• 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

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

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.
 
Wudang said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
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).
Click to expand...

FFS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE SPECIAL ADVOCATE SAT THERE LIKE A BUMP ON A LOG?
 
Cosmic Yak said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Cosmic Yak said:
FFS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE SPECIAL ADVOCATE SAT THERE LIKE A BUMP ON A LOG?
Click to expand...
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).
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Assuming that you wish to have a civil conversation, I urge that you refrain from using all capital letters.
Click to expand...

Then don't be deliberately obtuse.

Chris_Halkides said:
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.
Click to expand...

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


Chris_Halkides said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
https://assets.publishing.service.g...9600/Consolidated_text_of_SIAC_Rules_2003.pdf


Chris_Halkides said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

Chris_Halkides said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

Chris_Halkides said:
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).
Click to expand...

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

Cosmic Yak said:
Then you withdraw your claim that the SA sat there like a bump on a log. Good.
Click to expand...
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:
Chris_Halkides said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Wudang said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bangladesh doesn't say you're a citizen without applying and being accepted. The evidence? Shamina Begum isn't a Bangladeshi citizen.
 
Steve said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Bangladesh doesn't say you're a citizen without applying and being accepted. The evidence? Shamina Begum isn't a Bangladeshi citizen.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Cosmic Yak said:
GF: If a government minister tells you something is right and true, do you automatically believe them?
Click to expand...
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?
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

theprestige said:
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?
Click to expand...

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"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom