Brits who fight for ISIS - kill 'em says MP
Discussion
Countdown said:
How are we going to tell the difference between those fighting FOR ISIS and those fighting against? Beard length?
It's not really that hard to figure it out.Speaking of those fighting against, I hope Jac Holmes is repatriated like Luke Rutter was.
Looking at it in a logical way. If they chose to fight for a regular army that aim to adhere to the Geneva Convention and prisoner/fair treatment then you can see that any returning fighters still hold certain shared values.
Joining an organization that commits atrocities both in the field and back in their home country, how do you treat them?
Joining an organization that commits atrocities both in the field and back in their home country, how do you treat them?
Sa Calobra said:
Looking at it in a logical way. If they chose to fight for a regular army that aim to adhere to the Geneva Convention and prisoner/fair treatment then you can see that any returning fighters still hold certain shared values.
Joining an organization that commits atrocities both in the field and back in their home country, how do you treat them?
Give them a flat in Tower Hamlets ?Joining an organization that commits atrocities both in the field and back in their home country, how do you treat them?
Stedman said:
A staggering large % of them die out 'there'; ISIS use foreign nationals as cannon fodder. Worry about the very few that may come back and worry more about the UK nationals groomed here to carry out terrorism.
Or just kill 'em
I saw a report that most of the Brits got stuck on rear echelon guard duties. They did not have the training to be front line troops. Or just kill 'em
Breadvan72 said:
Stedman said:
A staggering large % of them die out 'there'; ISIS use foreign nationals as cannon fodder. Worry about the very few that may come back and worry more about the UK nationals groomed here to carry out terrorism.
Or just kill 'em
I saw a report that most of the Brits got stuck on rear echelon guard duties. They did not have the training to be front line troops. Or just kill 'em
The OP question is a nonsense.
Traditionally traitors have faced much harsher punishments than enemy combatants; William Joyce for example was executed while many Nazis escaped this fate. We've moved on and the death penalty is no longer lawful in this country or most of the civilised world. That is the sort progress that separates us from IS and I'm not prepared countenancer the sort of reversion to allow state execution.
Lawfully, they cannot be executed, but they can be killed by military action. They could be imprisoned as criminals or POWs. If Gitmo has been a proper POW camp instead of some extra-judicial legal fiction nonsense, many of those that were released could have remained there, while we were still at war with them. Some sort of lawful long term detention would be best, life in prison is the normal punishment for murder, criminal or war criminal.
The stateless thing is nonsense, they've renounced their British nationality when they swore fealty to the Islamic State. They still have their international recognised human rights, but they can be denied any enhanced rights, such entry, afforded by UK citizenship.
The question should be 'What solution is likely to provide the best long term outcome'. I'm inclined to support a highly secure POW camp, probably on a remote island of the British Isles and run as a proper POW camp until they no longer pose a threat.
Traditionally traitors have faced much harsher punishments than enemy combatants; William Joyce for example was executed while many Nazis escaped this fate. We've moved on and the death penalty is no longer lawful in this country or most of the civilised world. That is the sort progress that separates us from IS and I'm not prepared countenancer the sort of reversion to allow state execution.
Lawfully, they cannot be executed, but they can be killed by military action. They could be imprisoned as criminals or POWs. If Gitmo has been a proper POW camp instead of some extra-judicial legal fiction nonsense, many of those that were released could have remained there, while we were still at war with them. Some sort of lawful long term detention would be best, life in prison is the normal punishment for murder, criminal or war criminal.
The stateless thing is nonsense, they've renounced their British nationality when they swore fealty to the Islamic State. They still have their international recognised human rights, but they can be denied any enhanced rights, such entry, afforded by UK citizenship.
The question should be 'What solution is likely to provide the best long term outcome'. I'm inclined to support a highly secure POW camp, probably on a remote island of the British Isles and run as a proper POW camp until they no longer pose a threat.
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Sunday 29th October 09:01
Is this the best illustration of where humans rights fail the masses to unnecessarily protect an undeserving few (or many as the case may be) ?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4792434/british-isis...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/returning-isis-...
I'm sure its been said many times before, but isn't a justice system supposed to be a fair application of rules/judgements to keep peace and order within society? If so then how can human rights laws be such that the UK must let ISIS in to the UK just because they may hold a British Passport?
So instead of letting them rot in the sand we are to let them return to further their cause at much easier targets in the uk and also to be funded by the taxpayer.
I think this is going to be a spectacular fail on the understanding of the mind-set of people devoted to a cause so much so that they were able to perform the atrocities that they have done.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4792434/british-isis...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/returning-isis-...
I'm sure its been said many times before, but isn't a justice system supposed to be a fair application of rules/judgements to keep peace and order within society? If so then how can human rights laws be such that the UK must let ISIS in to the UK just because they may hold a British Passport?
So instead of letting them rot in the sand we are to let them return to further their cause at much easier targets in the uk and also to be funded by the taxpayer.
I think this is going to be a spectacular fail on the understanding of the mind-set of people devoted to a cause so much so that they were able to perform the atrocities that they have done.
PRTVR said:
V8 Fettler said:
The returning religionists should be incarcerated in camps and deradicalised via the medium of wine, women and song. We could call these camps "Butlins".
I believe torture is banned by the Geneva convention. 
Not sure how the marketing will be done for the “ 72 Virgins Weekender ”
Breadvan72 said:
The statelessness problem isn't resolved by referring to IS, because IS is not recognised as a state by any state or international organisation.
As they recognise it as a state, how can they possibly object to having UK citizenship revoked in favour of their chosen homeland?Do it & see whether IS take legal action against it.
IS has no legal personality and cannot sue. Recognising IS as a state would be a very bad idea (and just what IS would wish for). The person who would have a legal complaint about being rendered stateless would be an individual. The hypothetical here is a British IS supporter seeking to return to the UK, not one who is staying out in the supposed state (wherever it now is)
You don't create a state just by saying that it exists. If I declare UDI for my living room, that doesn't make it a state.
You don't create a state just by saying that it exists. If I declare UDI for my living room, that doesn't make it a state.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 14th November 13:12
Breadvan72 said:
IS has no legal personality and cannot sue.
Excellent.Breadvan72 said:
Recognising IS as a state would be a very bad idea (and just what IS would wish for).
I'm not suggesting that we recognise it, just that we note HIS recognition of it.Breadvan72 said:
The person who would have a legal complaint about being rendered stateless would be an individual.
My position is that in his mind he's not stateless so all we're doing is going along with his wishes.Breadvan72 said:
The hypothetical here is a British IS supporter seeking to return to the UK, not one who is staying out in the supposed state (wherever it now is)
Hypothetically (in his mind) he's gone to join an Islamic state and (in my mind) my system ensures he stays there & doesn't come back. I believe we should draft a 'tough titty' law for this situation.Breadvan72 said:
You don't create a state just by saying that it exists.
We aren't doing- we are merely allowing/facilitating him to believe so & act accordingly. Breadvan72 said:
If I declare UDI for my living room, that doesn't make it a state.
Under my proposed system you would be able to think this & act according to your wishes. If HMG don't like your subsequent actions they can invade through the UK territory of your front hall. 
OK, so legal rights should be based on whatever someone imagines. Great idea! I killed my mum but I imagine that I didn't so that's OK. I didn't pay for my dinner at Chez Scoffs but I imagined that I did so that's OK.
What if someone rocks up at the border and says that he has an imaginary visa or an imaginary diplomatic passport? Wave him through?
What if someone rocks up at the border and says that he has an imaginary visa or an imaginary diplomatic passport? Wave him through?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff