I agree there is no constitutional reason the British government has to get parliamentary approval for military action – it can use royal prerogative powers to send the armed forces into action.

But it has become a convention, since the 2003 Iraq War, for ministers to put it to a Commons vote and ministers repeatedly promised parliament and the public that there would be no military operations in Syria without parliamentary approval.

How do you know that was the case in this instance and that it wasn't an operational imperative that 1-2 weeks or even days could've hampered or worse resulted in the death of British Citizens (or as being reported Monarchy)?

Are you in full receipt of the facts in this matter?

I'd suggest that the delay in going to Parliament is the issue here...not the decision to act. I'm in complete agreement that due process (in most cases) should be followed...but where that due process could affect the lives of British Citizens then at times a judgement call has to be made.

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

To suspend due process for convenience is far more of a threat to the british way of life than any terrorist group could be.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Nonsense. It is a war - do what is necessary.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Except of course we haven't declared war, and its an attack on the territory of a soverign nation, and of course the targeted elimination of british citizens based on intelligence, without parliamentary ascent.

I'm inclined to think its the right decision, but when a prime minister specifically goes against the process and will of parliament, then it needs to be addressed, especially when it involved an action that parliament has previously disagreed with.

Had parliament agreed to extending missions into Syria, then it would be fine. Except they didn't.

Or do you believe that the Prime Minister should be de facto above the law and will of parliament.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I know all of that. The UK cannot launch military operations in Syria unless they have been invited to do so by the Syrian government, the UN security council, without it being an act of war. That applies to all nations. There is some grounds where the action maybe 'pre-emptive' but that's unlikely in this case (such as Iraq, and look how well that turned out).

Military strikes have been approved by parliament only for use in Iraq. The government failed to get agreement for strikes in Syria from Parliament. As a result the UK has gotten around this by 'lending support to US missions, which puts UK pilots under US command', a technicality.

But the Prime Minister and UK armed forces had plenty of time to seek 'targeted assassination' permission for Syria over the period, but never presented this to parliament to vote on, they just went ahead and acted against the express will of parliament.

I mean how unlikely was it that we might want to target IS individuals in Syria, whilst fighting a 'war' against IS.

See that's what I would have done, when finding out Parliament wouldn't ascent to military action in Syria, would be to then approach parliament for permission to target known assets of IS in Syria immediately.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]