ISIS teenager wants to come home

[Vixen]

Hands up anyone who didn't make stupid decisions during their teens. A close relative of mine at age 15 started attending Maoist meetings with a friend and became quite fanatical, waving Mao's Little Red Book around. I, of course, like a good near-contemporary, took the piss out of her and found it hilarious. Today? She is a normal home counties conservative well-to-do person who looks back in horror at that era. 'WTF was I thinking? Who on earth were those people?'

In Sweden recently a couple of returning ISIS mothers - who were allowed to return because of their young children - have now gone on trial for their involvement. Like wise the returnee families to Finland, where legal proceedings are being considered. For example, taking a person under the age of consent into a dangerous environment.

As for whether, 'Has Shamima really reformed or she she just faking it?' Well, like you or I, she is entitled to hold whatever opinion she likes. You cannot ban people from thinking whatever it is they think. Or what one believes they really think.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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.

Consider: when she was removed from the clutches of ISIS, did she say that? Did she say that she was coerced into continued support for terrorism?
No, she did not. She was entirely unapologetic, and clearly still supportive of ISIS' ideology and methods.

 

[jollyroger85]

Hands up anyone who didn't make stupid decisions during their teens. A close relative of mine at age 15 started attending Maoist meetings with a friend and became quite fanatical, waving Mao's Little Red Book around. I, of course, like a good near-contemporary, took the piss out of her and found it hilarious. Today? She is a normal home counties conservative well-to-do person who looks back in horror at that era. 'WTF was I thinking? Who on earth were those people?'

In Sweden recently a couple of returning ISIS mothers - who were allowed to return because of their young children - have now gone on trial for their involvement. Like wise the returnee families to Finland, where legal proceedings are being considered. For example, taking a person under the age of consent into a dangerous environment.

As for whether, 'Has Shamima really reformed or she she just faking it?' Well, like you or I, she is entitled to hold whatever opinion she likes. You cannot ban people from thinking whatever it is they think. Or what one believes they really think.

Its not what she thinks, she acted on it. She deserves to be in the Refugee Camp. Fitting punishment. If a stupid teen goes out and commits murder, its okay because they're just a kid? NOPE. A murder conviction has consequences decades long, stupid decisions have potentially major consequences regardless of age.

 

[theprestige]

Consider: when she was removed from the clutches of ISIS, did she say that? Did she say that she was coerced into continued support for terrorism?
No, she did not. She was entirely unapologetic, and clearly still supportive of ISIS' ideology and methods.

I have considered this. And I would hold it very much against her. At her trial. Where these and other factors would be properly considered. Where she and her defense counsel would have every opportunity to make the best case they can, same as the prosecution. Before any conviction on any charge was issued. Before any question of sentencing, including loss of citizenship, was raised.

So far, she lacks the wit to mouth the platitudes my sensibilities demand. But this doesn't take the place of a fair trial. Saying stupid **** is something that should be considered at trial. It's not something that should ever take the place of a trial.

So if you're saying you have enough evidence to convict her without a trial, or strip her of her citizenship a priori, I'd say you're wrong. If you're not saying that, then what's your point? Please tell me you're not just repeating facts for the sake of repeating facts we already know.

 

[LifeJuror]

Degrees of Proof

I hope we are not arguing about Due Process but rather Degrees of Proof. In the U.S. and I think much of the world, ISIS has been declared a foreign terrorist organization. Declared membership in said organization is not a United States federal crime, but providing material support thereto, is. Being charged with a crime provides Due Process. One can argue whether one should be charged as an adult or juvenile or whether being a 'child bride' provides material support or not. One's statements of declared belief in the organization certainly could be used in Court as it goes to one's state of mind. The penalties do not include stripping one of one's citizenship.

Contrast slightly with one's declared membership in FTO while in a foreign country: A U.S. citizen is living in Somalia and has unequivocally declared their membership as soldier in Boko Haram. Under U.S. military law, the individual could be targeted as an unlawful enemy combatant and killed whether they were shopping for groceries or actively engaging in combat. Whether that is morally or ethically or public relationship advisable is not germane to the legal analysis.

Change the facts slightly - U.S. citizen bride in Syria, married to an ISIS fighter, has declared "support for" ISIS and made numerous social media statements. A video shows her bandaging her husband after a fight.

Is she an unlawful enemy combatant? An unlawful enemy combatant has committed a military offense and could be prosecuted under military law as opposed to a lawful enemy combatant who can be captured but only held for the duration of the conflict and has not committed a 'crime'.

Does it matter if she was only giving medical aid? Does it matter that she was not actually engaged in hostilities?

Yes, and yes, and these are degrees of proof. Could a U.S. citizen be prosecuted under military law for being an unlawful enemy combatant? Who knows - it hasn't been tried because it's easier to charge a U.S. citizen with providing material support for a FTO.

 

[theprestige]

I hope we are not arguing about Due Process but rather Degrees of Proof.

Welcome to the forum!

Actually this thread is pretty much entirely about the question of due process. It's also about the process due to UK citizens in the UK legal system, so I've taken the liberty of snipping your interesting but off-topic discussion of US legalities.

 

[RolandRat]

"In the UK, someone can have their citizenship stripped by the home secretary, for the following reasons: It is "for the public good" and would not make them stateless. The person obtained citizenship through fraud. Their actions could harm UK interests and they can claim citizenship elsewhere.

Ms Begum was stripped of her citizenship for the public good reason.

The UK has responsibilities under international law to avoid people being left stateless. But in February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent".

But Bangladesh has said that is not the case and she would not be allowed into the country.

In many cases removing citizenship involves threats to national security, such as terrorism, or serious organised crime.

British citizens can also have their passports taken away."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-53428191

She has the right of appeal. The court has also agreed that the UK Government has the right to prevent her re-entering until after the appeal is heard. If she wins, she can come back, if not, sucks to be her.

So far, everything the UK Government has done in this case conforms with UK law.

 

[Darat]

"In the UK, someone can have their citizenship stripped by the home secretary, for the following reasons: It is "for the public good" and would not make them stateless. The person obtained citizenship through fraud. Their actions could harm UK interests and they can claim citizenship elsewhere.

Ms Begum was stripped of her citizenship for the public good reason.

The UK has responsibilities under international law to avoid people being left stateless. But in February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent".

But Bangladesh has said that is not the case and she would not be allowed into the country.

In many cases removing citizenship involves threats to national security, such as terrorism, or serious organised crime.

British citizens can also have their passports taken away."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-53428191

She has the right of appeal. The court has also agreed that the UK Government has the right to prevent her re-entering until after the appeal is heard. If she wins, she can come back, if not, sucks to be her.

So far, everything the UK Government has done in this case conforms with UK law.

No it doesn’t as UK law can’t make a binding obligation on the Bangladesh government.

The UK has made her stateless.

 

[RolandRat]

No it doesn’t as UK law can’t make a binding obligation on the Bangladesh government.

The UK has made her stateless.

Bangladesh made her stateless. We got in first.

 

[theprestige]

"In the UK, someone can have their citizenship stripped by the home secretary, for the following reasons: It is "for the public good" and would not make them stateless. The person obtained citizenship through fraud. Their actions could harm UK interests and they can claim citizenship elsewhere.

Ms Begum was stripped of her citizenship for the public good reason.

The UK has responsibilities under international law to avoid people being left stateless. But in February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent".

But Bangladesh has said that is not the case and she would not be allowed into the country.

In many cases removing citizenship involves threats to national security, such as terrorism, or serious organised crime.

British citizens can also have their passports taken away."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-53428191

She has the right of appeal. The court has also agreed that the UK Government has the right to prevent her re-entering until after the appeal is heard. If she wins, she can come back, if not, sucks to be her.

So far, everything the UK Government has done in this case conforms with UK law.

Then UK law is an ass. I'm having trouble imagining even a hypothetical scenario in which the public good requires stripping away someone's citizenship. I haven't seen anyone even attempt a coherent argument that it's necessary in this case for that reason.

The argument from inference of Bangladeshi citizenship strikes me as specious at best. At the very least, it is the Bangladeshi government's word here that must be authoritative, not the UK government's.

The longer this debate goes on, the more convinced I am that the UK home secretary is behaving in a depraved and capricious manner, and that the UK government's whole approach to this affair has been fundamentally inhumane.

Other than an appeal to the law - which I reject - do you have any other arguments for why I should see it differently?

 

[theprestige]

Bangladesh made her stateless. We got in first.

Bangladesh says she was never a citizen to begin with. They were there all along.

Also, "we got in first" is a depraved and capricious justification for this. It's the kind of excuse a seven year old would make, for why they grabbed the last sweet before their sibling could get a look in. Except this isn't a sweet, it's actual human lives. Human citizens of the UK, up until the moment that petty children took the wheel.

 

[RolandRat]

Bangladesh says she was never a citizen to begin with. They were there all along.

Also, "we got in first" is a depraved and capricious justification for this. It's the kind of excuse a seven year old would make, for why they grabbed the last sweet before their sibling could get a look in. Except this isn't a sweet, it's actual human lives. Human citizens of the UK, up until the moment that petty children took the wheel.

I've linked the relevant Bangladeshi legislation that deals with their stance on citizenship earlier in the thread. Morality doesn't come into it when it comes to law. The UK Government has abided by the law.

 

[RolandRat]

Other than an appeal to the law - which I reject - do you have any other arguments for why I should see it differently?

The law is all that matters here. If you reject the law then there is not much else I can say to you.

Edit - As I said earlier, she has the right of appeal. If she wins, she gets to come back into the UK and continue to spread her unrepentant poison.

Double edit - I will also say, she has never once expressed regret for her actions. She stayed with this known terrorist group until the end. Our security services say she was an "enforcer" within ISIS morality police, she stitched suicide bombers into vests to ensure they couldn't remove them. She said victims of ISIS deserved their fate. Her statement to a journalist once ISIS were on their arse and she was in a camp:

"Begum had fled the battle of Baghuz, where Isis was making its last stand. “I don’t regret coming here,” she said, referring to her original decision to travel to Syria, but added: “Now all I want to do is to come home to Britain.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...es-from-thin-arguments-of-security-v-humanity

 

[theprestige]

I've linked the relevant Bangladeshi legislation that deals with their stance on citizenship earlier in the thread. Morality doesn't come into it when it comes to law. The UK Government has abided by the law.

Of course morality comes into it when it comes to law.

And only the Bangladesh judiciary has standing to interpret and rule on Bangladeshi law. Not you, not the Beeb, not the home secretary.

And of course "they abided by the law" isn't a good argument for why her citizenship needs to be revoked. Do you have an argument for why, that doesn't amount to "the home secretary said it, I believe it, that settles it"?

 

[theprestige]

The law is all that matters here.

No. The Home Secretary has a choice, under the law. It is my view that he made the wrong choice. It is also my view that the legality of the choice is dubious. But even if the legality question were resolved in the Home Secretary's favor, I still think it would be the wrong choice.

 

[RolandRat]

Of course morality comes into it when it comes to law.

And only the Bangladesh judiciary has standing to interpret and rule on Bangladeshi law. Not you, not the Beeb, not the home secretary.

And of course "they abided by the law" isn't a good argument for why her citizenship needs to be revoked. Do you have an argument for why, that doesn't amount to "the home secretary said it, I believe it, that settles it"?

Yes, she is a an unrepentant terrorist who has expressed no regret about her actions, has not made one comment about being forced to do those actions and only wants to come back to the UK because ISIS is now practically irrelevant. I agree with the Home Secretarys decision to revoke her citizenship on the basis she is an ongoing threat to the UK. According to Bangladeshi law, she automatically has Bangladeshi citizenship. If the Bangladeshi Government want to refuse that, that is between them and Begum.

I'll link what I posted earlier in the thread regarding actual Bangladeshi law on citizenship:

"According to this: http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-242/section-7472.html

"5. Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his 1[father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth:

Provided that if the 2[father or mother] of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless-

(a) that person's birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country; or

(b) that person's 3[father or mother] is, at the time of the birth, in the service of any Government in Bangladesh."

And according to this: https://www.360lawservices.com/immig...edent-it-sets/

"In the case of UK citizens of Bangladeshi heritage like Shamima Begum, Bangladeshi national law states that citizenship is given automatically at birth through bloodline (jus sanguinis), giving them dual nationality."

No, morality absolutely should not be a factor in legal decisions. The law is what matters and the courts should apply that law without regard for morality. Justice is blind for a reason.

No. The Home Secretary has a choice, under the law. It is my view that he made the wrong choice. It is also my view that the legality of the choice is dubious. But even if the legality question were resolved in the Home Secretary's favor, I still think it would be the wrong choice.

It is utterly irrelevant if you think the wrong decision has been made. As my opinion is utterly irrelevant if the UK court rules in her favour and allows her to come back into the UK.

 

[theprestige]

How is Begum being a citizen a threat to the UK? The UK seems to survive just fine with far worse actors doing far more harm, inside the country, with their citizenship never in doubt. Why isn't the Home Secretary summarily revoking the citizenship of all the UK's worst felons?

Even prisoners of war are afforded more rights and privileges than you would grant to Begum.

I honestly can't think of a single scenario where mere citizenship poses a threat to a sovereign nation. But that's the claim you are making here.

 

[Vixen]

Its not what she thinks, she acted on it. She deserves to be in the Refugee Camp. Fitting punishment. If a stupid teen goes out and commits murder, its okay because they're just a kid? NOPE. A murder conviction has consequences decades long, stupid decisions have potentially major consequences regardless of age.

If other countries can cope with sending these people to trial what is Britain's problem? It raised and educated these three girls.

 

[Vixen]

Bangladesh made her stateless. We got in first.

Begum was not and is not a Bangladeshi citizen either by birth or by declaration.

 

[Vixen]

The law is all that matters here. If you reject the law then there is not much else I can say to you.

Edit - As I said earlier, she has the right of appeal. If she wins, she gets to come back into the UK and continue to spread her unrepentant poison.

Double edit - I will also say, she has never once expressed regret for her actions. She stayed with this known terrorist group until the end. Our security services say she was an "enforcer" within ISIS morality police, she stitched suicide bombers into vests to ensure they couldn't remove them. She said victims of ISIS deserved their fate. Her statement to a journalist once ISIS were on their arse and she was in a camp:

"Begum had fled the battle of Baghuz, where Isis was making its last stand. “I don’t regret coming here,” she said, referring to her original decision to travel to Syria, but added: “Now all I want to do is to come home to Britain.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...es-from-thin-arguments-of-security-v-humanity

You've heard of Stockholm Syndrome? It is very real. For example, Patty Hearst whilst being held kidnapped by her loony terrorist group, the Symbionic (sp?_) Army, quite willingly carried out bank robberies on their behalf and had to be debriefed and deprogrammed after her rescue. Of course someone living in an ISIS environment of fanatics is going to have some weird beliefs on being captured, if they have lived amongst the fervent fundamentalists for six years. I knew someone who 'joined' Hare Krishna. Shaved his head. Lived in their community. One day I bumped into him in the street and he informed me he had managed to 'escape' when the last I'd seen him he was passionate about his new faith and even rattled a tambourine along Oxford Street in white and orange robes giving out literature.

So, when captured by the Kurds of course Begum was spouting her nonsense. She was hardly going to be singing, Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus!

If Begum stitched suicide vests, of course she should be brought to justice. Simply stripping her of her citizenship isn't doing that.