Now that Daesh is done for what do with them?

[Deleted-479522]

Deleted

 

[RaptorDMG]

In recent UK news is a perfect example (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47260916) this girl headed out to Syria to join them and now wants back in to the UK.

She is pregnant and wants to take advantage of our NHS and welfare to raise her kid (this is an open admission of her's) and she is unrepentant (she "doesn't regret" what she did).

My 2 cents, GitMo is too good for this woman and she should be left to rot in Syria where she would hopefully stand trial and receive the death penalty while still pregnant.

She should be told you went and joined a terrorist organization and we should not take her back or take her back on the agreement of life imprisonment.

I think we should repeal the citizenship of anyone who willingly joined a terrorist organization.

 

[DCG]

My two cents have been unchanged.

They decided to join an foreign nation and fought for them (and yes, I'm counting woman and children under that too) against yet another foreign nation.
They don't have any claim any more on the citizenship of their previous nation.

They fought, they lost.

 

[Deleted-479522]

Deleted

 

[RaptorDMG]

Life in prison will be much better than the refugee camp (which she should not have been allowed into since she contributed to displacing those people).

I fear she is going to get off well with this.

Better she rots behind bars or stays abroad than spreading IS propaganda or committing terrorist acts herself in the UK

 

[Deleted-479522]

Deleted

 

[RaptorDMG]

True.

Although people already get radicalised in prison so she would be a danger to others in prison and UK in general if she comes over.

Is the deathpenalty still on the cards for being a traitor in the UK?

Not any more

 

[notimp]

or take her back on the agreement of life imprisonment

For what? Joining an organization?

Same argument kills, in regards to revoking citizenship.

Insert:

"No, but terrorists!"
"Idiot. Terrorists is just another name for freedom fighters you dont agree with politically, even if a certain person might not have engaged in terrorist acts."
"But terrorists!"
"Here is a US sponsored 'Terrorist school' in Eriwan (capital of armenia) (link goes to RT)."
https://www.rt.com/news/451372-camp-yerevan-protests-us-money/
"But not real terrorists."
"The US created the mujahideen to fight the russians though."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
"But pregnant terrorist women on welfare!!11!"
"With children that shouldnt be held responsible for their parents actions."
"But they'll have brown skin color!"
--Lost for words---

I tell you, you guys are prime "outrage bait" for yellow paper headlines sometime...

Here is how this works in reality. She gets back (of course - family, citizenship). She gets on a terrorist watchlist. The end.

Precrime also is very strong in this forum. Especially if you can enact it on women.

Guys...

Even if they have been 'indoctrinated' (what ever that means), that stuff can be broken by society, perspectives, integration. If you are afraid of "lone wolf sleeper cells" - at least they dont have atom bombs.. On some level having a religious, political nutcase steal a motor truck and drive it into a group of people is the price you pay for having invaded countries for their natural resources for centuries. Then you have mass congregations by the 10.000s mourning the loss of your own - and everything is fine again, because you just demonstrated, that the terrorism part of the nutcases actionplan didn't work - and that your society was stronger.

Have the security services deal with 'the returners' thats their job. And if one of them actually mounts a terror attack in his home country - that resides on about the level of 'hey, people die every day' politically. At least at the moment, where this hasnt gotten out of hand (real intention of terror), actually not even in the slightest.

If more people still die yearly being stung by bees, than of terror attacks - I think you are all fine.

And thats the place for the statement that more people died from the cleanup work of 9/11 than in the actual terror attack, thanks to no proper organization, no medical information, and a questionable building code (hazardous materials). But they were heroes. Oh, stfu.

 

[Deleted-479522]

Deleted

 

[notimp]

The UK has to protest, if shes still a citizen. Citizenship you gain shortly after birth, and is not something that can be discarded easily. Also I dont think, there is a crime on earth, that can cost you citizenship (because usually no other country then wants you either, and all of a sudden, no one knows what to do with you) - so eh...

What crime should "supporting terrorism actively" be? Is another question, because terrorism itself has such a flimsy definition that I find it hard to actually grasp it in a legal sense. Maybe the US has those laws, I don't know. Could be.

In the country (countries rather), she was in - aiding IS probably wasnt a crime either. Surely not - when IS was in power. And even then, if she didnt participate in military action, under most war legislations, she would have been a civilian?

Next issue - once she crosses those states borders, all crimes - even if potentially comitted - are irrelevant. If the country she enters doesnt have legal extradition programs, with the country she has commited crimes in. Thats kinda how law works.

If you are thinking about concepts like international criminal law (f.e. Nurnberg trials - see: https://museums.nuernberg.de/memori...uremberg/birth-of-international-criminal-law/ ), I dont think thats applicable either.

"But she should.."

On what basis? Morals? For what crimes? Aiding and embedding a 'concept'?

Thats why all you really can do is say, ok this women probably has radical tendencies/believes, and probably has problems reintegrating into western society -- put her on a terror watch list, keep an eye on her. Which probably isnt fun either.

edit: Found a crime you can loose your citizenship over.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/world/australia/citizenship-isis-khaled-sharrouf.html

 

[fatherjack]

the 'citizenship' is really the issue I think.
Have we already forgotten the genuine fear encountered as ISIS went from strength to strength as shown on our nightly news?
UK should have, at that time, allowed ANYONE to travel to join ISIS - on the proviso that they would surrender passport and 'citizenship'..... and be life banned from the country from then onwards
The wishy-washy liberal politics of my nation makes me sick - we hand passports out like free papers on the train.

 

[notimp]

UK should have, at that time, allowed ANYONE to travel to join ISIS - on the proviso that they would surrender passport and 'citizenship'..... and be life banned from the country from then onwards
The wishy-washy liberal politics of my nation makes me sick

Thats kind of hard to do. Think about it the following way. If you are a moron IS supporter and you leave your country to support IS, you probably do not state, that you'll support IS as your reason of entry in turkey, or wherever middle destination you book your flight to.

You probably say holiday - and then go on to 'disappear' after you've landed.

Now lets say, you are "the liberal politics of the UK", its kind of hard to revoke someones citizenship based on "we dont know where they are - but they probably went to support IS" alone.

Think about what if this was you, and you were in turkey, and you've had amnesia, or something. And someone stole your papers. (Video game trope. ) All of a sudden you get declared stateless as well...? Bad move.. .

What you do instead is the following. Once such a person resurfaces again ("UK, I'm back - I had me amnesia in turkey for 5 years.") -- first and foremost, you question them extensively. And then you put them on a watchlist program - and monitor how their "reintegration" efforts go for the first couple of years.

Its actually hard to go out and do private investigations as a country - in another country (thats actually called spying.. ), and even harder, if we are talking about a conflict country to begin with.

The "she went there to support IS" bit, is actually a clickbait headline, and not much else, because no one will admit that freely, its actually very, VERY hard to prove that - and even if you could, that alone doesnt trip the threshhold of international criminal, or antiterror laws. Also you cant just "assume" in most of those cases, because thats not how law works ("damn liberals!" )

At this point I would have to read on further, if its actually possible to revoke the citizenship because of international anti terror laws, if the person wasn't a dual citizen (as in the NYT article above) - because even that would strike me as odd...

Citizens of a certain country, always have the right to return to their country - btw. You cant take that away either.

 

[Deleted-479522]

Deleted

 

[notimp]

She would be extradited, if she had commited a crime in the UK, and the UK had an extradition program with Syria or Iraq, which I don't think they have.

Countries not only have 'first dibs' on punishing people within their borders, if they have broken law - they are actually the only ones who normally can.

You are responsible for your wrongdoings in a certain country, to that country - and not your home country.

If the customs and laws in that country are 'odd' (dont litter chewing cum, or get your hand cut off) - countries usually intervene on the diplomatic level, and strike deals to get their citizens out (thats where the 'the UK has to protest' notion comes from). But those are not guaranteed as far as the result is concerned.

And in these cases, most 'returners' return to their home countries out of their own volition. Thats actually the 'issue' because there is no way to prevent them from doing so.

Theres no such thing as punishing your citizens for having moved to another country and having 'helped' people there.

Before international criminal law, there wasnt even such a thing as 'punishing your citizens for having moved to another country and killing people there' - as this time document glaringly shows:

(Turn on english subtitles.

PLEASE dont watch if you arent prepared to see some _very_ disturbing content. This is basically a german documentary (DDR (east germany) propaganda film) about a west german colonel who went to africa to kill some people there in several civil wars.)

edit: Wiki for context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegfried_Müller_(mercenary)

 

[Deleted-479522]

Deleted

 

[notimp]

*short sarcastic laughing noise*

Nothing. The child is not responsible for its parents actions. Should the mother get welfare? Yes. Should she get UK level wellfare? Yes. If she's living in the UK. (Shes even a citizen.)

Those are the easy questions.

Also, another good example for why morals and law should be separate. Also a good example for why there ought to be privacy.

If the people around her know what she has done, the women cant go to the bakery in the morning to get bread, without people spitting at her in their thoughts.

Now think about the child, as soon as it gets to school age. Fun.

 

[Deleted-479522]

Deleted

 

[notimp]

Oh no...

(I know that there had to be a reason, why I dont read the primary source articles about the people in those cases. I don't want to have to care... :/ )

 

[Deleted-479522]

Deleted

 

[notimp]

Neh, just because they declared a state, she doesnt get automatic citizenship.

And I don't think you can travel to many countries with an IS passport, so she probably didn't want to get one..