Shamima Begum

TelfordTelford Shipmate
The Supreme court have ruled that she cannot return to the UK to fight her case.

If she did manage to make her way to the UK and her case was heard, she couldn't be deported anyway because there would be nowhere to deport her to.


Gordon Brown suggests that the case be heard in the camp where she lives. It needs to be resolved one way or the other
«1345678

Comments

  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    She's the former ISIS bride?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Only because her husband was killed
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited March 2
    Golden Key wrote: »
    She's the former ISIS bride?

    Yes. She left the UK aged 15 to join the "Islamic State", married and had children. She is an avowed terrorist and has continuously espoused the Islamic State ideology ever since. Her children all died (basically of being small children in refugee camps and Daesh-run territory), but her husband, a Dutch man, I thought was still living.

    The UK government contends that it can strip her UK citizenship because she's entitled to citizenship of Bangladesh; the Bangladeshis say that she may have a claim on Bangladeshi citizenship but it's not automatic, and she doesn't currently have Bangaldeshi citizenship. In other words, "don't fob her off on us - we don't want her".

    She probably doesn't have a claim on Dutch citizenship via her husband, because her "marriage", which took place when she was 15, is probably not recognized.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Is a 15 year old (as she was) considered there legally competent enough to make a responsible decision of that magnitude? Did someone influence her to go off to ISIS? Was she running away from anything then?

    Not declaring judgment on her, just trying to sort out details.
  • Although I don't think she has any real excuses for what she did (despite her young age at the time), she is a UK citizen and I think it is wrong to strip this of her and make her citizen-less. Bangladesh clearly don't want her. I suspect that the UK government is hoping that before too long she will die in the refugee camp and solve the problem. She should be brought back to the UK. If she has to spend time in jail, so be it. In an ideal world, she would be properly de-radicalised and given a chance to save other young girls from making a similar disastrous action.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    In an ideal world, she would be properly de-radicalised and given a chance to save other young girls from making a similar disastrous action.

    Just how would that be done?
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    In an ideal world, she would be properly de-radicalised and given a chance to save other young girls from making a similar disastrous action.

    Just how would that be done?

    Yeah that sounds kinda Big Brotherish.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    I agree that she shouldn't be left to fester in a refugee camp (reports say still Daesh controlled) but what to do with her?

    When she and her two companions went missing it was the school that reported her missing, not her parents which opens up a can of worms.

    De-radicalisation? There is depressing evidence that this is very difficult, and that the younger the person when they became radicalised the less likely that any attempt at (effectively) re-education works.
  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    For many years now, we've known about the ways in which teens or young women can be stalked or groomed online by unscrupulous predators and lured to run away from home to meet strangers. We know this may end in rape or their deaths. There are numerous examples that relate to the trafficking in women and I have followed cases like this because of the plight of young Zimbabwean job seekers who found themselves in the Middle East (notably Kuwait) working in brothels or as slaves. We also know how quickly violent and inhumane ideologies can be made to seem 'glamorous' and transmitted to naive or uninformed youngsters via social media and websites.

    The term 'ISIS brides' used of Shamima Begum and other teens is itself misleading and problematic. What I'd like to know more about is the process by which young girls were trafficked to Syria after being groomed online by ISIS. They didn't go over to fight, they weren't joining to be trained for combat. If an impressionable teen is targeted by an organisation and groomed for marriage to a warrior fighting a noble cause, I don't know we can say she chose to leave Britain of her own volition. She is separated from her Dutch husband (apparently in another Syrian camp) and the marriage would not be recognised under Dutch law because she was underage as a child bride who was married within 10 days of arriving in Syria.

    She has lost three children in appalling conditions, including her three-week-old infant son. Shamima's mother has pleaded with British authorities to allow her daughter to return. Shamima hasn't come across as a sympathetic 'victim' in the media, at 19 she made comments in support of ISIS beheadings. Parallels have been made with Patty Hearst's indoctrination by the Symbionese Liberation Army and the 'brainwashing' of religious cults, that those who leave cults can take years to let go of damaging beliefs and arguments. At the same time, the precedent set here is a troubling one.

    I've been a visitor to refugee camps in southern Africa, mostly dangerous, desperate places that are hell for women and children. Shamima Begum is now trapped in a Kurdish camp in north-east Syria that is more of an unstable makeshift detention camp rather than a UN-monitored refugee settlement. In all likelihood, she will be sent as a stateless person to Iraq or to Syria if she is still alive when the camp collapses. She may not have the resources needed to bring her case on appeal before the European Court of Human Rights. Is she still a threat to British security?



  • It seems to me that she was born and raised in the UK and is ultimately our problem. If she's committed crimes under UK law she can be tried in a British court. Making her stateless is both illegal and immoral.
  • GalilitGalilit Shipmate
    Israel just ransomed back a woman who had crossed over the border to Syria. The deal (brokered by Russia/ Putin) was the release of 2 prisoners, the pardon of a woman in a northern village from her sentence of community service and the provision of a zillion SputnikV vaccines (to Syria).
    The young young woman was home in time for Shabbat and whole thing was out of the headlines in less than a week.
    Governments just have to want to do it.
    They should be hanging their heads in shame over Nazanin Zaghari-Radcliffe too!
    If you are a citizen it's not a question of what you've said or done. (Or not). "I am a British citizen" is all that needs to be considered.
    All the rest is diplomatic games.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited March 2
    She was groomed as a child and is being used as a political pawn. Quoting what she says in an unsafe situation in which she might be targeted is no insight into what she actually thinks, and is irrelevant to whether she is a U.K. citizen.

    We don’t strip our own serial killers of citizenship, and we got rid of exile as a lawful punishment some centuries ago. If dual citizenship is really citizenship, it should not be possible for the government to remove it - saying some other country might give her citizenship is irrelevant.

    There has always been a problem with our understanding of nonstate militias and mercenaries. We were apparently at war enough with ISIS to bomb them, rather than use a criminal justice process which is what we use for politically motivated violence, but not enough to give them the rights of prisoners of war.

    So either we think she committed a crime, in which case she should be extradited to the U.K. and tried for it or we think she is a combatant on the losing side of a war - in which case she should be returned to her country because the war is over - which means she should be returned to the U.K.

    Also what the fuck do we believe her British children did ? At least one was left to die in a refugee camp with no consular assistance - for what reason exactly ? I do not believe the assertion the U.K. could not reach them when a coterie of journalists have managed it.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    Also, in terms of national security, do we believe the treatment of this woman and her children will lead those tempted by extremism to a more or less positive view of the U.K. ? Treating folk like shit tends to lead them to live down to your expectations.
  • The thought of her getting a fair trial while she's still in a refugee camp is laughable. How's she going to get proper legal representation? What happens if she tells the court that she was mislead and Da'esh are an evil organisation and then goes back to a camp where there are still supporters of Da'esh walking around?

    Restore her UK citizenship, bring her home and put her on trial for any crimes she may have committed under UK law (and, what exactly would those be if she didn't take up arms against anyone, much less UK citizens?) IMO she's very much a victim of Da'esh, having been conned by their propaganda, groomed and brainwashed and should be treated as such. Would we be condemning her and her friends if they'd been snatched from the street and taken to Syria against their will? The lies and grooming they fell for such that they made their own way there are functionally the same. Those who groomed them, and assisted them in getting to Syria, are the greater criminals and should be the ones hounded down by the legal authorities - if she's to appear in a court she should be in the witness box against those who abused her.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited March 2
    I do not understand how anyone born in Britain, raised and lethally radicalized as a child in Bethnal Green, can have their citizenship revoked. The reason why I understand, that she will forever be a - weak - source of lethal radicalization and we know that we can't stop that. The circle is squared I suppose. I wish we could politically afford to take her back and deal with those risks. But we can't. We're too weak.

    As for Nazanin Zaghari-Radcliffe, we can now give the Iranians what they want, a seat at the table, so they can reciprocate.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    @MaryLouise, @Doublethink and @Alan Cresswell it's easy to assume that as she was only 15, she must have been groomed. Why would anyone of 15 run away to join ISIS without their wills having been suborned? But that is assessing her on the assumption she is like you. There doesn't seem to be much evidence that she was groomed. She and the others who travelled with her seem to have gone of their own volition and got most of the way on their own before they linked up with ISIS people.

    There was a time when children had adult responsibility attributed to them at 8 or 12. There's a tendency in some circles now to argue that they should be let off all responsibility for anything until they are, say, 18, at which point they become instantly fully adult. Come what may, adolescence is a process not a light switch. Letting her off any responsibility for her actions by saying she was a child, when the 15 year old Shamima Begum clearly neither saw herself as one nor behaved like one is IMHO wrong.

    She acted in a way that was so inconsistent with being a UK citizen that it looks like repudiation of any claim or wish to be one.

    Letting her come back here and then charging her with offences isn't quite as simple as it appears. It would be impossible to prove she had committed most of them as they were committed abroad and any witnesses would be inaccessible or dead - apart that is, perhaps, something in the treason area, aligning oneself with the Queen's enemies. But that would involve being able to argue that the phrase 'war on terror' is more than just rhetoric.

  • Adults can be groomed and conned, it's not just something that happens to children. So, her age at the time isn't particularly relevant on that point.

    Is anyone going to deny that there were people telling her that as a muslim her loyalty should be with ISIS, that fighting to defend ISIS from enemies of Islam (as they saw it) was a good thing, that supporting those fighters was a good thing etc? Is there anyone denying that she (and many others) fell for that message? Falling for that message of hate makes her a victim of those who pedalled it. Being a victim is not a crime.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited March 2
    Enoch wrote: »
    @MaryLouise, @Doublethink and @Alan Cresswell it's easy to assume that as she was only 15, she must have been groomed. Why would anyone of 15 run away to join ISIS without their wills having been suborned? But that is assessing her on the assumption she is like you. There doesn't seem to be much evidence that she was groomed. She and the others who travelled with her seem to have gone of their own volition and got most of the way on their own before they linked up with ISIS people.

    There was a time when children had adult responsibility attributed to them at 8 or 12. There's a tendency in some circles now to argue that they should be let off all responsibility for anything until they are, say, 18, at which point they become instantly fully adult. Come what may, adolescence is a process not a light switch. Letting her off any responsibility for her actions by saying she was a child, when the 15 year old Shamima Begum clearly neither saw herself as one nor behaved like one is IMHO wrong.

    She acted in a way that was so inconsistent with being a UK citizen that it looks like repudiation of any claim or wish to be one.

    Letting her come back here and then charging her with offences isn't quite as simple as it appears. It would be impossible to prove she had committed most of them as they were committed abroad and any witnesses would be inaccessible or dead - apart that is, perhaps, something in the treason area, aligning oneself with the Queen's enemies. But that would involve being able to argue that the phrase 'war on terror' is more than just rhetoric.

    Well she got there and within 10 days she was raped.

    If you look at the Rochdale grooming case you will see the children were not forcibly abducted.

    Also if, as you say, you can't gather evidence on what basis do you accuse her of extreme actions repudiation her citizenship ? We have not stripped IRA or UDF killers of citizenship on the grounds they killed our own people and professed they are not uk citizenship have we ? Why is she different, is it because she is brown ?
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    Letting her come back here and then charging her with offences isn't quite as simple as it appears. It would be impossible to prove she had committed most of them as they were committed abroad and any witnesses would be inaccessible or dead - apart that is, perhaps, something in the treason area, aligning oneself with the Queen's enemies. But that would involve being able to argue that the phrase 'war on terror' is more than just rhetoric.

    ISIS is a banned organisation isn't it? I'm inclined to agree with you about her moral responsibility, but it seems unlikely that none of the plethora of anti-terror offences would cover her.
  • The only point of law to consider here is that it's strictly forbidden to render someone - anyone - stateless. The UK government were and are blowing smoke about Bangladesh.

    Bring her back and put her on trial if there are charges to face. That's it. That's what a mature, robust democracy would do.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    This is exactly the sort of situation in which the principle of innocent until proven guilty applies.
    Also, what was said above about rendering someone stateless.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    She acted in a way that was so inconsistent with being a UK citizen that it looks like repudiation of any claim or wish to be one.

    If she is dangerous, leaving her free in one of the poorer and more disorganized regions in the world would be a profoundly immoral thing to do.

    Rendering someone stateless using the arguments extended by the British government is hugely problematic and is something that has all sorts of disturbing historical parallels (consider which other groups are in theory eligible for the citizenship of another country).
  • MargaretMargaret Shipmate
    She was fifteen, and she did something stupid. A lot of us do stupid things at fifteen; it's part of growing up and finding out how you fit into the world. She was unlucky in that Da'esh, with its sophisticated methods of preying on idealistic young Muslims, enabled her to do something quite catastrophically stupid. She's certainly suffered for it, watching three children die, being deprived of citizenship in the country where she was born and brought up, and now being trapped indefinitely in a refugee camp. Surely she deserves the justice of having her guilt - or otherwise - assessed and appropriately dealt with in what is after all her own country.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited March 2
    MaryLouise wrote: »
    The term 'ISIS brides' used of Shamima Begum and other teens is itself misleading and problematic. What I'd like to know more about is the process by which young girls were trafficked to Syria after being groomed online by ISIS.

    They appear to have travelled to Istanbul as a group, and then been helped across the Turkish/Syrian border by a coalition intelligence agent.

    In terms of their previous contact with ISIS, a number of newspapers ran features on the topic at the time, and the one I remember was in Vice: https://www.vice.com/en/article/pgpvxn/how-a-british-college-student-became-an-isis-matchmaker
  • Furtive GanderFurtive Gander Shipmate
    edited March 2
    Enoch wrote: »
    She acted in a way that was so inconsistent with being a UK citizen that it looks like repudiation of any claim or wish to be one.

    If she is dangerous, leaving her free in one of the poorer and more disorganized regions in the world would be a profoundly immoral thing to do.

    Rendering someone stateless using the arguments extended by the British government is hugely problematic and is something that has all sorts of disturbing historical parallels (consider which other groups are in theory eligible for the citizenship of another country).
    Yeah, but this UK government is driven (or at least has its morals defined by) the right-wing press, rich right-wingers who finance their party and right-wing supporters genearlly - not the broad political spectrum of UK residents.
  • I'm with Margaret and Alan on this. My wife sees things differently and agrees with the Government's line.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    I'm with Margaret and Alan on this. My wife sees things differently and agrees with the Government's line.

    ISTM to me that these are not the only possible positions. It's perfectly possible to believe she is entirely culpable, and that it is still immoral to make her someone else's problem.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    If I was the Bangladeshi government, I would be very unhappy at the minute. It's obvious to me that the British government is only trying to make her Bangladesh's problem because it's a developing country full of brown people.

    Being eligible for citizenship and being a citizen are not the same thing. To wit: my son is a French citizen. He is also entitled to British nationality on account of having a British parent (me) but for the time being we haven't done the necessary paperwork. I'm imagining a situation in which someone like my son committed a crime in another country and was stripped of their French nationality on the basis that they could still be British and wouldn't be left stateless. Why don't I think Her Majesty's Government would buy the argument?
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Shipmate
    edited March 2
    Enoch wrote: »
    She acted in a way that was so inconsistent with being a UK citizen that it looks like repudiation of any claim or wish to be one.

    If she is dangerous, leaving her free in one of the poorer and more disorganized regions in the world would be a profoundly immoral thing to do.

    Rendering someone stateless using the arguments extended by the British government is hugely problematic and is something that has all sorts of disturbing historical parallels (consider which other groups are in theory eligible for the citizenship of another country).

    I hate to say this but Donald Trump was absolutely correct about this case. He said "The Europeans are abdicating their responsibility". I'm sure that bringing her back to the UK will raise all sorts of difficult problems. But leaving her where she is just shuffles those problems (which are the UK's responsibility) off on another area of the world which has more than enough problems of its own to deal with. As for Bangladesh they must be thinking "If she's not the UK's problem, how can she possibly be our problem?"
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 2
    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, the UK's position seems to me to be cruel, mean, petty, and spiteful.
    I'm with Margaret and Alan on this. My wife sees things differently and agrees with the Government's line.

    ISTM to me that these are not the only possible positions. It's perfectly possible to believe she is entirely culpable, and that it is still immoral to make her someone else's problem.

    This.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Shipmate
    edited March 2
    Yes. If she is guilty of a crime, she should be punished under UK law. If there is no crime that can be proved against her, she should be released. If we consider that she is so dangerous that she needs to be locked up despite not being found guilty of anything a la Guantanamo Bay, we need to take responsibility for doing this rather than letting another country do it on our behalf.
  • Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, the UK's position seems to me to be cruel, mean, petty, and spiteful.

    All hallmarks of the party currently governing the UK.
  • And she's brown.
  • Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, the UK's position seems to me to be cruel, mean, petty, and spiteful.

    All hallmarks of the party currently governing the UK.

    Exactly.
    :disappointed:
  • Well, I do have some sympathy with the government because it is quite a difficult situation. As I understand it there is little chance of proving a crime under UK law and yet it's quite likely that she is in fact dangerous. So the temptation to do the wrong thing is strong.

