I think Trump is quite correct on IS fighters
TurquoiseTastic
Kerygmania Host
in Purgatory
Trump's counter-terror nominee Sebastian Gorka says European countries, especially the UK, should take back IS fighters currently held in Syria.
Strange as it is to say I think Trump has been consistently right about this, though for self-interested reasons. During his first presidency he said this was a case of Europe failing to take responsibility for the actions of its own citizens, which I think is bang on target.
Thoughts?
Strange as it is to say I think Trump has been consistently right about this, though for self-interested reasons. During his first presidency he said this was a case of Europe failing to take responsibility for the actions of its own citizens, which I think is bang on target.
Thoughts?
Comments
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdDnISWXsAAqndo?format=jpg&name=large
In reality the UK will probably resist this, because Starmer et al would fear looking soft on terror.
He's out in 4 years.
The £ & borrowing costs.
Unless as he insists that the reward is on its way. I agree that Labour went on and on about how bad the Cons were but Labour were right. They are still trying to pull us out of the mire. I may not agree with some of the way they are doing it but they are trying. Right back to your regularly scheduled thread.
Just as long as we lock them up the second they get off the plane.
If we have evidence of them having committed a crime rather than, say, been a victim of online grooming and child sex trafficking.
Arbitrary detention without due judicial process (even if only imprisonment on remand for someone considered dangerous, or at risk of fleeing) is contrary to the rule of law, and profoundly contrary to the values we as a nation claim to espouse.
Belonging, or professing to belong, to a proscribed terrorist group (such as ISIS) is a crime under section 11 of the Terrorism Act 2000 that is punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
But, anyone arrested and charged with violence in the UK is unlikely to be given bail - so, those who actually fought for ISIS (ie: actually committed acts of violence) given the same treatment would also be unlikely to be given bail. As I said, use the same criteria for everyone. To do otherwise is unfair*.
* and, yes I know the system is already unfair in that quite often bail is given to the very wealthy whereas the poor get locked up awaiting trial. But, it doesn't seem relevant to explore that particular failing of our justice system on this thread.
What about both?
Going and joining the other side in an active war is prima facie evidence of treason, surely?
I doubt a charge of treason against someone who was a child at the time would stand more than the slightest chance of sticking.
A child lured abroad with false promises is, in my view, a victim of trafficking, not a criminal.
Well said. But she was both. In law.
The UK was engaged in active military actions against ISIS / ISIL / Daesh between August 2014 and late 2019. This certainly covers the time during which Ms Begum and others like her traveled to Syria with the express purpose of joining up with ISIS.
"But I thought the other side was good" isn't actually any kind of defense to a treason charge.
"But I was a teenager, and therefore an idiot" has a little more substance to it.
By not declaring war, we’ve been left with a situation where there is no agreed framework as to what to do. That is the fundamental problem.
We need a Geneva convention for war against non-state actors.
As does 'I was groomed". Or "I wouldn't have even made it into Syria if not for a Western Intelligence agent who was trading foreigners for access":
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62726954
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-11-18/ex-canadian-spy-calls-for-shamima-begums-uk-return-after-spy-agency-cover-up
I think it's useful to compare with the case of Samantha el Hassani, an American citizen, who followed her husband out to Syria, taking their children with her (a couple more children were born in Syria). As soon as the US authorities got reliable information about their whereabouts, they sent in the special forces, extricated them from the refugee camp, flew them straight back to the US and threw the book at her. She ended up making a plea bargain and is currently sitting in a federal jail. This seems to me a much more satisfactory way of dealing with the situation.
The excellent BBC podcast I'm not a Monster tells both women's stories.
Apropos of exactly nothing, it is going to take some time for me to see HM and think "His Majesty" and not "Her Majesty".
Not the same as if they'd been born in Britain tho'. But yes, she should have been located and extracted. The US did the right thing.
Nobody other than LC has claimed they're guilty of treason. I was quite explicit that the law they've openly and deliberately broken is the Terrorism Act 2000, specifically Section 11 thereof.
If you join a terrorist group and devote your life to the furtherance of their aims (be it by actively fighting or otherwise) then the fact that you only did so because you were stupid or naïve enough to buy in to their propaganda is not an effective defence.
If you join a terrorist group and devote your life to the furtherance of their aims (be it by actively fighting or otherwise) then the fact that you only did so because you were stupid or naïve enough to buy in to their propaganda is not an effective defence.
What if you were stupid, naive and aged just 15? Ten days after she arrived in Syria she was married to a 23 year old, something she doesn't seem to have envisaged, or certainly not envisaged happening quickly, at the point at which she left the U.K.
And as above, she and her companions wouldn't have even made it into Syria at that point if not for the intervention of an agent of the Canadian intelligence services.
The problem is that the Treason Act 1351 is an arcane law that is not normally applied, even in the most egregious cases. However, it remains a statute and ought to be reformed/revised for the modern world.
The Treason Felony Act 1848 is a tad more modern but again needs to be revised, not least in the light of conflicting Human Rights law in regard to some of its provisions. Again, I'm not aware of it being enforced for years. In my view, moribund laws are bad laws and ought either to be repealed or modernised, not simply left lying about.
What I feel is strange is that other persons in a similar case have been allowed to come home and go scot-free, while this woman is penalised. Of course, it is now politically difficult to allow her home as her name is mud and the government would be called weak, accused of pandering to terrorists and so on. It is, to say the least, unfortunate. If she does come back she will probably have to be prosecuted for something just for the look of it.
I think, however, the monarch only has ‘enemies’ when a state of war exists (apart from planning, aiding, or executing direct personal attacks on him/her).