Should the ISIS 'Beatles' be Executed?

[Darat]

Is it? See my post #32. The UK has refused to extradite non-Brits before unless there were assurances about no death penalty.



In this case we seem to be making these people stateless in order to justify the move. That in itself is of (at the very least) doubtful legality.

When was their British nationality revoked?

 

[GlennB]

When was their British nationality revoked?

It's been widely reported, for example:

"The case of Kotey and Elsheikh is complicated by the fact they have been stripped of British citizenship and are therefore stateless – a move confirmed by Wallace in the Commons on Monday. "

Are you concerned about the significance of the timing?

 

[lionking]

I oppose the death penalty, but I have never had any sympathy for those who commit a capital crime in jurisdictions with the death penalty. They surely knew the consequences of their acts.

Here? I’m sitting on the fence. These guys committed unspeakable crimes and if they are stateless and end up being tried in a country with the death penalty, I wouldn’t be outraged. I would like the UK government to strongly justify the decision to make them stateless though. For example, if they have evidence of future terrorist attacks.

 

[theprestige]

I think "the UK doesn't really need ISIS loyalists, thank you" would be strong enough justification to cut them loose.

 

[lionking]

I think "the UK doesn't really need ISIS loyalists, thank you" would be strong enough justification to cut them loose.

I disagree. The UK has a justice system which can deal with membership of terrorist groups. I assume they have more on these guys, and it would be good to know what.

 

[The Atheist]

... is it right that the British government should cross over the 'ethical' line?

What "cross over"?

UK planted its feet right over any hypothetical line of ethics with Biafra, in the '60s, and stayed on that side right up to the war criminal Blair's actions and Theresa May's attacks on Syria.

Why change now they have someone whose blood will appeal to the masses?

 

[smartcooky]

These people are cold blooded murderers; they don't deserve to live, to occupy space on the planet or to breathe the air the rest of us do.

Hang them, and give the relatives of their victims the opportunity to pull the trapdoor lever.


(NOTE: I am generally against the death penalty, but not in this case)

 

[Craig4]

One presumes they have been given the opportunity to bargain for their lives with evidence they could provide on other ISIS members or information that military planners could use to kill other ISIS members. Sorry, If they haven't availed themselves of that opportunity. I'm sure these horses were lead to water, if they won't drink it's their own fault.

 

[GlennB]

These people are cold blooded murderers; they don't deserve to live, to occupy space on the planet or to breathe the air the rest of us do.

Hang them, and give the relatives of their victims the opportunity to pull the trapdoor lever.

(NOTE: I am generally against the death penalty, but not in this case)

Should we let them vote on it? -

"Diane Foley, the mother of murdered American journalist James Foley, called for Kotey and Elsheikh to undergo a criminal trial either in the US or in an international court.
...
“I am very against the death penalty, I think that would just make them martyrs in their twisted ideology… I feel that’s easy for them."

One of their victims was British. Why wouldn't we have them returned to their own country to stand trial for that crime, rather than remove their citizenship so that there's then a case for letting them be extradited to the US?

Part of the point is that the UK has a long-standing approach to such matters that revolves around absolute rejection of the death penalty. In this case the government has found a ploy that allows them to circumvent the normal procedures. So, how does it progress? The government of the day judges these cases as they arise, effectively appointing themselves as judge+jury?

I suspect there will be a strong legal challenge against the government's actions, though whether that will stop extradition to the US is another matter.

 

[Reactor drone]

I'd prefer that they went on trial in Iraq or Syria. Those are the countries where their crimes were committed and those are the countries whose laws should be applied.

 

[Elagabalus]

A couple of points:

1. Why are these indviduals being referred to as 'Beatles'? It sems an affont to a beloved musical group...

Not if you think The Beatles suck dog ****.

ETA:

 

[GlennB]

And it appears that it may be illegal in UK law to withdraw citizenship such that it leaves a person stateless. Whether this applies exactly to these two isn't entirely clear, but expect legal action:

"Under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, people with dual nationality who are British nationals can be deprived of their British citizenship if the Secretary of State is satisfied that "deprivation is conducive to the public good"; there is a right of appeal.[43] This provision has been in force since 16 June 2006 when the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum Act 2006 (Commencement No 1) Order 2006 came into force.[44] Loss of British nationality in this way applies to people born in the UK as British citizens and who also hold another nationality.[43][45] As the provision applies only to dual nationals, its application cannot render a person stateless."

 

[The Atheist]

"Diane Foley, the mother of murdered American journalist James Foley, called for Kotey and Elsheikh to undergo a criminal trial either in the US or in an international court.
...
“I am very against the death penalty, I think that would just make them martyrs in their twisted ideology… I feel that’s easy for them."

No doubt the sensible words of one of the real victims will be ignored in favour of the lynch mob.

 

[The Don]

No doubt the sensible words of one of the real victims will be ignored in favour of the lynch mob.

Unless they are calling for immediate vengeance then they are VINOs

 

[Vixen]

And it appears that it may be illegal in UK law to withdraw citizenship such that it leaves a person stateless. Whether this applies exactly to these two isn't entirely clear, but expect legal action:

"Under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, people with dual nationality who are British nationals can be deprived of their British citizenship if the Secretary of State is satisfied that "deprivation is conducive to the public good"; there is a right of appeal.[43] This provision has been in force since 16 June 2006 when the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum Act 2006 (Commencement No 1) Order 2006 came into force.[44] Loss of British nationality in this way applies to people born in the UK as British citizens and who also hold another nationality.[43][45] As the provision applies only to dual nationals, its application cannot render a person stateless."

ISTM from the wording of the UK 2014 Nationality Act, removal of citizenship can only apply to those who have been 'naturalised'.

1.1. By the Immigration Act 2014 [IA 2014], Parliament conferred upon the Secretary
of State the power under review: that is, a power to deprive a person of British
citizenship resulting from naturalisation, in circumstances where the
consequence of that order is to render the person stateless.1

1.2. The power under review may be exercised only if:
(a) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the
public good because the person, when a British citizen, “has conducted him
or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of
the United Kingdom” or associated territories; and
(b) the Secretary of State has “reasonable grounds for believing that the person
is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to
become a national of such country or territory”.2
1.3. Outside the scope of this review are the powers that enable:
(a) dual nationals to be deprived of their British citizenship (however acquired), if
the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public
good;3
and
(b) single or dual nationals to be deprived of citizenship resulting from registration
or naturalisation when the Secretary of State is satisfied that it was obtained
by means of fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact.

However, the international position is that rendering a person stateless is illegal.

International treaties
2.1. Two principal international Conventions seek to avoid incidents of statelessness.
They are:
(a) The 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness [the 1961
Convention]; and
(b) The Council of Europe’s 1997 European Convention on Nationality [the 1997
Convention].
2.2. In the view of the Government, neither of those Conventions prevents the United
Kingdom from using the power under review to render a person stateless. That
is, in summary, because:
(a) Though the United Kingdom ratified the 1961 Convention, it was entitled
according to the terms of that Convention to retain a pre-existing domestic
law power to deprive a person of their nationality if the person had
“conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of
the state”.8
Such a power is said to have existed at the time under the
British Nationality Act 1948 [BNA 1948].
9
(b) Though the 1997 Convention absolutely prohibited deprivation resulting in
statelessness, save where nationality had been obtained by
misrepresentation or fraud,10 it was never ratified by the United Kingdom.11

There have only been ten cases since the 1948 Nationality act that this has happened before:

For 20 years after that, BNA 1981 stated that the Secretary of State could by
order deprive of citizenship a person who had acquired British citizenship14 by
registration or naturalisation, if satisfied that:
(a) registration or naturalisation had been obtained by fraud, false representation
or concealment of material fact: s40(1);
(b) the person had shown disloyalty of disaffection towards Her Majesty by act or
speech: s40(3)(a);
(c) the person had unlawfully traded or communicated with an enemy during any
war in which Her Majesty was engaged or been engaged in or associated
with any business carried out to assist an enemy in that war: s40(3)(b); or
(d) the person had been sentenced in any country to twelve months or more
imprisonment within five years of the date of naturalisation or registration and
the person would not become stateless: s40(3)(c), s40(5)(b).
In each case, the Secretary of State could deprive a person of their British
citizenship only if satisfied that it was not conducive to the public good that that
person should continue to be a British citizen.
2.6. These powers reflected those previously in place under the British Nationality Act
1948 [BNA 1948].
2.7. There was no statutory exclusion, save as stated at 2.5(d) above, for cases in
which the deprivation of British citizenship would render a person stateless. UK
law prior to April 2003 therefore permitted the removal of citizenship from
naturalised British citizens on the basis of specified conduct deemed not
conducive to the public good, even if they had no other citizenship and no
prospect of obtaining such citizenship.
2.8. The Home Office has stated that between 1949 and 1973 there were 10 cases in
which persons who had become citizens by application were rendered stateless

So in effect, this removal can only be done on grounds of broadly, fraud, misconduct in respect of the UK's reputation and a general 'disloyalty' clause.

ISTM that in order to effect a finding of misconduct, the persons concerned first need to be tried and convicted.

In this case, it hasn't yet been done. We do not know for certain that these fellows are the correct culprits. Look at the issues still raging over Lockerbie.

by the deprivation of British Citizenship.15 But the power then fell into disuse.
As of 1 February 2002, the citizenship deprivation powers in BNA 1948 and BNA
1981 had not been used since 1973.16
UK law and practice 2003-2014
2.9. The Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 [NIAA 2002] entered into force
on 1 April 2003. As regards the deprivation of citizenship, NIAA 2002 amended
BNA 1981 in three significant respects.
7
tion.

2.10. First, the specific grounds summarised at 2.5(b)-(d) above were replaced by a
general power in the Secretary of State to deprive a person of citizenship status
if satisfied that the person had done anything “seriously prejudicial to the vital
interests of the UK or a British overseas territory” (s40(2))17 – a formulation
which echoed both the 1961 Convention and the 1997 Conven
2.11. Secondly, that “seriously prejudicial” power was not to be used if the Secretary
of State was satisfied that to do so would make a person stateless (s40(4)). That
change brought UK law into line with the 1997 Convention, which the
Government at the time intended to sign and ratify.18
2.12. Thirdly, the power was extended to citizenship acquired by birth (though
because of the new bar on making people stateless, it could not have been used
on such citizens unless they had already acquired the citizenship of another
country).

https://assets.publishing.service.g...d_Anderson_QC_-_CITIZENSHIP_REMOVAL__web_.pdf

It could be argued their joining ISIS and making their way to a prohibited zone is grounds enough for citizenship stripping. Again, it is always better to have a proper trial before punishment.

 

[Vixen]

When was their British nationality revoked?

It came to press attention around 9 Feb 2018. The TIMES report on this is behind a paywall, so here's an extract from MIDDLE EAST TIMES 31 Mar 2018:

Two British men accused of being members of a notorious Islamic State (IS) torture cell have said the removal of their citizenship by the British government could expose them to torture and jeopardise their chances of a fair trial.

Alexandra Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh, both from West London, are accused of being members of a group of four British IS militants who were responsible for guarding and executing Western hostages and were dubbed "the Beatles" by their prisoners.

Many of the hostages were beheaded by Mohammed Emwazi, a British militant dubbed "Jihadi John" by the media, in executions which were filmed and subsequently broadcast online by IS in propaganda videos.

The two, who were captured in January and are being held by Kurdish forces in Syria, also said the killing of hostages was “regrettable".

The pair said the removal of their citizenship by the British government was "illegal" and could expose them to "rendition and torture" - "being taken to any foreign land and treated in any way and having nobody to vouch for you," Elsheikh told The Associated Press news agency.

"When you have these two guys who don't even have any citizenship ... if we just disappear one day, where is my mum going to go and say, 'Where is my son?'" he said.

One of them is third generation British-born. Not sure if he has dual nationality.

Kotey accused the UK government of double standards in denying them the right to Britain's own principles of due process.

"Where are they now or are they just applicable when they suit you?" he said. "It just looks very hypocritical, double standards.

"I found it strange that they could actually do that, revoke the citizenship of a person," he added.

"I was born in the UK. My mother was born in the UK. I have a daughter there in the UK. ... I probably never left the UK more than three months" before coming to Syria.

The UK's citizenship-stripping powers allow the Home Secretary to remove the citizenship of anyone who is a dual national if they are satisifed that doing so "is conducive to the public good" and that doing so would not make a person stateless.

The legal and human rights issues revolve around the following:

UK human rights groups have criticised the practice of stripping citizenship, with campaign group Liberty describing it as "a hallmark of oppressive and desperate regimes," and human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce calling it a process akin to being cast into "medieval exile".

I found it strange that they could actually do that, revoke the citizenship of a person

- Alexandra Kotey

The powers have been used to strip British aid workers in Syria of their citizenship. In December, MEE reported on the cases of three aid workers who had been notified that they had had their citizenships removed on the grounds that they "present a risk to the national security of the United Kingdom" and were involved in "Islamist extremist activities".

All three are appealing to have their British citizenship restored. They cannot be named because of anonymity orders in their cases.

The use of citizenship-stripping powers has withstood scrutiny at the European Court of Human Rights, where judges last year rejected an appeal by a Sudan-born British citizen who said that losing his citizenship over terrorism concerns had been discriminatory and violated his right to a family life.

The UK government has highlighted its increasing use of citizenship removal powers because of concerns about the threat posed by British fighters returning from Syria amid the collapse of the Islamic State group, which attracted significant numbers of Western nationals to its cause.

The most recent official figures indicate that 33 people were deprived of British citizenship on the basis that to do so was "conducive to the public good" between May 2010 and December 2015. Four of these cases were in 2014 and five were in 2015.

Matthew Gibney, an expert on citizenship revocation orders, told MEE in December he estimated about 45 to 50 people had lost their British citizenship since 2011.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/m...val-uk-citizenship-harms-fair-trial-249871592

Seems they are allowed to appeal by law. Hmmm.

 

[Vixen]

These people are cold blooded murderers; they don't deserve to live, to occupy space on the planet or to breathe the air the rest of us do.

Hang them, and give the relatives of their victims the opportunity to pull the trapdoor lever.


(NOTE: I am generally against the death penalty, but not in this case)

Back to the Mediaeval Ages, huh?

My kinda guy.

 

[ddt]

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.

This. Very much this.

Making someone stateless goes against international treaties, in particular the ECHR (the convention). Extraditing someone to the USA (*) without assurances that the death penalty will not be sought, also goes against the ECHR. The Convention and the case law of the ECHR are very clear on that. This plan of the UK clearly flouts the legal principles it signed up to when it joined the CoE and signed the ECHR. If the UK carries this out, IMHO the only sensible response of the Council of Europe would be to immediately suspend the UK's membership of the CoE (with continued obligations with regards to the ECHR, of course).

Why doesn't the UK want to try them itself? After all, these are UK citizens who murdered, a.o., other UK citizens, so there are grounds enough for the UK itself to assert jurisdiction. They also murdered citizens from other western countries, so why not turn them over to, say, France or Canada (**)? The only reason I can see why the UK wants them extradited to the USA is that base blood lust prevails over the upholding of legal principles and the UK government hopes the USA will give them the death penalty.

Moreover, the USA is not a "world court" and should certainly not be treated as such - see also footnotes (*) and (***). If you want to do justice to the international aspect of their crimes, hand them over to the ICC in The Hague; that is a world court. While I agree, in theory, with the sentiment that Iraq or Syria should put them on trial, that is not practical: they have been captured now and should be put on trial now, whereas the chance that in the foreseeable future, there will be something like the rule of law in those countries is nil.

(*) or any other rogue state that has the death penalty.

(**) just examples, I haven't checked where their victims came from.

(***) Gitmo, extrajudicial rendition, torture, Gina Haspel.

 

[ddt]

One of them is third generation British-born. Not sure if he has dual nationality.

According to wiki, El Shafee Elsheikh is still a Sudanese citizen, while Alexanda Kotey is now stateless.

The legal and human rights issues revolve around the following:

The most recent official figures indicate that 33 people were deprived of British citizenship on the basis that to do so was "conducive to the public good" between May 2010 and December 2015. Four of these cases were in 2014 and five were in 2015.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/m...val-uk-citizenship-harms-fair-trial-249871592

Those numbers do not matter in the case of Kotey. As the Guardian notes:

Figures collected by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism published last June showed that at least 33 people had been stripped of their British nationality on terrorism-related grounds since May was home secretary in 2010. All of those had been dual nationals, meaning no one had yet been left “stateless” through the use of the power.

Making someone stateless is a big no-no.

Seems they are allowed to appeal by law. Hmmm.

If you don't like the rule of law, why don't you go to Somalia?

 

[lionking]

I’m afraid I don’t see “stateless” as such a dramatic consequence when these guys left their victims lifeless.