    Perhaps the right thing to prevent future recurrences would be for Parliament to pass a law making it a crime to travel to Foreign-Office-specified "conflict zones" without official permission. Then it would be clear that a breach of UK law had occurred. But that horse has bolted in this case.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    @MaryLouise, @Doublethink and @Alan Cresswell it's easy to assume that as she was only 15, she must have been groomed. Why would anyone of 15 run away to join ISIS without their wills having been suborned? But that is assessing her on the assumption she is like you. There doesn't seem to be much evidence that she was groomed. She and the others who travelled with her seem to have gone of their own volition and got most of the way on their own before they linked up with ISIS people.

    There was a time when children had adult responsibility attributed to them at 8 or 12. There's a tendency in some circles now to argue that they should be let off all responsibility for anything until they are, say, 18, at which point they become instantly fully adult. Come what may, adolescence is a process not a light switch. Letting her off any responsibility for her actions by saying she was a child, when the 15 year old Shamima Begum clearly neither saw herself as one nor behaved like one is IMHO wrong.

    She acted in a way that was so inconsistent with being a UK citizen that it looks like repudiation of any claim or wish to be one.

    Letting her come back here and then charging her with offences isn't quite as simple as it appears. It would be impossible to prove she had committed most of them as they were committed abroad and any witnesses would be inaccessible or dead - apart that is, perhaps, something in the treason area, aligning oneself with the Queen's enemies. But that would involve being able to argue that the phrase 'war on terror' is more than just rhetoric.

    Well she got there and within 10 days she was raped.

    If you look at the Rochdale grooming case you will see the children were not forcibly abducted.

    Also if, as you say, you can't gather evidence on what basis do you accuse her of extreme actions repudiation her citizenship ? We have not stripped IRA or UDF killers of citizenship on the grounds they killed our own people and professed they are not uk citizenship have we ? Why is she different, is it because she is brown ?

    ? it's because she's outside the border.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    The only point of law to consider here is that it's strictly forbidden to render someone - anyone - stateless. The UK government were and are blowing smoke about Bangladesh.

    Bring her back and put her on trial if there are charges to face. That's it. That's what a mature, robust democracy would do.

    There's your answer. Faragists are waiting in the wings. And it had to be on Sajid Javid's watch didn't it?
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Is anyone going to deny that there were people telling her that as a muslim her loyalty should be with ISIS, that fighting to defend ISIS from enemies of Islam (as they saw it) was a good thing, that supporting those fighters was a good thing etc? Is there anyone denying that she (and many others) fell for that message? Falling for that message of hate makes her a victim of those who pedalled it. Being a victim is not a crime.

    You’re getting very close to saying that if someone truly believes what they are doing is Right then they can’t be guilty of a crime.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Adults can be groomed and conned, it's not just something that happens to children. So, her age at the time isn't particularly relevant on that point.

    Is anyone going to deny that there were people telling her that as a muslim her loyalty should be with ISIS, that fighting to defend ISIS from enemies of Islam (as they saw it) was a good thing, that supporting those fighters was a good thing etc? Is there anyone denying that she (and many others) fell for that message? Falling for that message of hate makes her a victim of those who pedalled it. Being a victim is not a crime.

    Was it done via Deliveroo then?
  • Gee D wrote: »
    In an ideal world, she would be properly de-radicalised and given a chance to save other young girls from making a similar disastrous action.

    Just how would that be done?

    As I said - in an ideal world.

    The fact is that radicalisation is still going on. It might (just might) be helpful to have someone who had been radicalised and then 'deprogrammed' who was willing to go into schools etc to tell their story and point out that the blissful paradise being promised is nothing but a lie.
  • Wikipedia says she was born in the UK. Legality of revoking citizenship for the UK? Can the UK revoke citizenship of anyone? Or only brown people? white people too? Tell me how it isn't racist.

    If this, why not just quietly kill her or put her in one of those secret black torture sites? I'm sure the British authorities have done such things to others. If she's so bad and dangerous. Compare Omar Khadr. Different issues and behaviour, but also 15 years old.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited March 2
    Wikipedia says she was born in the UK. Legality of revoking citizenship for the UK? Can the UK revoke citizenship of anyone? Or only brown people? white people too? Tell me how it isn't racist.

    If this, why not just quietly kill her or put her in one of those secret black torture sites? I'm sure the British authorities have done such things to others. If she's so bad and dangerous. Compare Omar Khadr. Different issues and behaviour, but also 15 years old.

    It is, but how? If she'd been white Anglo-Saxon British they wouldn't have? You know this how?

    Like you know '...quietly kill her or put her in one of those secret black torture sites... I'm sure the British authorities have done such things to others'. I know stuff that I shouldn't because the guys that were there told me. Guys that never met by a generation and different theatres. Borneo and the Falklands. People always talk. So what have they told you?
  • MMMMMM Shipmate
    .
  • Wikipedia says she was born in the UK. Legality of revoking citizenship for the UK? Can the UK revoke citizenship of anyone? Or only brown people? white people too? Tell me how it isn't racist.

    It is racist. It's fractally racist: no matter how closeup or far away you are it's still racist.

    The tories gave themselves the power to revoke UK citizenship for dual nationals, and have now stretched that to anyone who kinda sorta could maybe claim another nationality (which includes me, as I could claim Canadian citizenship). The original purported intent was to allow the deportation of people who had moved here, attained citizenship and then been convicted of serious crimes. Pretty much by definition it overwhelmingly affects immigrants and their immediate descendants, and therefore disproportionately affects non-white folk.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    Also that means, dual citizenship is not citizenship and people are being conned.
  • By this government?
    :open_mouth:

    Who knew?

    I'm in the process of claiming Irish citizenship (well, my sister's the one doing all the work, bless her), so if the tories want to deport me to Dublin, or Cork, they're welcome.
  • or we think she is a combatant on the losing side of a war - in which case she should be returned to her country because the war is over - which means she should be returned to the U.K.

    If she is "a combatant on the losing side of a war" then she is de facto guilty of treason, surely? We no longer hang traitors, but we can imprison them for life.

    It used to be the case that dual citizenship wasn't really a thing, and by taking on citizenship of a new country, you automatically rejected your previous country. I think there's an element of that in people's reaction to Ms Begum - they see her has having chosen to abandon the UK when she chose to emigrate to ISIS-controlled territory. Which becomes a bit awkward when the "country" she moved to is an insurrectionist movement that nobody recognizes as legitimate. Neither Syria nor Iraq wants a bunch of foreign rapist terrorists and their groupies to stay there, either.

    So I tend to think that all the arguments in favour of withdrawing her UK citizenship are rather specious, because it's clear that there isn't a legitimate state on which she has a closer claim to citizenship. That makes her our problem. If she wants to come to the UK, admit her, arrest her, try and convict her of high treason, and imprison her for life.
  • It would have been better for the UK government to have acknowledged IS as an actual state, that those fighting for it were citizens of that state, then declared war on it in the usually accepted fashion.

    Admittedly, having the entire state apparatus of IS obliterated complicates matters, but the statehood of the combatants wouldn't be in doubt.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    The failure of the U.K. to declare war makes our whole intervention in the area deeply dubious. But it also means if we want to punish members of ISIS then we need to treat them as suspected criminals - with the rights and responsibilities that entails.

    The U.K. drone assassinated its own citizens in Syrian territory - just what is the legal justification for that ? We weren’t at war with Syria, they posed no direct and immediate threat to the U.K. - they were personally targeted rather than, say, being part of a platoon we happened to bomb because it was attacking a target we were attempting to protect.

    We don’t have the death penalty - so what is the legal justification ?

    It would be sensible to agree in international law, some process for declaring war (or a war like state) upon a none state entity such as ISIS or the IRA or whatever else. With clearly defined expectations about how states will act, and what happens to the participants in the war when it is over. Moreover, there is then a clear process for how you try combatants for crimes against humanity, where that is appropriate. But I note, we don’t typically imprison, mutilate or kill the wives of soldiers who lose a war.

    I loathe everything ISIS/DAESH stands/stood for - but their abuse of human rights should not be copied by us. Otherwise, why bother opposing them in the first place.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    I’d also add that the UKs attitude to those who left to fight for ISIS is wierd, compared to those who went to fight for the Peshmurga and other Islamic militias in the area. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43453292

    Come to that it appears to be fine to go and fight for any number of mercenary private armies.

    It should just be illegal, as a U.K. citizen, to soldier for any other organisation or state than the U.K. defence forces. (And we should not accept soldiers from other nations, and yes, I include the Gurkhas in that.)
Sign In or Register to comment.