whether the reported UK practice of sharing intelligence with the US for use in drone strikes was unlawful. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. | Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe. | Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |