UK Politics Thread V: Upon This Blasted Heath

[The One True Benxboro Empire]

What can a Briton do to be called a traitor?
Because if you lot had the wisdom to call returning terrorists traitors I would support exterminating them.

Under the law of the United Kingdom, high treason is the crime of disloyalty to the Crown. Offences constituting high treason include plotting the murder of the sovereign; committing adultery with the sovereign's consort, with the sovereign's eldest unmarried daughter, or with the wife of the heir to the throne; levying war against the sovereign and adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid or comfort; and attempting to undermine the lawfully established line of succession. Several other crimes have historically been categorised as high treason, including counterfeiting money and being a Catholic priest.

So that stuff basically.

Oh, okay.
And aiding a bunch of islamonutbags in their caliphate hunt ought to be treason if it isn't already.

[Ostroeuropa]

Do you mean, a terrorist who has surrendered to our custody? Solution is simply, we do not take surrenders. I've said it before, they can have a ticket home if they neutralize the caliph, everyone else is fucked. We should make it clear that it's not something you can take back.

They have MASSIVE turnover rates. The ones coming home wont be a problem soon, its the ones going out there next week we have to dissuade.

no surrender is literally one of the worst things you can do, is super illegal and is something that not even the nazis or soviets officially adopted. this is how bad an idea it is. even the romans and mongols reserved it for specific battles. pretty sure sun tzu explicitly recommends against it. oh god i feel like i'm 14 all over again for bringing up sun tzu. but yes, it's a really bad idea.

In normal cases yes, but not with this kind of opponent because of the methodology they use and the turnover rates. It's not like we'll be provoking them into surviving very long, they'll be dead in a week or a month anyway. It isn't equivalent to them remaining a long-term threat that can be neutralized such as in those examples.

[Lamadia 2016]

A terrorist entering britain is an invader, ofcourse we should defend ourselves. It's absurd to think otherwise, the fuck am I reading here?

Do you mean, a terrorist who has surrendered to our custody? Solution is simply, we do not take surrenders. I've said it before, they can have a ticket home if they neutralize the caliph, everyone else is fucked. We should make it clear that it's not something you can take back.

They have MASSIVE turnover rates. The ones coming home wont be a problem soon, its the ones going out there next week we have to dissuade.

No surrender? Sounds legal.

As far as I'm aware, international law only applies to recognised states or organisations, of which ISIL is not?
Surely, then, in that case, it is not illegal to shoot an ISIL member once he or she has 'surrendered'? Or perhaps more accurately 'surrendered with the likely intention of radicalising more people in the UK and/or setting up homegrown cells'?

[Ostroeuropa]

No surrender? Sounds legal.

As far as I'm aware, international law only applies to recognised states or organisations, of which ISIL is not?
Surely, then, in that case, it is not illegal to shoot an ISIL member once he or she has 'surrendered'? Or perhaps more accurately 'surrendered with the likely intention of radicalising more people in the UK and/or setting up homegrown cells'?

Not to mention, spreading enemy propaganda while imprisoned which we are also legally not allowed to ban.

Ban the quran from prisons, or practicing islam in prisons, and it might make some sense to accept surrenders. Otherwise, it's a strategic error. Our prisons are already breeding grounds for radicalization and conversion, having some prat swan in to waffle about the glory of the fight and how he did his part or whatever while preaching his warped views to people who'll be out in a few months is not something we should be doing.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

No surrender? Sounds legal.

As far as I'm aware, international law only applies to recognised states or organisations, of which ISIL is not?

You are not aware very far.

[Ostroeuropa]

As far as I'm aware, international law only applies to recognised states or organisations, of which ISIL is not?

You are not aware very far.

The US has already set that de-facto precedent.
Or rather, it's been demonstrated that the UN as an organization has no teeth, and we can do what we like. International law died around a decade ago. Or, as i've argued, died the moment Obama wasn't impeached for harboring war criminals.

[Lamadia 2016]

As far as I'm aware, international law only applies to recognised states or organisations, of which ISIL is not?

You are not aware very far.

Here we go.
But no- there is a general consensus that ISIL does not clarify for international law, and therefore we can refuse to accept surrender. And regardless, who is going to stop us? The U.S agrees. Russia agrees. No doubt most countries in the EU agree.

[Souseiseki]

You are not aware very far.

The US has already set that de-facto precedent.
Or rather, it's been demonstrated that the UN as an organization has no teeth, and we can do what we like. International law died around a decade ago. Or, as i've argued, died the moment Obama wasn't impeached for harboring war criminals.

oh yes you're right fuck iraq or ukraine it's that fucking obama that done it in

[Salandriagado]

As far as I'm aware, international law only applies to recognised states or organisations, of which ISIL is not?
Surely, then, in that case, it is not illegal to shoot an ISIL member once he or she has 'surrendered'? Or perhaps more accurately 'surrendered with the likely intention of radicalising more people in the UK and/or setting up homegrown cells'?

Not to mention, spreading enemy propaganda while imprisoned which we are also legally not allowed to ban.

Ban the quran from prisons, or practicing islam in prisons, and it might make some sense to accept surrenders. Otherwise, it's a strategic error. Our prisons are already breeding grounds for radicalization and conversion, having some prat swan in to waffle about the glory of the fight and how he did his part or whatever while preaching his warped views to people who'll be out in a few months is not something we should be doing.

The bold is just not true.


Ah, I see, you're doing your usual trick of conflating all Islam with ISIS and hoping that nobody notices your disingenuous shit.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

As far as I'm aware, international law only applies to recognised states or organisations, of which ISIL is not?
Surely, then, in that case, it is not illegal to shoot an ISIL member once he or she has 'surrendered'? Or perhaps more accurately 'surrendered with the likely intention of radicalising more people in the UK and/or setting up homegrown cells'?

Not to mention, spreading enemy propaganda while imprisoned which we are also legally not allowed to ban.

Ban the quran from prisons, or practicing islam in prisons, and it might make some sense to accept surrenders. Otherwise, it's a strategic error. Our prisons are already breeding grounds for radicalization and conversion, having some prat swan in to waffle about the glory of the fight and how he did his part or whatever while preaching his warped views to people who'll be out in a few months is not something we should be doing.

Basically you're not okay with any scenario that involves us not breaching some of our international treaties. It's either freedom of religion or the laws of war.

What fun.

[Ostroeuropa]

The US has already set that de-facto precedent.
Or rather, it's been demonstrated that the UN as an organization has no teeth, and we can do what we like. International law died around a decade ago. Or, as i've argued, died the moment Obama wasn't impeached for harboring war criminals.

oh yes you're right fuck iraq or ukraine it's that fucking obama that done it in

When he neglected to bring Bush up on charges, THAT was what killed international law. Not Bushes crimes, and you know it.

Not to mention, spreading enemy propaganda while imprisoned which we are also legally not allowed to ban.

Ban the quran from prisons, or practicing islam in prisons, and it might make some sense to accept surrenders. Otherwise, it's a strategic error. Our prisons are already breeding grounds for radicalization and conversion, having some prat swan in to waffle about the glory of the fight and how he did his part or whatever while preaching his warped views to people who'll be out in a few months is not something we should be doing.

The bold is just not true.


Ah, I see, you're doing your usual trick of conflating all Islam with ISIS and hoping that nobody notices your disingenuous shit.

Are you denying the Quran is used as an ISIS propoganda and recruiting tool?

[Salandriagado]

No surrender? Sounds legal.

As far as I'm aware, international law only applies to recognised states or organisations, of which ISIL is not?
Surely, then, in that case, it is not illegal to shoot an ISIL member once he or she has 'surrendered'? Or perhaps more accurately 'surrendered with the likely intention of radicalising more people in the UK and/or setting up homegrown cells'?

Nope. The Geneva convention binds the actions of its signatories. It binds their actions towards everybody, not just towards other signatories.

[Ostroeuropa]

Not to mention, spreading enemy propaganda while imprisoned which we are also legally not allowed to ban.

Ban the quran from prisons, or practicing islam in prisons, and it might make some sense to accept surrenders. Otherwise, it's a strategic error. Our prisons are already breeding grounds for radicalization and conversion, having some prat swan in to waffle about the glory of the fight and how he did his part or whatever while preaching his warped views to people who'll be out in a few months is not something we should be doing.

Basically you're not okay with any scenario that involves us not breaching some of our international treaties. It's either freedom of religion or the laws of war.

What fun.

We've tied our hands too much and cannot adapt to this new enemy, so yes.

[Salandriagado]

oh yes you're right fuck iraq or ukraine it's that fucking obama that done it in

When he neglected to bring Bush up on charges, THAT was what killed international law. Not Bushes crimes, and you know it.

The bold is just not true.


Ah, I see, you're doing your usual trick of conflating all Islam with ISIS and hoping that nobody notices your disingenuous shit.

Are you denying the Quran is used as an ISIS propoganda and recruiting tool?

No, I'm denying that such is the only way to use it, which is the only way that your bullshit claims would make any sense at all.

[Lamadia 2016]

As far as I'm aware, international law only applies to recognised states or organisations, of which ISIL is not?
Surely, then, in that case, it is not illegal to shoot an ISIL member once he or she has 'surrendered'? Or perhaps more accurately 'surrendered with the likely intention of radicalising more people in the UK and/or setting up homegrown cells'?

Nope. The Geneva convention binds the actions of its signatories. It binds their actions towards everybody, not just towards other signatories.

I'm right.

[Ostroeuropa]

When he neglected to bring Bush up on charges, THAT was what killed international law. Not Bushes crimes, and you know it.



Are you denying the Quran is used as an ISIS propoganda and recruiting tool?

No, I'm denying that such is the only way to use it, which is the only way that your bullshit claims would make any sense at all.

No, my claims make sense. We'd be allowing a terrorist to use tools to recruit other terrorists from an already at-risk class of society and could do precisely nothing to stop them.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Nope. The Geneva convention binds the actions of its signatories. It binds their actions towards everybody, not just towards other signatories.

I'm right.

Two people have told you you're wrong, and rather than do a quick google to check, you continue to just insist that you're right? Really?

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm right.

Two people have told you you're wrong, and rather than do a quick google to check, you continue to just insist that you're right? Really?

She's using the position essentially used by the bush era government, which was never brought up on charges. So long as we're being legalistic about it, that would suggest the authorities saw anything wrong with what his interpretation and justification.

Alternately, we can do realpolitik and recognize the law means nothing, and they didnt charge him because might makes right on this issue.

The geneva conventions don't apply to "Unlawful combatants" was the republican line.

[Salandriagado]

Nope. The Geneva convention binds the actions of its signatories. It binds their actions towards everybody, not just towards other signatories.

I'm right.

No, you aren't. Article 3, common to all four Geneva Conventions:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

See also the entirety of Protocol II.

[Lamadia 2016]

I'm right.

Two people have told you you're wrong, and rather than do a quick google to check, you continue to just insist that you're right? Really?

And I am telling you that the point is correct; what, or who, is going to stop us from executing these people?
It is a widely held sentiment that ISIL does not clarify as an organisation, and that its fighters are not normal soldiers. Thus, they should not be held responsible in the light of the Geneva Convention, or other international agreements regarding surrender.

[Salandriagado]

No, I'm denying that such is the only way to use it, which is the only way that your bullshit claims would make any sense at all.

No, my claims make sense. We'd be allowing a terrorist to use tools to recruit other terrorists from an already at-risk class of society and could do precisely nothing to stop them.

Because clearly, there is absolutely no enforcement of anything in prisons, and putting them in the general prison population is the only possible alternative to immediate execution. Obviously.

[Ostroeuropa]

Two people have told you you're wrong, and rather than do a quick google to check, you continue to just insist that you're right? Really?

And I am telling you that the point is correct; what, or who, is going to stop us from executing these people?
It is a widely held sentiment that ISIL does not clarify as an organisation, and that its fighters are not normal soldiers. Thus, they should not be held responsible in the light of the Geneva Convention, or other international agreements regarding surrender.

This is what Bush argued, and people in charge of prosecuting violaters of the geneva convention accepted through inaction.

That the conventions don't apply to unlawful combatants, nowhere are they mentioned.

Only civilians and lawful combatants.

[Souseiseki]

Two people have told you you're wrong, and rather than do a quick google to check, you continue to just insist that you're right? Really?

And I am telling you that the point is correct; what, or who, is going to stop us from executing these people?
It is a widely held sentiment that ISIL does not clarify as an organisation, and that its fighters are not normal soldiers. Thus, they should not be held responsible in the light of the Geneva Convention, or other international agreements regarding surrender.

well the european convention o- oh...

[Salandriagado]

Two people have told you you're wrong, and rather than do a quick google to check, you continue to just insist that you're right? Really?

And I am telling you that the point is correct; what, or who, is going to stop us from executing these people?
It is a widely held sentiment that ISIL does not clarify as an organisation, and that its fighters are not normal soldiers. Thus, they should not be held responsible in the light of the Geneva Convention, or other international agreements regarding surrender.

There's a common article and an entire protocol specifically for dealing with conflicts that are not against foreign states.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Two people have told you you're wrong, and rather than do a quick google to check, you continue to just insist that you're right? Really?

And I am telling you that the point is correct; what, or who, is going to stop us from executing these people?
It is a widely held sentiment that ISIL does not clarify as an organisation, and that its fighters are not normal soldiers. Thus, they should not be held responsible in the light of the Geneva Convention, or other international agreements regarding surrender.

We'll get away with it=/=international law does not apply. Your original claim, that the law only applies to international conflicts, was wrong.