Should the ISIS 'Beatles' be Executed?

[Vixen]

We all agree their act of beheading and videotaping 'foreign' journalists and support workers on a global level was shocking and indefensible. Of course, the perpetrators deserve to be strung up. It's interesting how so many convicted murderers suddenly value life and mercy when it comes to their own!

However, this is more an ethical constitutional question. The death penalty has been abolished in the UK. In addition, by the recent 2014 Nationality Act, a person's British citizenship can be removed. This is what has happened in this case. The ISIS formerly British defendants are now stateless, and are expected to be handed over to Guantanamo Bay for execution.

I always understood that the British government could not remove a person's British nationality if it would leave that individual stateless. The defendants have protested against their stateless status.

Yes, there is strong feeling that the 'scum' should be torn limb from limb. That aside, is it right that the British government should cross over the 'ethical' line? As Hume said, this could be the slippery slope...

In ethics, you should not give an inch to being unethical.

Britain has scrapped its opposition to the death penalty and torture camp Guantanamo Bay, it was reported last night.

It has been revealed the UK government have agreed to share information on the so-called Beatles jihadists with America so they can be prosecuted under their laws, according to the Daily Telegraph.

Alexanda Kotey and Shafee El-Sheikh have British citizenship but will be tried in the US courts for their part in Isis activities amid concern the UK lacks robust terrorism laws.

Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary, wrote in a letter to the American Attorney General Jeff Sessions that Britain will not need ‘assurances’ that the pair will avoid the death penalty, the Telegraph reported.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lty-ISIS-execution-squad-sent-Guantanamo.html

(NB Not sure the DM is correct about their being 'British' any more.)

 

[The Don]

For me the answer is simple - No

I'd give the same answer no matter how "evil" the person or how horrible their crimes.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I'm with The Don on this. No they shouldn't

If it is true that removing British citizenship has left them stateless I'd be against that too.

 

[Worm]

Killing people is bad. Trying to justify it as 'justice' is just idiotic.

 

[theprestige]

There's a lot more interesting interesting stuff about this than, "death penalty, yea or nay?"

 

[The Don]

There's a lot more interesting interesting stuff about this than, "death penalty, yea or nay?"

No doubt, but the question explicitly in the thread title is

Should the ISIS 'Beatles' be Executed?

What more interesting things would you like to discuss ?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

No

 

[theprestige]

No doubt, but the question explicitly in the thread title is



What more interesting things would you like to discuss ?

The citizenship thing. Clearing the way for the US to prosecute - how does that work, exactly? The British official saying that precautions against the death penalty weren't necessary. Etc.

 

[lobosrul5]

I dunno. I could see joining an enemy foreign govermnent's (so ISIS claimed to be) military and becoming a combatant being legitimate grounds for having citizenship revoked.

 

[The Don]

The citizenship thing. Clearing the way for the US to prosecute - how does that work, exactly? The British official saying that precautions against the death penalty weren't necessary. Etc.

I'm very uncomfortable with a country begin able to make someone stateless.

I'm even more uncomfortable when it seems to be an attempt to get around that country's human rights legislation.

If the UK wants to allow its citizens to face the death penalty then it should come right out and say so - which may be a consequence of Brexit and being free of the ECHR (if Theresa May has her way). This feels like a mealy-mouthed way of abandoning national principles.

 

[Diablo]

i certainly agree with consensus here.

 

[Sabrina]

I dunno. I could see joining an enemy foreign govermnent's (so ISIS claimed to be) military and becoming a combatant being legitimate grounds for having citizenship revoked.

If I understand correctly, this is one of the few ways to lose U.S. citizenship involuntarily as well.

To answer the OPs question, I would prefer that they not be executed; I am not in favor of the death penalty despite the horrific nature of their crimes. Not to mention, execution by the enemy is a surefire way to martyr these individuals in the eyes of many ISIS members, so the deterrent factor is not present in this case (which is, as I understand, one of the main reasons for enacting a death penalty in the first place, to deter others from following in their footsteps, but I may be misremembering). Sure, they didn't die heroically on the battlefield, but there's a reason why we quietly buried Osama bin Laden at sea with no fanfare and no media coverage whatsoever when he was killed during the raid on his compound. Less of a chance for others in the movement to raise him as a martyr if his corpse isn't shown splashed all over the news after he was killed. If we truly want to deter others from doing the same, keeping them imprisoned until we can turn them over to a more established government in Syria or Iraq (moreso than what either country has currently, at least) for punishment under THEIR laws makes more sense to me. YMMV though.

 

[lobosrul5]

If I understand correctly, this is one of the few ways to lose U.S. citizenship involuntarily as well.

To answer the OPs question, I would prefer that they not be executed; I am not in favor of the death penalty despite the horrific nature of their crimes. Not to mention, execution by the enemy is a surefire way to martyr these individuals in the eyes of many ISIS members, so the deterrent factor is not present in this case (which is, as I understand, one of the main reasons for enacting a death penalty in the first place, to deter others from following in their footsteps, but I may be misremembering). Sure, they didn't die heroically on the battlefield, but there's a reason why we quietly buried Osama bin Laden at sea with no fanfare and no media coverage whatsoever when he was killed during the raid on his compound. Less of a chance for others in the movement to raise him as a martyr if his corpse isn't shown splashed all over the news after he was killed. If we truly want to deter others from doing the same, keeping them imprisoned until we can turn them over to a more established government in Syria or Iraq (moreso than what either country has currently, at least) for punishment under THEIR laws makes more sense to me. YMMV though.

1st underlined: the more minor of the two reasons I'm against the death penalty here. Its extremely random application means its no deterrent. The odds of someone being put to death for murder even upon conviction is pretty damn low. Meaning it has no deterrent effect.

2nd underline: but giving them over to Syria or Iraq is just an indirect execution.

 

[quadraginta]

I dunno. I could see joining an enemy foreign govermnent's (so ISIS claimed to be) military and becoming a combatant being legitimate grounds for having citizenship revoked.

If I understand correctly, this is one of the few ways to lose U.S. citizenship involuntarily as well.

<snip>

Was ISIS ever recognized by either country as a legitimate foreign government?

If not then I don't see how anyone could be legitimately accused of joining it.

They could be legitimately accused of joining a group considered to be a terrorist organization, but that isn't the same thing at all.

More than a few rather serious unintended consequences could result from the precedent that membership in a terrorist organization is grounds for forfeiture of citizenship.

White Supremacist groups come to mind in the U.S., since they comprise the most numerous and most violent of terrorist groups in the country. I'm sure there are analogues in the U.K..

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I really want to come up with some reason to justify this, if anyone deserves to die, and in a horrible way, it's these repulsive individuals. But, I can't. The death penalty is wrong, I also vote 'no'.

Now I feel the need to shower.

 

[theprestige]

It seems to me that if they are not British citizens, then Britain has no legal or ethical duty to protect them from execution - any more than they owe such a duty to any other ISIS member in Syrian or Iraqi (or US) custody.

It also seems to me that if Britain has set conditions for the loss of citizenship, and these people have met the conditions, then Britain has a legal and ethical duty to recognize that those conditions have been met, and that citizenship has been lost.

The actions that cost them their citizenship happen to be the same actions that make them suitable subjects of execution by other governments, but that is entirely between them and those other governments. It seems to me that the moment they met the conditions for losing British citizenship, their fate at the hands of other governments stopped being Britain's problem entirely. "Not our monkey, not our circus."

 

[theprestige]

I really want to come up with some reason to justify this, if anyone deserves to die, and in a horrible way, it's these repulsive individuals. But, I can't. The death penalty is wrong, I also vote 'no'.

Now I feel the need to shower.

The OP has framed it as a question of the death penalty, but I think that misses the more important point: Does Britain have the authority or the responsibility to protect these ISIS members from execution by other governments? Does Britain even have jurisdiction over these people, that supersedes the jurisdiction or interests of other governments?

 

[quadraginta]

I dunno. I could see joining an enemy foreign govermnent's (so ISIS claimed to be) military and becoming a combatant being legitimate grounds for having citizenship revoked.

If I understand correctly, this is one of the few ways to lose U.S. citizenship involuntarily as well.

<snip>

Was ISIS ever recognized by either country as a legitimate foreign government?

If not then I don't see how anyone could be legitimately accused of joining it.

They could be legitimately accused of joining a group considered to be a terrorist organization, but that isn't the same thing at all.

More than a few rather serious unintended consequences could result from the precedent that membership in a terrorist organization is grounds for forfeiture of citizenship.

White Supremacist groups come to mind in the U.S., since they comprise the most numerous and most violent of terrorist groups in the country. Although in the current political climate, with the current pols in power, I expect it would be eco-terrorists spiking trees that felt the consequences first. Bombing black Sunday schools probably wouldn't tip the needle.

I'm sure there are analogues in the U.K..

 

[JoeMorgue]

No but while certain elements have used it as an excuse to take away human rights or due process, the broader concept of some grey area between "criminal" and "enemy" does exist legitimately.

Not every "bad person" can be neatly divided into "Internal criminal within one's own jurisdiction" or "External Combatant of an organized foreign power" and I think we can all agree at least conceptually that those in that grey area can be hard to deal with.

If someone cannot be prosecuted as a criminal under the law because they don't fit one category but also can't be... opposed militarily as a foreign enemy because they don't fit another, it shouldn't make them untouchable.

 

[lobosrul5]

Was ISIS ever recognized by either country as a legitimate foreign government?

If not then I don't see how anyone could be legitimately accused of joining it.

They could be legitimately accused of joining a group considered to be a terrorist organization, but that isn't the same thing at all.

More than a few rather serious unintended consequences could result from the precedent that membership in a terrorist organization is grounds for forfeiture of citizenship.

White Supremacist groups come to mind in the U.S., since they comprise the most numerous and most violent of terrorist groups in the country. Although in the current political climate, with the current pols in power, I expect it would be eco-terrorists spiking trees that felt the consequences first. Bombing black Sunday schools probably wouldn't tip the needle.

I'm sure there are analogues in the U.K..

ISIS controlled a large swath of territory where they were the de facto government. They made laws, controlled their borders, even made their own currency. Now maybe, legally speaking the UK should have recognized their government in order to strip ISIS combatants of ISIS citizenship? OK I can see that. To your analogy, no white supremacist group actually controls any territory in the US that I'm aware of.