I may be naive, but I honestly didn’t think UK would allow this, when Starmer clearly stated the war on Iran is illegal. Especially not after USA has been caught in several war crimes.
I could be wrong but I think the way foreign litany bases work is that they are in the thinnest legal sense “sovereign foreign territory.” To which I mean, the activities conducted on these bases are outside the control of the country who’s land they occupy.
Edit: I was wrong, amd the US are just tennants on the land which makes this a very questionable thing that they are doing.
This is a common misconception (it doesn’t actually apply to embassies either, from which the myth arose). Every military base of a nation within another nation’s territory is governed by a status of forces agreement (SOF); usually a large general SOF for all locations in the territory and also a narrower SOF that applies to that site specifically.
That does not sound like a good idea. I would expect a country would want to maintain sovereignty of their own territory.
Of course embassies have something similar to what you describe, but if an embassy is breaking the law, the diplomats can be expelled.
What a surprise… No one could have seen this coming.
I may be naive, but I honestly didn’t think UK would allow this, when Starmer clearly stated the war on Iran is illegal. Especially not after USA has been caught in several war crimes.
Yall are naive as shit. The fucking pedophiles are against their buddy pedophiles they’ve been fucking kids with? Do you really believe that shit?
Didn’t he literally say he’d allow their use for “defensive” strikes? He’s never really been hiding it.
Every strike is a defensive strike
No it’s not.
The best defense is a good offense…
It is in kid starvers twisted mind
Wasn’t that also when he was admitting that the UK was helping do the preemptive strikes?
I
could be wrong but I think the way foreign litany bases work is that they are in the thinnest legal sense “sovereign foreign territory.” To which I mean, the activities conducted on these bases are outside the control of the country who’s land they occupy.Edit: I was wrong, amd the US are just tennants on the land which makes this a very questionable thing that they are doing.
This is a common misconception (it doesn’t actually apply to embassies either, from which the myth arose). Every military base of a nation within another nation’s territory is governed by a status of forces agreement (SOF); usually a large general SOF for all locations in the territory and also a narrower SOF that applies to that site specifically.
Thank you for the correction! That makes what they’re doing against the SOF rules/law, then?
Nnnnope. They are RAF bases, with a nominal RAF CO. The USAF are tenants.
That does not sound like a good idea. I would expect a country would want to maintain sovereignty of their own territory.
Of course embassies have something similar to what you describe, but if an embassy is breaking the law, the diplomats can be expelled.
Starmer the flim flam man. He stands for nothing and will go with anything, he has no morals.
Probably in the Epstein files.