• 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.

Should the ISIS 'Beatles' be Executed?

Vixen

Penultimate Amazing
Vixen
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Messages
41,798
Location
Varsinais-Suomi
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.
Click to expand...
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.)
 
For me the answer is simple - No

I'd give the same answer no matter how "evil" the person or how horrible their crimes.
 
Killing people is bad. Trying to justify it as 'justice' is just idiotic.
 
The Don said:
No doubt, but the question explicitly in the thread title is



What more interesting things would you like to discuss ?
Click to expand...

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 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.
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
lobosrul5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sabrina said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
lobosrul5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

<snip>
Click to expand...


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..
 
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.
 
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."
 
P.J. Denyer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
lobosrul5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

<snip>
Click to expand...


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..
 
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.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
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..
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
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.
Click to expand...


I didn't say anything about them being untouchable, nor have I seen anyone suggest that they are.

I was talking about the forfeiture of citizenship, which is, apparently, based on giving allegiance to a foreign government.
 
lobosrul5 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Good. I'm glad we agree.

None of the rest of your post is germane to my comment.
 
A couple of points:

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

2. No prisoner held at Guantanamo has ever been executed.
 
quadraginta said:
I didn't say anything about them being untouchable, nor have I seen anyone suggest that they are.

I was talking about the forfeiture of citizenship, which is, apparently, based on giving allegiance to a foreign government.
Click to expand...

The best documentation I can find is the UK Immigration, Asylum, and Nationality Act of 2006, about which Wikipedia says, '[t]he Act contains several provisions empowering the Home Secretary to deprive a person of British citizenship (or Right of Abode) if it is considered that such deprivation is "conducive to the public good".'

The act itself (PDF) appears to mostly amend the Act of 1971. Under Section 57, "Deprivation of the Right of Abode", we have this:

(1) After section 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (right of abode) insert—
“2A Deprivation of right of abode
(1) The Secretary of State may by order remove from a specified person a
right of abode in the United Kingdom which he has under section
2(1)(b).
(2) The Secretary of State may make an order under subsection (1) in
respect of a person only if the Secretary of State thinks that it would be
conducive to the public good for the person to be excluded or removed
from the United Kingdom.
(3) An order under subsection (1) may be revoked by order of the Secretary
of State.
(4) While an order under subsection (1) has effect in relation to a person—
(a) section 2(2) shall not apply to him, and
(b) any certificate of entitlement granted to him shall have no
effect.”
(2) In section 82(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41)
(right of appeal: definition of immigration decision) after paragraph (ia)
insert—
“(ib) a decision to make an order under section 2A of that Act
(deprivation of right of abode),”.​

Which seems to mean that as of 2006, a recognized foreign government is no longer a prerequisite for depriving a UK citizen of their citizenship.

But I'm not sure.
 
quadraginta said:
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..
Click to expand...

While I hate to make the distinction, there is a difference between a FOREIGN terrorist organization (FTO) and a DOMESTIC terrorist organization.

I believe I understand your concerns, but because there is a difference between the two types, there is a political effort to remove citizenship from someone who pledges allegiance to a FTO on the grounds that by doing so, they have voluntarily renounced their allegiance to the United States. Currently, if I'm understanding what I Googled properly, a natural-born American citizen can only lose their citizenship if they renounce it themselves (although I'm not sure if there's an official procedure for that sort of thing), but naturalized citizens can have their citizenship revoked for any number of reasons, allegiance to a FTO among them (and many individuals who are doing so are naturalized citizens, not natural-born, although there are some natural-born ones who are gravitating toward FTOs for whatever reason). Following September 11th, numerous politicians wanted to amend the law to allow for revoking U.S. citizenship if it could be proven someone pledged allegiance to a FTO on the grounds that by doing so, the person had voluntarily renounced their U.S. citizenship, but I don't know how far that effort got. It does seem I wasn't entirely accurate in saying that is one of the few ways to lose U.S. citizenship, but the effort has been made in the past, so it's still a possibility I think.

Regardless, it's a different story if you're talking about a DOMESTIC terrorist organization, of which there are several in the U.S. But because they are homegrown, the idea of renouncing citizenship becomes much more of a sticky wicket than doing so if someone is pledging to a FTO; the actions of the domestic groups are usually entirely confined to this country, and while they are illegal in the extreme, there is no aid of any kind being given to any foreign entities, recognized as governments or not, so there is no grounds to remove citizenship there. The vast majority of domestic groups I am aware of still view themselves as U.S. citizens, even if they don't like how the government is being run or think violent protest is the right way to effect the changes they are after; very very few, if any, view themselves as other than U.S. citizens.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if someone pledges allegiance to ISIS or any of the FTOs currently on the State Department's recognized list, they could theoretically be viewed as candidates for loss of citizenship, but if they're doing so with, say, the KKK or the ELF, for example, they wouldn't be because those organizations are, sadly, operating solely in the U.S.
 
Sabrina said:
While I hate to make the distinction, there is a difference between a FOREIGN terrorist organization (FTO) and a DOMESTIC terrorist organization.

I believe I understand your concerns, but because there is a difference between the two types, there is a political effort to remove citizenship from someone who pledges allegiance to a FTO on the grounds that by doing so, they have voluntarily renounced their allegiance to the United States. Currently, if I'm understanding what I Googled properly, a natural-born American citizen can only lose their citizenship if they renounce it themselves (although I'm not sure if there's an official procedure for that sort of thing), but naturalized citizens can have their citizenship revoked for any number of reasons, allegiance to a FTO among them (and many individuals who are doing so are naturalized citizens, not natural-born, although there are some natural-born ones who are gravitating toward FTOs for whatever reason). Following September 11th, numerous politicians wanted to amend the law to allow for revoking U.S. citizenship if it could be proven someone pledged allegiance to a FTO on the grounds that by doing so, the person had voluntarily renounced their U.S. citizenship, but I don't know how far that effort got. It does seem I wasn't entirely accurate in saying that is one of the few ways to lose U.S. citizenship, but the effort has been made in the past, so it's still a possibility I think.

Regardless, it's a different story if you're talking about a DOMESTIC terrorist organization, of which there are several in the U.S. But because they are homegrown, the idea of renouncing citizenship becomes much more of a sticky wicket than doing so if someone is pledging to a FTO; the actions of the domestic groups are usually entirely confined to this country, and while they are illegal in the extreme, there is no aid of any kind being given to any foreign entities, recognized as governments or not, so there is no grounds to remove citizenship there. The vast majority of domestic groups I am aware of still view themselves as U.S. citizens, even if they don't like how the government is being run or think violent protest is the right way to effect the changes they are after; very very few, if any, view themselves as other than U.S. citizens.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if someone pledges allegiance to ISIS or any of the FTOs currently on the State Department's recognized list, they could theoretically be viewed as candidates for loss of citizenship, but if they're doing so with, say, the KKK or the ELF, for example, they wouldn't be because those organizations are, sadly, operating solely in the U.S.
Click to expand...


How simple is it.

FOTL, who not infrequently are also White Supremacists, reject the jurisdiction of the U.S. government over them (Except for when that's inconvenient :rolleyes:, but that should be for another thread.), and so by their own mandate they are foreign.

My main point, though is that forfeiture of citizenship isn't something which should be done lightly, just because someone has committed a criminal act. If there is no legally recognized foreign government for allegiance to be given to, then allegiance can't be given.

This is a case where the state needs to pick a position and stick with it. If the foreign outfit in question is not a state in its own right and not recognized as such then it's just another bunch of bloodthirsty maniacs, no matter how much territory it controls.

Hanging out with crooks, no matter if they are foreign or domestic, might not be the best thing to base forfeiture of citizenship on.

That's all I'm saying.
 
Last edited:
No, and the death penalty should be abolished. Here is the equation:

"I am so right, I can kill you."

The legal death penalty is simply one form of the above, but it opens Pandora's box, wide. If a holy Republican can kill "because God/supreme law," so can every other wingnut and asswipe on the planet, including ISIS. "But I follow the real God." Don't bother, you just gave everyone a reaon to discount the old IQ. "But I have a just justice system, and go by the rule of law?" Same epic flail, as the Supreme Leader of Iran can claim exactly that as well, as would Xi. "But those systems are flawed!" Well, take a little gander at the folks being let off death row in the US because they are innocent.

Ain't no excuse. Death penalty advocates are murderous in their own hearts, plain and simple. **** 'em.
 
Last edited:
The death penalty is morally wrong for simple risk-reward ratios. It's a un-reversible punishment. You can let someone out of jail, you can wipe clean a record, you can refund a fine. We cannot yet undeaden someone. I'm comfortable with a legal system that can never be perfect occasionally (very occasionally, with constant strides to improve the accuracy rate) people in jail or fine them if they are not guilty a small percentage of the time, but not killing them.

That being said the idea that the death penalty is equivalent to murder is an odd one to me. It's not wrong per se but to me it is like saying throwing someone in jail is the same thing as illegal imprisonment or indeed that arresting someone is equivilent to kidnapping.

Doing things within the structure of a system is, in some cases not all, functionally different. There is a difference, however one wants to conceptualize and categorize it, between killing someone after a trial by jury within a system in which the potential results are known beforehand and methods for legal defense and such are in place and blowing someone's head off with a shotgun because they didn't empty the register fast enough. Whether or not both are "murder" is... a matter of personal semantic opinion.

It's still horrible and barbaric and shouldn't be done however.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
How simple is it.

FOTL, who not infrequently are also White Supremacists, reject the jurisdiction of the U.S. government over them (Except for when that's inconvenient :rolleyes:, but that should be for another thread.), and so by their own mandate they are foreign.

My main point, though is that forfeiture of citizenship isn't something which should be done lightly, just because someone has committed a criminal act. If there is no legally recognized foreign government for allegiance to be given to, then allegiance can't be given.

This is a case where the state needs to pick a position and stick with it. If the foreign outfit in question is not a state in its own right and not recognized as such then it's just another bunch of bloodthirsty maniacs, no matter how much territory it controls.

Hanging out with crooks, no matter if they are foreign or domestic, might not be the best thing to base forfeiture of citizenship on.

That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree overall; I'm merely saying that no one I have ever heard of in the U.S. government has ever considered revoking citizenship on the basis of association with a domestic terrorist organization. FOTL aside (as you say, they deserve their own thread to discuss their contradictions in action), in practice membership in a domestic terrorist organization is not all that different from, say, membership in something like the ACLU; the main difference is that the ACLU does not engage in illegal activities (although some might argue the point, I suppose). So domestic terrorists fall in a sort of middle ground between simple criminals and terrorists, and aren't treated the same as foreign terrorists.

Then too, there is the difference that membership in a FTO often involves actively pledging allegiance to said organization over any allegiances previously held. By most definitions, that involves a personal revokation of allegiances to a country (for the purposes of this discussion, I'll focus on the U.S.) in favor of allegiance to the FTO. ISIS and Al Qaeda are excellent examples of this, as is Lebanese Hizbollah; all three organizations are actively involved in activities inimical to the U.S. and her interests, and members of those organizations which come from the U.S. will often willingly and actively seek to undermine the U.S. through attacks in ways that most domestic organizations do not; they want to bring the WHOLE of the U.S. down, whereas a domestic group like, say, the KKK, merely want to adjust certain aspects of the U.S. to fit their worldview while leaving the rest alone (i.e. favoring whites over every other race, etc).

Again, overall I don't really disagree with your point, and I'm not even certain it's really an issue despite the effort by some politicians post-9/11 to create a law which allows for revocation of U.S. citizenship if a citizen chooses to fight for an FTO, since I don't think it was ever actually signed into law by either Bush or Obama; I just wanted to highlight the distinction according to U.S. law as to how FTOs versus domestic terrorist organizations are viewed. It wouldn't be a consideration for the domestic groups at all, and has yet to be put into law for those who fight for FTOs. The one example I was able to find of it happening was for a Pakistani-American who lied on his citizenship application; he was convicted of participating in a 2003 terror plot, but his citizenship was revoked because of the lie, not because of the terrorism angle.
 
I'm with the majority here. I'm also a little surprised that Javid has the power to make this decision off his own bat.

Soering v UK involved a German national in the UK where extradition to the USA on capital charges was rejected without 'assurances' regarding the death penalty, as it violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He was eventually extradited, found guilty, but capital punishment did not ensue.

Does the fact that these two are 'stateless' get around the basic principle? Were they made stateless specifically in order to get around it?

