ISIS teenager wants to come home

[Vixen]

The courts have decided its up to this terrorist wannabe to prove she would no longer pose a threat if she came back to the UK and not that she simply decided to invoke her UK citizenship once ISIS started losing. I've seen nothing that convinces me she has any genuine remorse for what she did and frankly I would be far more sympathetic to allowing genuine victims of ISIS to come to this country, for that matter I would have no issue with allowing her children to be brought to the UK.

WAIT. You do not need to show any remorse to continue with your citizenship. That is not how law works. It is not based on 'good character'.

As for your kindly letting a potential ex-ISIS terrorist's children in, isn't it cruel to separate young children from their parents?

Finland recently let three women and ten children altogether, to return to Finland from these prison camps. So what is the problem for the UK?

A plane landed at HELSINKI-VANTAA airport on Sunday morning, bringing Finns from Syria living in the al-Hol camp. There were two Isis mothers and their six children on the plane. Tarja Mankkinen, Development Manager at the Ministry of the Interior, says that the first steps were taken at the airport, such as health checks and corona tests. Recipients were present at the airport. Mankkinen says al-Hol entrants can return to the municipalities. - The intention is that they can return to normal life a little quietly. Do they have a home left in Finland? - I can't say that.

ILTA-SANOMAT Google Translate

 

[theprestige]

The courts have decided its up to this terrorist wannabe to prove she would no longer pose a threat if she came back to the UK and not that she simply decided to invoke her UK citizenship once ISIS started losing. I've seen nothing that convinces me she has any genuine remorse for what she did and frankly I would be far more sympathetic to allowing genuine victims of ISIS to come to this country, for that matter I would have no issue with allowing her children to be brought to the UK.

As far as I'm concerned, she is a genuine victim of ISIS.

I also find it hard to believe that the UK lacks the resources and competence to easily manage whatever threat she might pose, were she to be detained on home soil for the proceedings.

 

[Garrison]

WAIT. You do not need to show any remorse to continue with your citizenship. That is not how law works. It is not based on 'good character'.

As for your kindly letting a potential ex-ISIS terrorist's children in, isn't it cruel to separate young children from their parents?

Finland recently let three women and ten children altogether, to return to Finland from these prison camps. So what is the problem for the UK?

ILTA-SANOMAT Google Translate

The problem is she ran off to join a terrorist organization and continued to support them until ISIS started losing. The onus is on her to show she can be trusted, not on the UK to bend over backwards to accommodate her.

 

[theprestige]

The problem is she ran off to join a terrorist organization and continued to support them until ISIS started losing. The onus is on her to show she can be trusted, not on the UK to bend over backwards to accommodate her.

Wasn't she a minor when she ran away? I subscribe to the philosophy that children should not be held responsible like adults for the stupid choices they make.

Also, how long do you think she would have been allowed to live, if she'd tried to skip out while ISIS was still in control of the region?

Also, bringing a citizen home to stand trial seems like a pretty basic function of any legitimate government, hardly "bending over backwards".

 

[Darat]

Wasn't she a minor when she ran away? I subscribe to the philosophy that children should not be held responsible like adults for the stupid choices they make.

Also, how long do you think she would have been allowed to live, if she'd tried to skip out while ISIS was still in control of the region?

Also, bringing a citizen home to stand trial seems like a pretty basic function of any legitimate government, hardly "bending over backwards".

15 year old when she left the UK.

I’ll have to read the actual judgment but I presume that they will be on solid ground regarding the legal issues, it’s the ethical issue that concerns me.

A 15 year old being groomed is what at the heart of this. She is the victim.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

As far as I'm concerned, she is a genuine victim of ISIS.

I also find it hard to believe that the UK lacks the resources and competence to easily manage whatever threat she might pose, were she to be detained on home soil for the proceedings.

15 year old when she left the UK.

I’ll have to read the actual judgment but I presume that they will be on solid ground regarding the legal issues, it’s the ethical issue that concerns me.

A 15 year old being groomed is what at the heart of this. She is the victim.

+1 to these. I'll be honest and say that I have great trouble summoning any sympathy for her as an individual, but the whole point of the rule of law is it shouldn't rely on personal sympathies. The decision to remove her citizenship based on a theoretical second citizenship the government believes she could acquire, although the actual country disputes this, rather than one that is actually held is very troubling. Although it opens the question of whether we could offload Alexander Johnson on the basis that he might reclaim his US passport I suppose...

She's British, she was born here, raised here, and whether you consider her to have been groomed or radicalized it happened here and it happened while she was a minor. She's our problem and as a matter of principal we should be taking responsibility not offloading it on other, poorer, countries.

 

[jimbob]

As far as I'm concerned, she is a genuine victim of ISIS.

I also find it hard to believe that the UK lacks the resources and competence to easily manage whatever threat she might pose, were she to be detained on home soil for the proceedings.

Yes

The UK certainly has better resources to deal with her than the country of her other citizenship.

By all means arrest and try her for terrorism offences, but, as you say. It should be the UK's problem

ETA: or this:

+1 to these. I'll be honest and say that I have great trouble summoning any sympathy for her as an individual, but the whole point of the rule of law is it shouldn't rely on personal sympathies. The decision to remove her citizenship based on a theoretical second citizenship the government believes she could acquire, although the actual country disputes this, rather than one that is actually held is very troubling. Although it opens the question of whether we could offload Alexander Johnson on the basis that he might reclaim his US passport I suppose...

She's British, she was born here, raised here, and whether you consider her to have been groomed or radicalized it happened here and it happened while she was a minor. She's our problem and as a matter of principal we should be taking responsibility not offloading it on other, poorer, countries.

 

[jimbob]

https://twitter.com/DrDomPimenta/status/1365750433508184074?s=20

Dr Dominic Pimenta Blue heart *Please* Just Stay At Home
·
1h
British people never stripped of their citizenship:

Ghislaine Maxwell
Gary Glitter
Harold Shipman
Jimmy Saville
Fred West
Ian Brady
Thomas Mair

.

British people stripped of their citizenship:

A 15-year old girl from London, groomed, forced into underage marriage, lost 3 kids

 

[acbytesla]

Wasn't she a minor when she ran away? I subscribe to the philosophy that children should not be held responsible like adults for the stupid choices they make.

Also, how long do you think she would have been allowed to live, if she'd tried to skip out while ISIS was still in control of the region?

Also, bringing a citizen home to stand trial seems like a pretty basic function of any legitimate government, hardly "bending over backwards".

I'm shocked when we agree on something.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

As if a 21-year-old woman imprisoned over the last four or five years has any means whatsoever to 'pose a risk to the public', given she would be met off the plane by the police ready to arrest her.

The argument is that, as her alleged crimes took place in a war zone, evidence would be extremely difficult to find. She would almost certainly be arrested upon arrival- but she would have to be released, due to lack of evidence. That's where the national security threat begins. Radicalised people tend to radicalise others, and that's where domestic terrorists come from. She would spread her poisonous beliefs everywhere she went.
On a personal note, I am deeply sceptical of her claimed repentance. Witnessing the atrocities committed by IS, after her arrival in Syria, did not spark any pangs of conscience. She showed no pity or contrition in that infamous interview. No, her claimed change of mind only happened when IS was militarily defeated, and she was captured. She's just looking for a way to escape the consequences of her actions and save her own skin.
Again, this is just my opinion, but I find the coincidence of capture and contrition to be highly suspicious.

 

[Vixen]

The argument is that, as her alleged crimes took place in a war zone, evidence would be extremely difficult to find. She would almost certainly be arrested upon arrival- but she would have to be released, due to lack of evidence. That's where the national security threat begins. Radicalised people tend to radicalise others, and that's where domestic terrorists come from. She would spread her poisonous beliefs everywhere she went.
On a personal note, I am deeply sceptical of her claimed repentance. Witnessing the atrocities committed by IS, after her arrival in Syria, did not spark any pangs of conscience. She showed no pity or contrition in that infamous interview. No, her claimed change of mind only happened when IS was militarily defeated, and she was captured. She's just looking for a way to escape the consequences of her actions and save her own skin.
Again, this is just my opinion, but I find the coincidence of capture and contrition to be highly suspicious.

Nonsense. The UK has perfectly clear Terrorist Acts, including the prohibition in belonging to a terrorist group. Remember, this case is not about whether or not she committed a crime but about her right to appear in person in a UK court to plead her case. The case in this specific instance is her appealing against losing her nationality. At this stage, her alleged crimes have nothing to do with her appeal.

The British constitution is very clear on this. Everybody has a right to appear in court to plead their case, even the very worst serial murderers and rapists.

 

[theprestige]

The argument is that, as her alleged crimes took place in a war zone, evidence would be extremely difficult to find. She would almost certainly be arrested upon arrival- but she would have to be released, due to lack of evidence. That's where the national security threat begins. Radicalised people tend to radicalise others, and that's where domestic terrorists come from. She would spread her poisonous beliefs everywhere she went.

If they can't gather evidence of crimes, then how can they demonstrate an actionable threat? And what's their justification for removing her citizenship? If that's what the argument is, it disappears so far up its own ass you couldn't find it with an arc lamp and a stable time loop.

On a personal note, I am deeply sceptical of her claimed repentance. Witnessing the atrocities committed by IS, after her arrival in Syria, did not spark any pangs of conscience. She showed no pity or contrition in that infamous interview. No, her claimed change of mind only happened when IS was militarily defeated, and she was captured. She's just looking for a way to escape the consequences of her actions and save her own skin.
Again, this is just my opinion, but I find the coincidence of capture and contrition to be highly suspicious.

I don't find it suspicious at all. At what point after she arrived, but before ISIS was defeated, would it have been even remotely safe for her to express any misgivings at all?

 

[ponderingturtle]

The problem is she ran off to join a terrorist organization and continued to support them until ISIS started losing. The onus is on her to show she can be trusted, not on the UK to bend over backwards to accommodate her.

Yep like in starship trooper reserve citizenship for people who earn it, and the mass of people clearly don't deserve citizenship.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The argument is that, as her alleged crimes took place in a war zone, evidence would be extremely difficult to find. She would almost certainly be arrested upon arrival- but she would have to be released, due to lack of evidence. That's where the national security threat begins. Radicalised people tend to radicalise others, and that's where domestic terrorists come from. She would spread her poisonous beliefs everywhere she went.
On a personal note, I am deeply sceptical of her claimed repentance. Witnessing the atrocities committed by IS, after her arrival in Syria, did not spark any pangs of conscience. She showed no pity or contrition in that infamous interview. No, her claimed change of mind only happened when IS was militarily defeated, and she was captured. She's just looking for a way to escape the consequences of her actions and save her own skin.
Again, this is just my opinion, but I find the coincidence of capture and contrition to be highly suspicious.

Got it anyone suspected of radicalization should be stripped of their citizenship.

 

[Darat]

The argument is that, as her alleged crimes took place in a war zone, evidence would be extremely difficult to find. She would almost certainly be arrested upon arrival- but she would have to be released, due to lack of evidence. That's where the national security threat begins. Radicalised people tend to radicalise others, and that's where domestic terrorists come from. She would spread her poisonous beliefs everywhere she went.
On a personal note, I am deeply sceptical of her claimed repentance. Witnessing the atrocities committed by IS, after her arrival in Syria, did not spark any pangs of conscience. She showed no pity or contrition in that infamous interview. No, her claimed change of mind only happened when IS was militarily defeated, and she was captured. She's just looking for a way to escape the consequences of her actions and save her own skin.
Again, this is just my opinion, but I find the coincidence of capture and contrition to be highly suspicious.

You mean she only publicly came out against the organisation that had groomed her, forced her into marriage and as you say committed atrocities when she was outside the grasp of that organisation? And you find that suspicious somehow?

 

[Darat]

The problem is she ran off to join a terrorist organization and continued to support them until ISIS started losing. The onus is on her to show she can be trusted, not on the UK to bend over backwards to accommodate her.

Consider this - a 15 year old girl being groomed by a pimp, runs away from home to be with her pimp, he abuses her for a few years. That woman should have to show that she has been reformed before we let her back into the UK?

 

[acbytesla]

Consider this - a 15 year old girl being groomed by a pimp, runs away from home to be with her pimp, he abuses her for a few years. That woman should have to show that she has been reformed before we let her back into the UK?

Fifteen people! No way does a 15 year old have the requisite faculties to make an informed choice of that magnitude. In the US, a 15 year old isn't allowed to agree to binding contract.

I'm not a Brit, but no way would I hold this permanently against someone.

 

[theprestige]

Other than an understandable desire for karmic retribution against terrorists and religious fascists, is anyone in this thread able to articulate a moral justification for denying her citizenship and refusing to bring her home to stand trial?

In the US, for example, it is considered a violation of the right to due process in a criminal trial.

 

[SleepingWeasle]

Consider this - a 15 year old girl being groomed by a pimp, runs away from home to be with her pimp, he abuses her for a few years. That woman should have to show that she has been reformed before we let her back into the UK?

Pimps have declared war against our countries? If not, I don't see how your silly comparison makes any sense.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Less a scathing dismissal as you might think. The girl's family might well think that the pimp who stole their daughter declared war on them.

If you still can't comprehend the comparison, the base facts are that malicious adults manipulated a child's mind until they also had full control of her body as well, now she has escaped their control, and is being penalized as though she was fully adult the entire time and a completely complicit partner to her captor's crimes.