He does, but on his terms... which make him unelectable.
At least he’s consistent though, you gotta give him that.
Shamima Begum, IS teen wants to come back to the UK
- Thread starter Tommy
- Start date
He does, but on his terms... which make him unelectable.
At least he’s consistent though, you gotta give him that.
Probably not. Wasn't isis after all.
Could hardly have said that. The law can’t do much and de- radicalisation programmes aren’t up to scratch.. In any case she’s far more likely to listen to her husband than to any de-rad attempts. If you want to give her a short, sharp shock this is the way to do it imo.
He obviously meant the genocide ISIS carried out, and made public. Refusing it is like Turkey refusing to acknowledge the Armenian genocide or Iran and the neo-nazis calling hoax on the Holocaust.
So, she has now been stripped of her citizenship? While I have no sympathy with her, the idea of being stripped from citizenship is not a very good idea (despite that people like here deserve it). You don't want to open the Pandora box after all.
I think that the best scenario (if she managed to return) would be a 15 years or so sentence without the right of parole. 3-5 years sentences for ex members of ISIS is a joke.
I think that the best scenario (if she managed to return) would be a 15 years or so sentence without the right of parole. 3-5 years sentences for ex members of ISIS is a joke.
I accept that its not what you meant, but it really does look like youre talking about an agenda against her.
He would have been more honest, but I don't know if he would have come out better off. Everyone knows the laws on this are a joke. Nobody thinks that 5 year sentences are deterring the perpetrators or protecting the society from them. And prison is the very opposite of a de-radicalisation environment.
I've just read it back and yeah i can understand how it could come across like that tbf.
I wonder what is Syria's stance on this.
I agree, the current laws aren't sufficient and yet the government has had 5 years to bring in legislation to deal with terrorists returning from ISIS, they knew it was coming, there's no excuse really.
I just know she will come back and be out and about in 3 to 4 years, it's no deterrant at all.
Surprised there's no register like there is for paedophiles/rapists etc.
Stripping her of her citizenship is ridiculous not to mention illegal by the looks of it, she should be allowed to return and then prosecuted. I was listening to Sam Harris on Joe Rogan regarding the Liam Neeson situation and what he said rings true in part here. We live in a society that holds the position and consensus that literal murderers can be redeemed and rehabilitated and released back into society, should be free to find work and make a living and get on with their lives and we advocate for it aggressively including in debates on the Caf. At the same time, paradoxically swathes of people including bizarrely, many on the left who form angry internet mobs every time there's an issue to shout about hold views that people of far far lesser significance deserve to have their lives totally destroyed for far lesser transgressions.
Stripping her of her citizenship is simply saying 'we don't want this to be our problem' and the sad fact is, this is our problem and it's going to be our problem with all of the returning fighters and we should get to work on coming up with a process rather than discussing one isolated individual who could and should be prosecuted, and destroying an innocent babies future in the process.
Stripping her of her citizenship is simply saying 'we don't want this to be our problem' and the sad fact is, this is our problem and it's going to be our problem with all of the returning fighters and we should get to work on coming up with a process rather than discussing one isolated individual who could and should be prosecuted, and destroying an innocent babies future in the process.
Am I reading it wrong or are you saying what she's done isn't as bad as murder? I think it's at least as bad personally. Making a genocidal terrorist army more powerful is up there for me. Every member that went over there made it look stronger and more appealing to others.
The Manson killers were exactly that, killers. This girl went over there to marry a hard man and make babies.
She should definitely face charges for emotional and mental support of an extremist group though, as should anyone who emotionally supports extremist and hate groups.
Interestingly enough it's in many ways the exact opposite to what you're saying here. I perhaps forgot to mention earlier that the six year conviction for Begum's husband was solely based on him (and various other guys) being put to trial for being a member of a terrorist organisation. The law, or in this case the Dutch penal code, allows for a good amount punishment in such instance. Up to 30 years in prison if you're not the most basic low ranking member.
The amount of proof or evidence plays a massive part in determining the length of the sentence though, surely that's not to difficult to understand? In this case we're talking about a trial that was held in 2018 and had plenty of unique elements. This guy and plenty of others were still out there somewhere, probably in Syria but no one knew exactly where. As you can imagine, it was also kind of hard for the Dutch authorities to go out to a war zone and simply gather enough evidence.
With Begum's husband the evidence was one Syrian refugee who luckily testified to Dutch police that he thought the guy was assisting an Iraqi ISIS guy in some capacity, combined with a couple of pictures from Facebook of him, one where he was helding a gun. Together with Dutch family members explaining to the authorities how they suspected him to have travelled to Syria to join ISIS and a small amount of wiretapping by the intelligence services did the rest.
Another indicator of how difficult such cases are, is that formally you have to give notice to people that they are charged and being put on trial. How do you do this when you don't even know where the suspects are, let alone having them in custody in your own country while being able to question them? In this case the authorities used Facebook and Instagram to put the notice out there. Another unusual thing was that a couple of other guys who were convicted turned out to be dead already before the trial had taken place.
Then there's the fact that this conviction had nothing to do with things like slave trading, murder, rape, arms trading and God knows what. The guy can be charged and convicted for that in the Netherlands on seperate trials and easily get a life sentence for that on top of his current conviction. Again though, the most difficult part about this would be gaining enough evidence to make a strong case. And another problem is what jurisdiction those crimes would fall under. A case could be made for putting them to trial in the Netherlands, but the societal and therefore political climate isn't exactly open to that at the moment.
Being already convicted for being part of a terrorist organisation before someone is even in the country has plenty of advantages by the way. It's basically an insurance policy, as soon as he does somehow enter the country he'll be immediately placed in a special terrorist section of a prison, without having to wait before putting him to trial. The conviction also gives the police and intelligence services the extra authority to fully monitor pretty much every person he's been in contact with during his whole life, which could help with gaining evidence for the future.
A couple of weeks ago the news came out that Begum's husband is captured by the Kurds though. Something tells me he might not even make it until the summer.
Part of it is what @Jippy said. Another part is that obviously a good amount of proof or evidence and other elements are needed before meeting the requirements to fall under a militairy court. What we've had so far is four Dutch muslim guys who were once working in the Dutch army in some capacity. They later radicalised and went to Syria. With them they've been able to immediately put them on trial for treason in a type of militairy court when they returned back to the Netherlands.
Laws are also being changed to be able to charge those type of guys with genocide as well. All of which will get you to spend a life in prison if guilty, and the way we apply that life sentence is actually too strict according to the European Court of Human Rights, since there's 0% chance of a review for early release.
It’s all bluster and chest beating. Whilst I hope the decision stands it is very unlikely it will. No person can be without citizenship. So whilst it looks good at the moment and Javid is getting a few extra brownie points it will likely amount to nothing and she will be back. But at least he will be able to say he tried but his hands were tied. Personally I hope she is left there to rot.
It's despicable that we're trying to dump our problems on Bangladesh and playing politics with this woman and her child's life, no matter how odious her views may be.
Gotcha. Good to know that more might be coming this guy’s way. Hopefully more comes to light so he can have the same done to him.
That's silly to me about the requirement for a review for early release... of course, you can just give them the review and have no intention to approve it.
I stand corrected
I haven't once apologiesed for ISIS, I refuse to apologise for our (Western) actions of equal lethality in the middle east
It's a good opportunity to highlight Christian values of forgiveness and redemption.
Exactly. And of course the name of the court kind of gives it away. Though the more I've thought about it, from a human rights perspective it does make sense, even if it's only meant or used in a symbolic way like you say.
Fair enough, I'll take your word for it but, just to point out, this was getting huge publicity before he got involved. It just read as though you thought it was a race issue.
Not just "not as bad" but "far far less significant". Murder is a different area. Serial killers that didn't kill out of passion and are a threat to everyone, will be far harder to ever reintegrate. I'd be interested to know of any cases where that has happened.
Judge and jury then.
So. Destroying IS is not a good thing then.
She can (and their family lawyer will) challenge it in court. So not quite.
If you think that not murdering someone is as bad as murdering someone then I dunno what to tell you man. Getting brainwashed and supporting something you believe in when that something is ISIS; as horrific as it is, is treason at best as it's illegal to take up arms in a foreign country. Not sure if even being a jihadi bride counts as taking up arms, not a legal expert but I'd imagine there's also a difference between jihadi brides and people picking up guns and fighting.
Either way, not for one second saying that what she did doesn't deserve punishment and justice but even if I granted you that going to another country to support an organization that is despicable and horrific is as bad as physically being the one responsible for taking the life of another human, then we'd still be in the position where if you put them on the same level, they deserve the same treatment as murderers which is to be allowed back, and prosecuted. But for some reason people hold paradoxical views that murderers and rapists should be allowed to have a normal life once they've served their debt to society, but others of lesser transgressions deserve a far worse fate. Not to mention the actual victim here which is an innocent baby that's currently stateless because we've illegally revoked the mothers citizenship. Not sure why there would be any opposition to allowing the mother back, prosecuting her and making sure the baby gets the care it needs.
Destroying them in the manner we did is shameful. We've murdered countless civilians and destroyed the infrastructure to oust a group that was created as a result of our previous 'liberation' of Iraq
How exactly would you have gone about destroying ISIS?
How would you have done it?
It's ridiculous to suggest that Europe created ISIS. Iraq invasion was a war crime but stop underplaying religious fundamentalism as some sort of a retaliation to western atrocity.
It isn’t her views. It’s that she joined ISIS, a terrorist organisation, to help look after the fighters and to be a breeding machine to create more fighters with the aim of taking over the world and implementing a barbaric medieval Islamic state, slaughtering anyone that would not submit to their will.
That said, I do believe that her and her child should be processed through the British social and legal system if there is no opportunity for her to be tried for her crimes in Syria.
Not abandoning billions of dollars of military equipment in the desert?
Not abdicating your responsibilities in a country you just destroyed (or not destroying it in the first place)?
These things allowed ISIS to become a major player in the region.
Okay.. that still doesn't answer the question. And I want to hear from him...
Besides that, wasn't it the Iraqi Army that abandoned the equipment we gave them?
When you say we have murdered countless civilians,
are you talking about we being the UK.
You see this is important because the RAF has an extremely rigorous set of levels of criterion to go through before they are permitted to launch their lasar guided weapons and decisions to do so are taken only when they are sure there will be no civilians in danger.
More often than not the decision will be not to launch weapons because they cannot be sure.
If you really believe that they are responsible for civilian casualties then you must have evidence to back this up.
such generosity! I'll bet every single Iraqi who survived the hell the US Forces brought down on them would rather it was never brought over there to "gift" them in the first place.Isis is the result of Western intervention in Iraq
More arms and expertise for the forces fighting Isis, less total airial bombing. Well never know how many civilians we've killed in taking out ISIS
Obviously. They gifted it to ISIS as soon as they popped up over the horizon.
So a land war? And you think that would lead to fewer civilian casualties?