The whole business stinks in a number of ways.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
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?
Click to expand...

My understanding, from a discussion of the situation on the radio earlier today, so it may be inaccurate, is that in previous cases the people involved were not necessarily British citizens, but it was Britain who either had custody of the individuals or had the evidence necessary for their conviction, and would only hand them or it over on condition that the death penalty would not be an option.
 
JoeMorgue said:
The death penalty is morally wrong for simple risk-reward ratios. It's a un-reversible punishment. You can let someone out of jail, you can wipe clean a record, you can refund a fine. We cannot yet undeaden someone. I'm comfortable with a legal system that can never be perfect occasionally (very occasionally, with constant strides to improve the accuracy rate) people in jail or fine them if they are not guilty a small percentage of the time, but not killing them.

That being said the idea that the death penalty is equivalent to murder is an odd one to me. It's not wrong per se but to me it is like saying throwing someone in jail is the same thing as illegal imprisonment or indeed that arresting someone is equivilent to kidnapping.

Doing things within the structure of a system is, in some cases not all, functionally different. There is a difference, however one wants to conceptualize and categorize it, between killing someone after a trial by jury within a system in which the potential results are known beforehand and methods for legal defense and such are in place and blowing someone's head off with a shotgun because they didn't empty the register fast enough. Whether or not both are "murder" is... a matter of personal semantic opinion.

It's still horrible and barbaric and shouldn't be done however.
Click to expand...

IMV it is not to do with the 'horribleness' of the crime in question. If the UK government want to wash their hands of ISIS terrorists, then the law should be changed properly via legislation to allow for an exception.

If these guy were, say, 'white, English' ancestry, you can see the lack of ethics in removing their nationality status. The worrying assumption seems to be 'oh these guys are of Asian descent' therefore 'not really British' (when they could have been in the UK for generations, or even changed their names to look 'Muslim'). It contravenes international law to make a person with a nationality stateless. So what is the UK up to? It is not American yet, so why hand over these persons to the US Attorney General? If they are British, the USA State Department can apply for extradition through the usual channels. There wouldn't be any problems there.

If it is thought the crimes are so heinous, 'people won't mind' if 'we bend the rules', then we are on shaky ground ethically wise. Either the UK has the death penalty or it does not. As Dianne Abbot put it today in parliament, 'We can't have a bit of the death penalty'.

It seems to me that the government is aware the UK has top class human rights defence lawyers and it gives the impression by its actions, it wants to obstruct the defendants from having top drawer representation.

I cannot see anything wrong with the death penalty per se. But it needs a fair trial to get there. And proper legislation.
 
Last edited:
Should they be executed - No IMO

If they are will I lose any sleep - No

Should they be made stateless - No. This is arguably the bigger issue IMO. That is one dodgy area to be messing around with and could be easily used as a tool on people nastily if used by a dodgy govt
 
Vixen said:
So what is the UK up to?
Click to expand...

Sorry for the brief reply to your detailed and thoughtful post, but I think the UK government is up to two things:

Sucking up to their right-wingers, and maybe non-Tory fans of capital punishment.

Sucking up to the USA.

(A possible third thing is Javid striking a 'tough' pose)
 
theprestige said:
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."
Click to expand...

Well said!
 
TragicMonkey said:
Well said!
Click to expand...

Really? So how come the British Home Secretary had to certify to the US Attorney General that it would not obstruct a death penalty (as it constitutionally would have to, were these guys British [and I understand they were all British born and educated])?

Fact is, in a recent case, a man in the UK wanted for murder in the USA managed to defer extradition to the US for seventeen years on the grounds the US could not give the UK a guarantee he would not be executed if the courts sentenced him to the death penalty.

If the law has now changed, the Home Secretary should have done it by due process. As it is, the certificate of disclaimer he submitted was done by legerdemain . We only know about it because a mole leaked it.
 
GlennB said:
Sorry for the brief reply to your detailed and thoughtful post, but I think the UK government is up to two things:

Sucking up to their right-wingers, and maybe non-Tory fans of capital punishment.

Sucking up to the USA.

(A possible third thing is Javid striking a 'tough' pose)
Click to expand...

That would be kinda ironic as he is second generation Asian, himself. He would be undermining the position of his own community.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Well said!
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom