• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ISIS teenager wants to come home

ponderingturtle said:
Trials are only for white people, others we skip that part and go right to the penalty phase.
Click to expand...

Or... there's the whole joining terrorists, and all that jazz, not just a WOKE obsession on race as opposed to the consequences of some really stupid decision making. Not everything is race issue,
 
jollyroger85 said:
Yes BUT..... it's emperical fact they chose to willing travel to where ISIS was and join up, effectively joining a foreign military, which is one of those pesky things that qualifies as grounds for loss of citizenship in the uS at least. UK likely has similar. Due process would favor her in the outcome.

Were I the judge, I would strip of citizenship and deport them stateless, a fate worse than conviction. Because joining terrorists is bad, m'kay?
Click to expand...

I don't see where doing it out of order to avoid a trial is due process. If the facts allow conviction on treason, go ahead and get the conviction, then strip the person of their citizenship if that is allowed under law.

Being "we're pretty sure a terrorist" is no justification to not follow the laws about responding to the crime of terrorism or treason.
 
Aber said:
I was responding to a poster who claimed there were no allegations.
Click to expand...

Yes sorry, that wasn't meant to be directed at you.
I am disturbed by lack of concern about the government being able to strip citizenship from people who have not been convicted of anything, and even more so when there is only a dubious claim that it doesn't make them stateless.
 
jollyroger85 said:
Yes BUT..... it's emperical fact they chose to willing travel to where ISIS was and join up, effectively joining a foreign military, which is one of those pesky things that qualifies as grounds for loss of citizenship in the uS at least. UK likely has similar. Due process would favor her in the outcome.
Were I the judge, I would strip of citizenship and deport them stateless, a fate worse than conviction. Because joining terrorists is bad, m'kay?
Click to expand...

Not sure what the highlighted means. I don't believe that her leaving the country to join ISIS was an offence at the time (it was made so afterwards, but not retrospectively). To convict her of terrorist offences, it would be necessary to show that she did more than simply leave the country and live as a housewife in Syria. The difficulty in proving this is not a reason to abandon due process.
 
Oh, but it's obvious. Doesn't that mean we can skip the formalities? She's a bad person so it doesn't matter.
 
Elaedith said:
Not sure what the highlighted means. I don't believe that her leaving the country to join ISIS was an offence at the time (it was made so afterwards, but not retrospectively). To convict her of terrorist offences, it would be necessary to show that she did more than simply leave the country and live as a housewife in Syria. The difficulty in proving this is not a reason to abandon due process.
Click to expand...

that should be wouldn't, it's called a typo, and my bad.
 
Elaedith said:
Not sure what the highlighted means. I don't believe that her leaving the country to join ISIS was an offence at the time (it was made so afterwards, but not retrospectively). To convict her of terrorist offences, it would be necessary to show that she did more than simply leave the country and live as a housewife in Syria. The difficulty in proving this is not a reason to abandon due process.
Click to expand...

treason is as simple as choosing sides, by leaving the UK and joining up with her ISIS hubby, she chose sides, and that is enough to make a case for treason.
 
jollyroger85 said:
No, she's an idiot who made idiotic choices, choices with consequences, sympathizers not withstanding.
Click to expand...

If this is the case, does that mean we can skip the justice process? I'm not sure how that changes my point.
 
Last edited:
jollyroger85 said:
Yes BUT..... it's emperical fact they chose to willing travel to where ISIS was and join up, effectively joining a foreign military, which is one of those pesky things that qualifies as grounds for loss of citizenship in the uS at least. UK likely has similar. Due process would favor her in the outcome.
Click to expand...
You should try reading the thread. She was a minor when she made those choices. It's worth discussing whether that mitigates her culpability. I think it does.

Also, part of the issue in this case is that it seems the UK does not have similar provisions for removing citizenship. And not only are they legally constrained from doing so, but many UKians seem to have a strong moral objection to making people stateless. Hence the rigamarole about inferring Begum's Bangladeshi citizenship.

Were I the judge, I would strip of citizenship and deport them stateless, a fate worse than conviction. Because joining terrorists is bad, m'kay?
Click to expand...
Were you the judge, you'd have to wait for the trial to conclude, and then you'd have to do what your laws allowed or required you to do. Being a judge doesn't usually give you the authority to invent your own sentences.
 
jollyroger85 said:
treason is as simple as choosing sides, by leaving the UK and joining up with her ISIS hubby, she chose sides, and that is enough to make a case for treason.
Click to expand...

It's not enough to make a case for me. First, she was a minor at the time. Second, it seems likely she was entrapped into going (not least because she was a minor at the time). Third, once in ISIS' clutches, her options to not participate in terrorist activities were pretty much nonexistent. At that point I think a stronger case could be made that she was a victim of extortion, than that she was an accomplice to terrorism.

Consider: A terrorist organization encourages, wheedles, or browbeats an immature teenager into running away and joining ISIS. Once she arrives, they make it clear to her that she has two choices. Do what she's told, or be tortured and killed.

In those circumstances, I think it would be a travesty of justice to convict her of terrorism. Or treason.
 
jollyroger85 said:
No, she's an idiot who made idiotic choices, choices with consequences, sympathizers not withstanding.
Click to expand...

These consequences aren't fundamental laws of physics. We're not talking about gravity here. The only consequences are the ones we* choose to impose, based on our laws and our understanding of the specific details of her case. You can't just say, "that's what happens when you join ISIS." It's a question of what we think should happen, when someone ends up with ISIS under these particular circumstances. Statelessness is not inevitable. A terrorist conviction is not inevitable. The nature of her choices, and the degree of agency she had in choosing, as a minor, are important questions that we should try to answer, before deciding what consequences to impose on her.

We, too, have an opportunity to make idiotic choices here. Choices with consequences. What would you choose, and why?
 
theprestige said:
Consider: A terrorist organization encourages, wheedles, or browbeats an immature teenager into running away and joining ISIS. Once she arrives, they make it clear to her that she has two choices. Do what she's told, or be tortured and killed.
Click to expand...

Just following orders?
 
A significant point--still doesn't make it simple.

Orders are not sufficient to make one immune from the consequences of their actions. The degree to which the person is under duress is just one of many factors.
 
dudalb said:
Be honest
Click to expand...

How about you be honest and stop trying read minds.

I don't think citizenship should be revoked because you commit a crime. It certainly shouldnt be revoked so you dont have to worry about giving someone a fair trial.

She should be tried and if found guilty sentenced appropriately.
 
Elaedith said:
Not sure what the highlighted means. I don't believe that her leaving the country to join ISIS was an offence at the time (it was made so afterwards, but not retrospectively). To convict her of terrorist offences, it would be necessary to show that she did more than simply leave the country and live as a housewife in Syria. The difficulty in proving this is not a reason to abandon due process.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would be very difficult to show that she broke the law. ISIS is a proscribed organisation.

She would no doubt claim mitigation of being groomed etc and that would probably play into the sentence received. She wouldn't lose her citizenship in a fair trial I don't believe.
 
jollyroger85 said:
Or... there's the whole joining terrorists, and all that jazz, not just a WOKE obsession on race as opposed to the consequences of some really stupid decision making. Not everything is race issue,
Click to expand...

Not everything is, but this is. Stripping citizenship from people because you can creates a two-tier citizenship system and a very major 'race issue'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom