Lost Seasider
Well-known member
I doubt that fact, but even if that were the case, I'd guess that the role of the military attaché is not to organize attacks on other countries, and the consulate is not primarily a C&C centre to organize those attacks.I'd wager that every one of our consulates has a military attache. What's the difference?
WW1? WW2?, The Falklands? The Boer War? The Crimean War? The Peninsular War? The War of the Spanish Succession?Every war we've had has been with the support of Parliament. To say otherwise is ludicrous.
Are you sure?
In particular, can you point to specific mandates for the above being given by parliament in advance?
No link as usual.From Hansard
2011 parliamentary convention
In 2011 the Coalition Government suggested that, since 2003, a convention had emerged in Parliament that before troops were committed to military operations the House of Commons should have an opportunity to debate the matter. It also proposed to observe that Convention except when there was an emergency and such action would not be appropriate.
So a suggestion that a convention has emerged in recent years, that may or may not cover this type of operation, that isn't binding on the government, and would be covered by the "emergency" provision anyway.
You make my point for me.
Last edited: