ISIS teenager wants to come home

[Matthew Best]

It's not like it's illegal to go on holiday, for goodness' sake!

[ThatGuy11200]

Originally Posted by cullennz

She raped and butchered her way across the middle east?

Impressive

The disgusting cult she has no remorse in joining did.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by baron

You're right, I'm not entering into the spirit of this debate.

Does anybody know what crimes this woman can be charged with?

My apologies. I didn't see your post. It happens.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Rescue the girl, abort the fetus, put her on trial.

In the ninth month?

What is it they say ... oh vey.

You know who I am.

[MRC_Hans]

In my, entirely subjective opinion: Let her make her way to proper authorities. Repatriate her, and let her face whatever appropriate legal action. After alll thus us one important difference between UK and ISIS.

Hans

[IanS]

Originally Posted by cullennz

They don't really get a choice

They do get a choice ... that's what I just explained in the actual post that you quoted from me.

Nor are people (or the government) in the UK just “out for retribution” as I think you said in post #141. The UK is actually a very tolerant and compassionate country, even in cases of Islamic fundamentalism and despite atrocities here such as the London Tube Bombings. People here are not generally seeking revenge or victimisation for individuals like Shamima Begum.

It's a question of what sort of risk or danger she might pose to the general public. Because if you read her article then she is clearly still supporting the aims and methods of IS (I pointed that out with her quotes earlier in the thread).

She is not, for example, claiming that she was mislead, tricked, or even that she was “groomed” as someone described it in a previous post. She simply appears to be amongst several thousand British Muslims who, to differing extents, support a violent form of Jihad against anyone who in their opinion tries to suppress or oppose Islam and what they believe is God's command to establish societies with hard-line religious rule from the Koran … she is, like all the others, heavily committed to that view (it's a very deeply held religious belief … and that's a very difficult thing ever to change).

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by IanS

They do get a choice ... that's what I just explained in the actual post that you quoted from me.

Nor are people (or the government) in the UK just “out for retribution” as I think you said in post #141. The UK is actually a very tolerant and compassionate country, even in cases of Islamic fundamentalism and despite atrocities here such as the London Tube Bombings. People here are not generally seeking revenge or victimisation for individuals like Shamima Begum.

It's a question of what sort of risk or danger she might pose to the general public. Because if you read her article then she is clearly still supporting the aims and methods of IS (I pointed that out with her quotes earlier in the thread).

She is not, for example, claiming that she was mislead, tricked, or even that she was “groomed” as someone described it in a previous post. She simply appears to be amongst several thousand British Muslims who, to differing extents, support a violent form of Jihad against anyone who in their opinion tries to suppress or oppose Islam and what they believe is God's command to establish societies with hard-line religious rule from the Koran … she is, like all the others, heavily committed to that view (it's a very deeply held religious belief … and that's a very difficult thing ever to change).

I ask (not you personally) again: What is the alternative to taking your citizens back? The Syrian army/state has a habit of killing foreign Jihadis on their soil simply out of practical reasons because there have been huge numbers of them. You get a trial only as Syrian citizen. Do you want the US to send them to Guantanamo? The Kurds are neither a state actor nor do they have the resources to care/put to justice the many hundred ISIS foreigners they hold. There's no caliphate to send them back to. So what now (same goes for my country Germany btw)?

[baron]

Originally Posted by IanS

It's a question of what sort of risk or danger she might pose to the general public.

It's also about what kind of example it sets, if a well-known individual is permitted to indulge in terrorist activities then return to this country and be welcomed with open arms (and before you say that's hyperbole, that's what certain commentators are pushing for). OK, maybe she doesn't commit an act of terrorism when she returns, and maybe she doesn't encourage anybody else to do the same (leaving aside the £18m per year bill for her monitoring) but maybe the tens? hundreds? thousands? emboldened by her treatment will.

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

I ask (not you personally) again: What is the alternative to taking your citizens back?

Not taking them back. You don't have to strip a person of their citizenship to not allow them access to the country. What happens to her then, you ask? Who cares? At best she'll be imprisoned or killed abroad; at worst, she'll go live in an Islamic country more accepting of her views.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

I ask (not you personally) again: What is the alternative to taking your citizens back? The Syrian army/state has a habit of killing foreign Jihadis on their soil simply out of practical reasons because there have been huge numbers of them. You get a trial only as Syrian citizen. Do you want the US to send them to Guantanamo? The Kurds are neither a state actor nor do they have the resources to care/put to justice the many hundred ISIS foreigners they hold. There's no caliphate to send them back to. So what now (same goes for my country Germany btw)?

In the end the UK may indeed have to accept her back. Although as I explained in post #129, they can apparently delay her return for some years, or else argue a legal case to possibly avoid that obligation altogether.

On your question of "what is the alternative to taking your citizens back?"; if the UK government really does not want her back under any circumstances, then I can only guess that they will say that she made her choice, that she is unrepentant and still supporting IS, and that she knew perfectly well what she was doing, and that she will now have to stick with the decision she made.

Just for info., see also yesterdays BBC article on this point of law -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47248555

And also this slightly more in-depth commentary from the Guardian newspaper -

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...n-isis-recruit

[Norman Alexander]

If this silly woman is so wrapped up in the potential safety of her child, let it be born in Syria, or wherever she is now. She can then give it up to be sent to the UK to be adopted out to another willing and capable family. There are mechanisms in place to do this already.

Meanwhile, the silly woman can take her chances with the people she has fallen in with and the predicament she finds herself in. As we are told frequently when we travel overseas, your passport and citizenship are not a free pass to break the law or be rescued in any other country. You must be aware of and follow their laws and customs when you are there.

To "help her along", the UK could accidentally cancel her passport. She would then need to go to the nearest UK consulate (good luck with that), explain that her passport seems to be cancelled (good luck with that), and ask for a new one to be issued...in the next ten years (good luck with that).

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by baron

Not taking them back. You don't have to strip a person of their citizenship to not allow them access to the country. What happens to her then, you ask? Who cares? At best she'll be imprisoned or killed abroad; at worst, she'll go live in an Islamic country more accepting of her views.

I'm not surprised about such a response coming from you, it's just not good enough for people who care about not sinking as low as "the enemy".

I see two alternatives.

1) Putin sends some White Swans who fly those people straight back to London and Berlin etc and drop them there (with parachutes).

2) The main culprit in brainwashing these people with programs worth many billions in the first place, Saudi Arabia, orders Bin Laden company to build a giant wall somewhere in the Saudi desert, maybe near enough to Mecca and Medina so they can see it when they blow up themselves, and create a "Violence Experience Park" inside for all those who feel the urge to live in some 8th century Mad Max scenario. We can drop what's inside Idlib province there as well and on request everybody else gets a one-way ticket with basic (8th century) food and shelter provided.

Actually the latter is the only "serious" alternative I see.

[baron]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

I'm not surprised about such an answer coming from you, it's just not good enough for people who care about not sinking as low as "the enemy".

Don't worry, it's only a tiny minority who equate not letting a terrorist back into the country with mass murder, torture and slavery.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

I'm not surprised about such a response coming from you, it's just not good enough for people who care about not sinking as low as "the enemy".

I see two alternatives.

1) Putin sends some White Swans who fly those people straight back to London and Berlin etc and drop them there (with parachutes).

2) The main culprit in brainwashing these people with programs worth many billions in the first place, Saudi Arabia, orders Bin Laden company to build a giant wall somewhere in the Saudi desert, maybe near enough to Mecca and Medina so they can see it when they blow up themselves, and create a "Violence Experience Park" inside for all those who feel the urge to live in some 8th century Mad Max scenario. We can drop what's inside Idlib province there as well and on request everybody else gets a one-way ticket with basic (8th century) food and shelter provided.

Actually the latter is the only "serious" alternative I see.

For what it's worth, I think we (the UK) probably should take her back (and do it without further delay).

Then when she gets here she will no doubt be questioned at considerable length, and on the basis of that she would (under the circumstances, which are quite extreme in her case), probably have to stand trial on various terrorism charges.

But I'm not sure a lengthy prison term would help at all either.

I think the best option would probably be to attempt to educate her away from the beliefs she has about Islam and the way that has lead her into supporting IS with all of the attrocities that involves. How successful that might be is anyones guess (and unfortuantely a mistaken guess could prove lethal).

[Strawberry]

Originally Posted by IanS

For what it's worth, I think we (the UK) probably should take her back (and do it without further delay).

Then when she gets here she will no doubt be questioned at considerable length, and on the basis of that she would (under the circumstances, which are quite extreme in her case), probably have to stand trial on various terrorism charges.

But I'm not sure a lengthy prison term would help at all either.

I think the best option would probably be to attempt to educate her away from the beliefs she has about Islam and the way that has lead her into supporting IS with all of the attrocities that involves. How successful that might be is anyones guess (and unfortuantely a mistaken guess could prove lethal).

I think a lengthy prison sentence would be in order.

Or, seeing as she's entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents, cancel her British citizenship and let Bangladesh take her. She can spend time in a Bangladeshi prison instead.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by The Nimble Pianist

Can someone explain to me why she can't be held to Syrian jurisprudence? Why does she have to go back to the UK? Why can't she be judged by Syria (where she actually committed her alleged crimes) and then suffer Syrian justice (even if that means she'll be executed)?

Who has said she couldn't be?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Strawberry

I think a lengthy prison sentence would be in order.

Or, seeing as she's entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents, cancel her British citizenship and let Bangladesh take her. She can spend time in a Bangladeshi prison instead.

Why should Bangladesh grant her citizenship?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by ThatGuy11200

Ever since ISIS appeared and began raping and butchering their way across the Middle East, my response has been that they the hate preachers should all be hunted down and exterminated.

My view hasn't changed.

FIFY.

Blame has to be fairly and squarely on the rabid fundamentalist hate preachers behind this 'come join the Caliphate' nonsense.

Secondly, there might come a point where extremist fundamentalist terrorists become so commonplace in Europe, there'll be no choice but to ban Islam.

[Strawberry]

Originally Posted by Darat

Why should Bangladesh grant her citizenship?

Because her parents are from there.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Strawberry

Because her parents are from there.

But why should they, what do they have to gain by such a move?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

It's not like it's illegal to go on holiday, for goodness' sake!

Heh, reminds me of the Dead Kennedys, 'Holiday in Cambodia'.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

If this silly woman is so wrapped up in the potential safety of her child, let it be born in Syria, or wherever she is now. She can then give it up to be sent to the UK to be adopted out to another willing and capable family. There are mechanisms in place to do this already.

Meanwhile, the silly woman can take her chances with the people she has fallen in with and the predicament she finds herself in. As we are told frequently when we travel overseas, your passport and citizenship are not a free pass to break the law or be rescued in any other country. You must be aware of and follow their laws and customs when you are there.

To "help her along", the UK could accidentally cancel her passport. She would then need to go to the nearest UK consulate (good luck with that), explain that her passport seems to be cancelled (good luck with that), and ask for a new one to be issued...in the next ten years (good luck with that).

Poor little mite could end up adopted by Madonna. Eeek!

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Darat

But why should they, what do they have to gain by such a move?

I am unsure why people assume the baby will be British. If it's born abroad and the father is Dutch, I am not sure it follows.

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by Strawberry

Membership of an illegal organisation carries a prison sentence of up to ten years. IS is an illegal organisation.

Cheers

And how many years does some one with a decent lawyer get if they were 15?

[Strawberry]

Originally Posted by cullennz

Cheers

And how many years does some one with a decent lawyer get if they were 15?

Don't know. She's not 15 anymore and she's saying she has no regrets, so who knows how the court would view it.

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by Strawberry

Don't know. She's not 15 anymore and she's saying she has no regrets, so who knows how the court would view it.

Like brainwashing of a "vulnerable young child's mind" with a half decent lawyer

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by cullennz

Cheers

And how many years does some one with a decent lawyer get if they were 15?

Who knows? Maybe we will get to find out. The thing is, having a decent lawyer is one thing if you are trying to portray yourself as a victim. It might not matter much if you portray yourself as an unrepentant Jihadi.

[Strawberry]

Originally Posted by cullennz

Like brainwashing of a "vulnerable young child's mind" with a half decent lawyer

Yes maybe. She's a grown woman now though who is not in showing any regrets about what she did. Plus I'm not sure who is supposed to have brain washed her into flying out there and signing up to marry into ISIS, I thought she self-radicalised over the internet.

[The Nimble Pianist]

Originally Posted by Strawberry

She could be prosecuted in Syria, if the Syrian authorities got hold of her. At the moment she's in a refugee camp under the control of the Syrian Kurds who aren't exactly friends of the Assad regime either.

I understand that, and I also understand that her chances of getting to the UK are slim to nil and this is more of a pipe dream for her. I'm asking why the conversation is so centered around if she came home how she should be arrested or rehabilitated. Why not hand her over to Syria? It would seem to me that they of all people have proper jurisdiction here, no matter what we think of their criminal justice system.

[Strawberry]

Originally Posted by The Nimble Pianist

I understand that, and I also understand that her chances of getting to the UK are slim to nil and this is more of a pipe dream for her. I'm asking why the conversation is so centered around if she came home how she should be arrested or rehabilitated. Why not hand her over to Syria? It would seem to me that they of all people have proper jurisdiction here, no matter what we think of their criminal justice system.

They couldn't hand her over to Syria if she was in danger of facing the death penalty, it would breach the ECHR.

[The Nimble Pianist]

Originally Posted by Strawberry

They couldn't hand her over to Syria if she was in danger of facing the death penalty, it would breach the ECHR.

Ah! Thank you.

Well here's to hoping Syria finds her first!

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Darat

Although she was a kid when she was groomed at some point she has to treated as the adult she now is. So if she returned she should be put on trail and if found guilty jailed etc.

As for her child, it should be removed as soon as possible and placed for adoption, her immediate family should not be able to apply for custody, they have shown they are unfit to raise children.

It's not always the parents' deficiency.

They deserve due process should they choose to raise their grand child.

[Strawberry]

Originally Posted by The Nimble Pianist

Ah! Thank you.

Well here's to hoping Syria finds her first!

The Kurds in control of the refugee camp want western countries to bring their IS members home, so in the not too distant future she's likely to be dumped over the border into Turkey and deported from there to Britain.

I'd revoke her citizenship and let the Bangladeshis have her, personally.

[The Nimble Pianist]

Originally Posted by Strawberry

The Kurds in control of the refugee camp want western countries to bring their IS members home, so in the not too distant future she's likely to be dumped over the border into Turkey and deported from there to Britain.

I'd revoke her citizenship and let the Bangladeshis have her, personally.

I was under the impression her sole citizenship is British. Why would the Bengalis take her?

[Strawberry]

Originally Posted by The Nimble Pianist

I was under the impression her sole citizenship is British. Why would the Bengalis take her?

She's eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents, which means her UK citizenship can be revoked. Whether Bangladesh wants her or not is another matter.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Vixen

FIFY.



Blame has to be fairly and squarely on the rabid fundamentalist hate preachers behind this 'come join the Caliphate' nonsense.

And this is why I count propagandists as enemy combatants, and legitimate targets of military force.

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by baron

It's also about what kind of example it sets, if a well-known individual is permitted to indulge in terrorist activities then return to this country and be welcomed with open arms (and before you say that's hyperbole, that's what certain commentators are pushing for). OK, maybe she doesn't commit an act of terrorism when she returns, and maybe she doesn't encourage anybody else to do the same (leaving aside the £18m per year bill for her monitoring) but maybe the tens? hundreds? thousands? emboldened by her treatment will.



Not taking them back. You don't have to strip a person of their citizenship to not allow them access to the country. What happens to her then, you ask? Who cares? At best she'll be imprisoned or killed abroad; at worst, she'll go live in an Islamic country more accepting of her views.

Did you get your best and worse switched?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I am unsure why people assume the baby will be British. If it's born abroad and the father is Dutch, I am not sure it follows.

Who has assumed the baby would be British?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by cullennz

Like brainwashing of a "vulnerable young child's mind" with a half decent lawyer

That's called due process.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It's not always the parents' deficiency.



They deserve due process should they choose to raise their grand child.

We know her background so I'm quite happy to state her family are not fit to bring up a child. They allowed their daughter to be groomed by terrorists.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Darat

That's called due process.

Due process varies by context. What's due a POW is very different from what's due someone accused of a crime. How did you figure what's due process in this context?