• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

ISIS teenager wants to come home

You say in the post of yours you you linked to that she had a fair trial, so now I'm confused. :confused:

I change my mind as I find new evidence. At the moment I'm in a state of doubt (again) as I am unclear as to the implications of sections 11 and 12 of the Bangladeshi citizenship act. As I said, I can only read 12 "Any person registered as a citizen of Bangladesh shall be such a citizen from the date of his registration. " as saying that if their citizenship starts at that point they weren't citizens before but as I've also said laws have their own vocabulary.
 
I change my mind as I find new evidence. At the moment I'm in a state of doubt (again) as I am unclear as to the implications of sections 11 and 12 of the Bangladeshi citizenship act. As I said, I can only read 12 "Any person registered as a citizen of Bangladesh shall be such a citizen from the date of his registration. " as saying that if their citizenship starts at that point they weren't citizens before but as I've also said laws have their own vocabulary.

Saying you'd changed your mind might have helped!
Anyway, you're not a lawyer, and neither am I. Essentially, it doesn't really matter what we think the correct interpretation is: surely, this is a matter for actual lawyers? As I've said before, I can't find any legal opinion supporting the Bangladeshi government's declarations. If there is one out there, it would be useful. If not, then perhaps SIAC's understanding- backed up by my earlier link- is correct.
 
Cosmic Yak,

One, I did not say or imply that classified evidence should be heard in open court. From what I quoted, a reasonable inference is that I think that this case should follow the example of Guantanamo, as outlined by a lawyer whom I quoted upthread. This lawyer has over twenty years of experience defending detainees at Guantanamo; therefore, he is as good a source of information as one could imagine. Two, I was not using The Guardian itself as the source of my opinions; The Guardian had the good sense to quote people with relevant experience, a practice that I recommend. I also provided comments from various British lawyers. It is tiresome to have to disavow things I did not claim in the first place.

You wrote, "Do you know this for a fact, or are you just speculating?" The antecedent of "this" is ambiguous. If it means that Ms. Begum cannot communicate with the special advocate, then I gave two citations to indicate the truth of this assertion. Please feel free to challenge this assertion with citations of your own. If it means do I know how well the special advocate performed his role, then my answer is that I do not (nor can any independent person). I did not say that he or she performed poorly; what I documented is that there is no way for Ms. Begum to indicate her position to him or her, nor a way for the evidence to be described to her. That is what makes this process less fair than Guantanamo, where such conversations can happen, within limits (see upthread).

FFS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE SPECIAL ADVOCATE SAT THERE LIKE A BUMP ON A LOG?
 
Saying you'd changed your mind might have helped!
Anyway, you're not a lawyer, and neither am I. Essentially, it doesn't really matter what we think the correct interpretation is: surely, this is a matter for actual lawyers? As I've said before, I can't find any legal opinion supporting the Bangladeshi government's declarations. If there is one out there, it would be useful. If not, then perhaps SIAC's understanding- backed up by my earlier link- is correct.

I think we've taken this as far as we can given the data we have so far so let's park it here. Thanks for the civil debate.
 
Special Advocate

FFS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE SPECIAL ADVOCATE SAT THERE LIKE A BUMP ON A LOG?
Assuming that you wish to have a civil conversation, I urge that you refrain from using all capital letters. As my previous comments indicated, I don't know anything about his or her level of performance, but that is the least of the problems with this process. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the SA was competent. The SA does not communicate with the lawyers of the person whose case is being decided or that person herself or himself: "Once appointed, the SA has the right to see all of the secret evidence in the Home Secretary's hands. Under no circumstances can they reveal any of it to the appellant or his legal team." This article went on to state, "Critics of the system say the special advocate is hamstrung because they cannot build a proper case without being able to discuss the evidence with the appellant. Amnesty International says the commission's judgements rely on a "shockingly low burden of proof" because evidence cannot be tested to the same standards in the criminal courts. It has also warned Siac may breach international law by relying on evidence extracted by the US security services in conditions which it says amount to torture of suspects." (BBC).
 
Assuming that you wish to have a civil conversation, I urge that you refrain from using all capital letters.

Then don't be deliberately obtuse.

As my previous comments indicated, I don't know anything about his or her level of performance, but that is the least of the problems with this process. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the SA was competent.

Then you withdraw your claim that the SA sat there like a bump on a log. Good.


The SA does not communicate with the lawyers of the person whose case is being decided or that person herself or himself: "Once appointed, the SA has the right to see all of the secret evidence in the Home Secretary's hands. Under no circumstances can they reveal any of it to the appellant or his legal team."

Not true. They cannot tell the appellant what the secret evidence is, because it's secret. Other than that, they absolutely can communicate with them:
The special advocate may communicate with the appellant or his representative at any time before the Secretary of State serves material on him which he objects to being disclosed to the appellant.

Paragraph (2) does not prohibit the appellant from communicating with the special advocate after the Secretary of State has served material on him as mentioned in paragraph (1) but—
(a) the appellant may only communicate with the special advocate through a legal representative in writing; and
(b) the special advocate must not reply to the communication other than in accordance with directions of the Commission, except that he may without such directions send a written acknowledgement of receipt to the appellant’s legal representative.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...9600/Consolidated_text_of_SIAC_Rules_2003.pdf


This article went on to state, "Critics of the system say the special advocate is hamstrung because they cannot build a proper case without being able to discuss the evidence with the appellant.

No. They cannot reveal state secrets to the appellant, for reasons that seem obvious to me. Do you think these intelligence reports should be made public?

Amnesty International says the commission's judgements rely on a "shockingly low burden of proof" because evidence cannot be tested to the same standards in the criminal courts.

OK, and?
Seriously, if we're talking about Begum specifically, she trained as a terrorist in Syria. How many lawyers would you like to see parachuted into an IS enclave to interview witnesses? How many would you be happy to see killed, in order to keep Amnesty International happy?

It has also warned Siac may breach international law by relying on evidence extracted by the US security services in conditions which it says amount to torture of suspects." (BBC).

Did this happen in this particular case? I have seen nothing to suggest it did.
 
There was no claim in the first place

Then you withdraw your claim that the SA sat there like a bump on a log. Good.
I cannot withdraw a claim that I never made. What I originally wrote was "For all anyone knows, the Special Advocate just sat there like a bump on a log." I thought that the meaning of this was clear, but perhaps English is not your first language. It meant that there is no way to evaluate the performance of the SA. Assuming that the rest of your comment is serious, I suggest that you read the articles that Clive Stafford Smith wrote (links above). He has been working on cases at Guantanamo for about twenty years, and he wrote a book on the subject. When he said that Guantanamo handles secret evidence better than SIAC, it means something.
 
Last edited:
I cannot withdraw a claim that I never made. What I originally wrote was "For all anyone knows, the Special Advocate just sat there like a bump on a log." I thought that the meaning of this was clear, but perhaps English is not your first language. It meant that there is no way to evaluate the performance of the SA. Assuming that the rest of your comment is serious, I suggest that you read the articles that Clive Stafford Smith wrote (links above). He has been working on cases at Guantanamo for about twenty years, and he wrote a book on the subject. When he said that Guantanamo handles secret evidence better than SIAC, it means something.

So you were just poisoning the well. OK. If it makes you happy, carry on.
I have zero interest in going down this Guantanamo derail either. If you want to discuss this, then we can do that, but I'm not wasting time debating the merits or otherwise of the opinions of the various talking heads you are sheltering behind. If you have an opinion of your own, by all means spell it out, and we can go from there.
It would also benefit the discussion if you could, at some point, actually address my posts in full, rather than selectively as you are now.
 
Last edited:
I think there's a difference. I checked the Irish rules after Brexit as my wife is Irish and I'm not a ******* moron so voted Remain and want an EU passport. As I recall Ireland says you have the right to apply, Bangladesh says you are a citizen. I am not a lawyer.

Bangladesh doesn't say you're a citizen without applying and being accepted. The evidence? Shamina Begum isn't a Bangladeshi citizen.
 
Thread title is misleading and needs updating. Although she was 19 when the thread started she is now long past being a teenager. And at 19 she was legally an adult under British law so the discussion has always been about an adult wishing to enter Britain and was never about a minor as implied by the title.

She was a child when trafficked out of the UK with British state collusion. I am convinced this fact is the sole reason why the state has washed its hands and denied all its responsibilities for her.
 
Bangladesh doesn't say you're a citizen without applying and being accepted. The evidence? Shamina Begum isn't a Bangladeshi citizen.

OR...the Bangladeshi ministers have simply decided they don't want her in their country, and have simply ignored their own laws in order to make that happen.
GF: If a government minister tells you something is right and true, do you automatically believe them?
 
She was a child when trafficked out of the UK with British state collusion. I am convinced this fact is the sole reason why the state has washed its hands and denied all its responsibilities for her.

You have convinced yourself of something that is not true, probably out of hatred for the UK.
Your choice, of course, but that doesn't make it right.
 
Never the twain shall meet.

Some of us don't agree with the HS's power, some do, some think she wasn't made stateless, some do.

Some of us think she should be put on trial in the UK in an open court for her crimes (OK for her alleged crimes - I couldn't be a jurist on her trial as I am certain she is guilty of some crimes relating to terrorism), some of us think she shouldn't be put on trial in the UK for her crimes.

We have all put our arguments forward, all we are doing now is going around the mulberry bush.
 
Last edited:
GF: If a government minister tells you something is right and true, do you automatically believe them?
CY: If the Bangladeshi government minister in charge of such things tells me his government does not and will not recognize Begum's Bangladeshi citizenship, then I believe removing her UK citizenship will make her functionally stateless, and that I have a moral obligation to sort this out with the Bangladeshi government before I take such action.

CY: And if a UK Home Secretary does the other thing - which I consider to be an immoral act - and says he did it for reasons which are right and true, but which are not subject to public scrutiny or credible oversight, no of course I don't automatically believe him. Why would I?
 
CY: If the Bangladeshi government minister in charge of such things tells me his government does not and will not recognize Begum's Bangladeshi citizenship, then I believe removing her UK citizenship will make her functionally stateless, and that I have a moral obligation to sort this out with the Bangladeshi government before I take such action.

The only problem with that is that it didn't happen that way. I've pointed this out to you several times before, but you keep clinging to this discredited scenario. Until you begin to argue from a factual standpoint, there's no point in engaging with you.

CY: And if a UK Home Secretary does the other thing - which I consider to be an immoral act - and says he did it for reasons which are right and true, but which are not subject to public scrutiny or credible oversight, no of course I don't automatically believe him. Why would I?

No-one is asking you to. Both court judgements go into the reasoning in great detail. If you won't read them, again, I can't help you.
 
Amnesty International Report

In a report on secret evidence in the UK, Amnesty International wrote, "Lawyers who spoke with Amnesty International have made it clear that they face profound difficulties in representing their clients effectively where a closed material procedure applies; raising serious questions about how such procedures can achieve any meaningful equality of arms between the parties...The ability of the Special Advocate to effectively represent the interests of the individual where closed material procedures apply is also severely limited. In addition to the effective prohibition on contact with the affected individual once the evidence has been seen, as mentioned above, other reasons given by Special Advocates for this include: the lack of any practical ability to call their own independent witnesses to challenge the government’s case in the closed hearing; the inability to effectively challenge non-disclosure by the government; the admittance of second and third hand hearsay, or even more remote evidence where the primary source is unattributed and unidentifiable making it difficult for that evidence to be properly tested in the closed hearing. These factors have contributed to the overwhelming number of Special Advocates to publicly conclude that closed material procedures “are inherently unfair; they do not ‘work effectively’, nor do they deliver real procedural fairness”.4"

The report went on, "Special Advocates, who can see the secret evidence, have admitted that their ability to challenge the government’s case against an individual is often limited to identifying where allegations made by the Secretary of State might be unsupported by the evidence the government is relying on, or to checking that evidence for inconsistencies, rather than directly refuting or challenging the evidence as they would be able to in ordinary, open proceedings.23"
 
In a report on secret evidence in the UK, Amnesty International wrote, "Lawyers who spoke with Amnesty International have made it clear that they face profound difficulties in representing their clients effectively where a closed material procedure applies; raising serious questions about how such procedures can achieve any meaningful equality of arms between the parties...The ability of the Special Advocate to effectively represent the interests of the individual where closed material procedures apply is also severely limited. In addition to the effective prohibition on contact with the affected individual once the evidence has been seen, as mentioned above, other reasons given by Special Advocates for this include: the lack of any practical ability to call their own independent witnesses to challenge the government’s case in the closed hearing; the inability to effectively challenge non-disclosure by the government; the admittance of second and third hand hearsay, or even more remote evidence where the primary source is unattributed and unidentifiable making it difficult for that evidence to be properly tested in the closed hearing. These factors have contributed to the overwhelming number of Special Advocates to publicly conclude that closed material procedures “are inherently unfair; they do not ‘work effectively’, nor do they deliver real procedural fairness”.4"

The report went on, "Special Advocates, who can see the secret evidence, have admitted that their ability to challenge the government’s case against an individual is often limited to identifying where allegations made by the Secretary of State might be unsupported by the evidence the government is relying on, or to checking that evidence for inconsistencies, rather than directly refuting or challenging the evidence as they would be able to in ordinary, open proceedings.23"

It appears that the Amnesty site is blocked here in Saudi Arabia, so I can't read the article.
Do Amnesty proffer any solution to this? It's very easy to complain from the sidelines, but trickier to actually suggest a practical solution.
I would hope that you agree that secret intelligence reports should remain secret, i.e. not available to the general public. Do you agree?
We need some way for this evidence to be properly assessed, without compromising national security. To my mind, appointing a go-between seems a workable compromise. If you have a better idea, I would like to hear it.
As I say, I think a discussion about how these laws are put into practice is worthwhile.
 
two of the reforms

Amnesty international offered several reforms, including:
“allowing Special Advocates in all cases to communicate in fulsome manner with the individuals whose interests they are appointed to represent, and those individuals' lawyer of choice, after the Special Advocate has seen the closed material;

“conceding in all cases before the courts that the government and the court must, whenever a closed material procedure operates, ensure the individual concerned is provided with at least such disclosure of the closed material as was held to be required in the case of AF(no3);”

Regarding AF(no3) this report stated in part, “On 10 June 2009, the Law Lords, citing jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights, held that: a person against whom a control order was sought “must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him to enable him to give effective instructions in relation to those allegations…”
 
Amnesty international offered several reforms, including:
“allowing Special Advocates in all cases to communicate in fulsome manner with the individuals whose interests they are appointed to represent, and those individuals' lawyer of choice, after the Special Advocate has seen the closed material;

“conceding in all cases before the courts that the government and the court must, whenever a closed material procedure operates, ensure the individual concerned is provided with at least such disclosure of the closed material as was held to be required in the case of AF(no3);”

Regarding AF(no3) this report stated in part, “On 10 June 2009, the Law Lords, citing jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights, held that: a person against whom a control order was sought “must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him to enable him to give effective instructions in relation to those allegations…”

Begum's case was in 2023. Unless the British courts are ignoring the ruling from the Law Lords, I would assume that this has already been incorporated into the Supreme Court and SAIC's procedures.
 
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/shamima-begum-supreme-court-refuses-120306084.html

"Shamima Begum’s legal fight to restore her UK citizenship has received a big blow after the supreme court refused to hear an appeal.

Three judges from the UK’s final court of appeal ruled “the grounds of appeal do not raise an arguable point of law”.

Speaking in February, Dame Sue Carr, who was one of the appeal judges ruling on the case, said they agreed with the commission’s decision on Begum’s citizenship. She said: “Ms Begum may well have been influenced and manipulated by others but still have made a calculated decision to travel to Syria and align with Isil [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant].

“It could be argued the decision in Ms Begum’s case was harsh. It could also be argued that Ms Begum is the author of her own misfortune. But it is not for this court to agree or disagree with either point of view.

“The only task of the court was to assess whether the deprivation decision was unlawful. Since it was not, Ms Begum’s appeal is dismissed.”

Another nail in the coffin lid and one step closer to bringing this to an end.
 
That's unfortunate. In the US, the Supreme Court may also consider whether the law in question is itself lawful. Does the UK have no provision for assessing whether the law itself is unjust?
 
That's unfortunate. In the US, the Supreme Court may also consider whether the law in question is itself lawful. Does the UK have no provision for assessing whether the law itself is unjust?

The law doesn't allow judicial review of Acts of Parliament. I assume this means not, although my knowledge of this area is rather limited.
 
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how...inciple,that future Parliaments cannot change.

"Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution."
 
Makes perfect sense that a body elected by all citizens should have the final word on creation or abolition of a law. This is the fundamental tenet of a democracy.

Allowing an unelected and politically appointed body to overrule the decisions of the people's elected representatives, as is the case in some countries, is the antithesis of a true democracy.
 
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/shamima-begum-supreme-court-refuses-120306084.html

"Shamima Begum’s legal fight to restore her UK citizenship has received a big blow after the supreme court refused to hear an appeal.

Three judges from the UK’s final court of appeal ruled “the grounds of appeal do not raise an arguable point of law”.

Speaking in February, Dame Sue Carr, who was one of the appeal judges ruling on the case, said they agreed with the commission’s decision on Begum’s citizenship. She said: “Ms Begum may well have been influenced and manipulated by others but still have made a calculated decision to travel to Syria and align with Isil [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant].

“It could be argued the decision in Ms Begum’s case was harsh. It could also be argued that Ms Begum is the author of her own misfortune. But it is not for this court to agree or disagree with either point of view.

“The only task of the court was to assess whether the deprivation decision was unlawful. Since it was not, Ms Begum’s appeal is dismissed.”

Another nail in the coffin lid and one step closer to bringing this to an end.

That will be a big "yes!" from groomers of children all over the world.
 
Going by another report I saw this ends all the process in the UK, there is no other legal recourse beyond the ECHR.
 
That's a much wider topic but Parliament again decides a big chunk of that through acts and bills.
It's a strange one, our courts can decide a law is unconstitutional, but what that will usually mean is that there is conflicting/contradictory legislation in place. Parliament can then pass legislation that resolves that however they want. Which is what they did when their crackpot idea of sending a few hundred asylum seekers a year to Rwanda was declared unlawful because Rwanda wasn't according to other laws a safe country. The Tories then passed legislation that redefined what safe meant in regards to Rwanda to make it a safe country.
 
It's a strange one, our courts can decide a law is unconstitutional, but what that will usually mean is that there is conflicting/contradictory legislation in place. Parliament can then pass legislation that resolves that however they want. Which is what they did when their crackpot idea of sending a few hundred asylum seekers a year to Rwanda was declared unlawful because Rwanda wasn't according to other laws a safe country. The Tories then passed legislation that redefined what safe meant in regards to Rwanda to make it a safe country.

Yup and this is the problem when you get a rogue Government like the last bunch of Tories in.
 
Informed decision?

In 2022 The Guardian reported, "British sources, however, said they believed there was no suggestion that Begum travelled involuntarily to Syria, despite her young age. Officials believe she aligned herself with IS by remaining with the group in Syria and Iraq past the age of 18, and that she posed a security risk to the UK." Inasmuch as she was 15, I don't follow this logic. Governments restrict behavior of young people in many ways. They do so on the principle that one has to be mature enough to make an informed choice (or at least that is my understanding).
 
In 2022 The Guardian reported, "British sources, however, said they believed there was no suggestion that Begum travelled involuntarily to Syria, despite her young age. Officials believe she aligned herself with IS by remaining with the group in Syria and Iraq past the age of 18, and that she posed a security risk to the UK." Inasmuch as she was 15, I don't follow this logic. Governments restrict behavior of young people in many ways. They do so on the principle that one has to be mature enough to make an informed choice (or at least that is my understanding).

Translation: "Thank god 15 is just north of some really uncomfortable numbers, or we might actually have to do some work."

Legally, of course, they could have done the same to a former 10-year old, so I don't know why they bother. I mean, I know why they bother, but I don't care for the rationalisations.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom