UK Politics Thread XII: The Lockdown

[Ostroeuropa]

Given that she is a war criminal, I'm broadly fine with the death penalty. I don't support it for civilian activities.

If she was a war criminal, she should be tried in the international criminal court in the Hague. Have they made any attempt to charge her?

No, but I'm pretty sure they're not the only authority allowed to do that or to charge people with crimes against humanity.

The US has a supreme court case where some torturers (Who tortured people in south america) were held to be under "Universal jurisdiction" and "Hostis humani generis" (Enemies of all mankind), and thus it was irrelevant who they were or where they did the crime, any nation with them in their borders had a positive duty to prosecute them.

I'd argue that joining ISIS has made her hostis humani generis and universal jurisdiction applies to terrorists in the same way it does slavers, torturers, pirates, and war criminals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostis_hu ... f_the_term

[CoraSpia]

If she was a war criminal, she should be tried in the international criminal court in the Hague. Have they made any attempt to charge her?

No, but I'm pretty sure they're not the only authority allowed to do that or to charge people with crimes against humanity.

The US has a supreme court case where some torturers (Who tortured people in south america) were held to be under "Universal jurisdiction" and "Hostis humani generis" (Enemies of all mankind), and thus it was irrelevant who they were or where they did the crime, any nation with them in their borders had a positive duty to prosecute them.

I'd argue that joining ISIS has made her hostis humani generis and universal jurisdiction applies to terrorists in the same way it does slavers, torturers, pirates, and war criminals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostis_hu ... 20attacked.

The prohibition of torture is a jus cogens norm of international law, and is also covered by several treaties; the same applies to fighting slavery. Some 15 year old girl running off to marry a terrorist is not.

[Gormwood]

Given that she is a war criminal, I'm broadly fine with the death penalty. I don't support it for civilian activities.

If she was a war criminal, she should be tried in the international criminal court in the Hague. Have they made any attempt to charge her?

I find it bemusing that her citizenship wouldn't have been stripped and she'd be in a better situation if she had stayed home and slashed a soldier's throat or bombed a concert instead of running off to likely be some jihadi's fucktoy.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Given that she is a war criminal, I'm broadly fine with the death penalty. I don't support it for civilian activities.

If she was a war criminal, she should be tried in the international criminal court in the Hague. Have they made any attempt to charge her?

The only have jurisdiction when national courts won't or can't prosecute.

[Greed and Death]

But she was a child when she went to join them. Children do stupid shit, Is there really a need to make her stateless for life because she was a stupid 15 year old.

I never joined a terrorist organisation when I was 15.

Most 15 year olds don't.

Many year olds do run away the difference was once she was there she wasn't getting back. You are punishing her for being a naive child who fell for the stories of an Islamic paradise.

[CoraSpia]

If she was a war criminal, she should be tried in the international criminal court in the Hague. Have they made any attempt to charge her?

The only have jurisdiction when national courts won't or can't prosecute.

The UK appears not to want to prosecute.

[Ostroeuropa]

No, but I'm pretty sure they're not the only authority allowed to do that or to charge people with crimes against humanity.

The US has a supreme court case where some torturers (Who tortured people in south america) were held to be under "Universal jurisdiction" and "Hostis humani generis" (Enemies of all mankind), and thus it was irrelevant who they were or where they did the crime, any nation with them in their borders had a positive duty to prosecute them.

I'd argue that joining ISIS has made her hostis humani generis and universal jurisdiction applies to terrorists in the same way it does slavers, torturers, pirates, and war criminals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostis_hu ... 20attacked.

The prohibition of torture is a jus cogens norm of international law, and is also covered by several treaties; the same applies to fighting slavery. Some 15 year old girl running off to marry a terrorist is not.

This ignores her actions in the war. She was a member of the morality police, killed people, and stitched people into suicide vests. Plenty of her actions violated norms of international war, especially those covering lawful combat.

[CoraSpia]

If she was a war criminal, she should be tried in the international criminal court in the Hague. Have they made any attempt to charge her?

I find it bemusing that her citizenship wouldn't have stripped and she'd be in a better situation if she had stayed home and slashed a soldier's throat or bombed a concert instead of running off to likely be some jihadi's fucktoy.

Britain is prone to high levels of irrational hysteria. She went to Syria to marry a jihadi, therefore she must be evil and 'probably did something.'

[Dumb Ideologies]

The only have jurisdiction when national courts won't or can't prosecute.

The UK appears not to want to prosecute.

We've been reluctant because we've tied our hands behind our back and ruled out the only punishment that would be satisfactory. But if she has to come back by law then we will presumably want to make her answer a case.

[Greed and Death]

If she was a war criminal, she should be tried in the international criminal court in the Hague. Have they made any attempt to charge her?

No, but I'm pretty sure they're not the only authority allowed to do that or to charge people with crimes against humanity.

The US has a supreme court case where some torturers (Who tortured people in south america) were held to be under "Universal jurisdiction" and "Hostis humani generis" (Enemies of all mankind), and thus it was irrelevant who they were or where they did the crime, any nation with them in their borders had a positive duty to prosecute them.

I'd argue that joining ISIS has made her hostis humani generis and universal jurisdiction applies to terrorists in the same way it does slavers, torturers, pirates, and war criminals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostis_hu ... f_the_term

What you are referring to in US law is The Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. § 1350) it is a civil case not a criminal one. Ie a victim of violation of the law of nations may bring a lawsuit in the US against their violator. That is now very limited given people tried to sue a religious minister for going to Uganda and meeting with the President there.

[Ostroeuropa]

I find it bemusing that her citizenship wouldn't have stripped and she'd be in a better situation if she had stayed home and slashed a soldier's throat or bombed a concert instead of running off to likely be some jihadi's fucktoy.

Britain is prone to high levels of irrational hysteria. She went to Syria to marry a jihadi, therefore she must be evil and 'probably did something.'

There's sources that she was a member of the womens morality police, killed soldiers, and stitched jihadists into their suicide vests. The womens morality police were a particularly brutal occupation unit. You may as well try claiming "it's paranoid to assume someone in the SS did anything wrong.".

She was one of the *worse* types of people to flee overseas for this, and that's saying something.

That's before you get into the interviews with her and academics describing her as a bona fide psychopath.

[CoraSpia]

The prohibition of torture is a jus cogens norm of international law, and is also covered by several treaties; the same applies to fighting slavery. Some 15 year old girl running off to marry a terrorist is not.

This ignores her actions in the war. She was a member of the morality police, killed people, and stitched people into suicide vests. Plenty of her actions violated norms of international war, especially those covering lawful combat.

And if that's true it'll come out in the wash. However, successful prosecutions against non-state actors for war crimes are incredibly rare, and I don't think I've seen one in which an element of coercion was present. The prosecution of terrorists under international war crimes legislation isn't even universally accepted international law.

[Ostroeuropa]

This ignores her actions in the war. She was a member of the morality police, killed people, and stitched people into suicide vests. Plenty of her actions violated norms of international war, especially those covering lawful combat.

And if that's true it'll come out in the wash. However, successful prosecutions against non-state actors for war crimes are incredibly rare, and I don't think I've seen one in which an element of coercion was present. The prosecution of terrorists under international war crimes legislation isn't even universally accepted international law.

Has there ever been a successful prosecution for this type of shit for a country that wasn't occupied at the time? The assumption that the case will find the truth seems optimistic given our distance to the evidence and our ability to collect it. This kind of consideration was precisely why they were banned from returning, because it was beyond the means of the government to scrutinize their actions as individuals due to the impossibility of that given that we haven't militarily occupied Syria for access.

I suppose we could go all Austro-Hungary on them and demand they give our police jurisdiction and surrender their sovereignty for this purpose, but that might be a little rash compared to just banning her from re-entry.

[Greed and Death]

Britain is prone to high levels of irrational hysteria. She went to Syria to marry a jihadi, therefore she must be evil and 'probably did something.'

There's sources that she was a member of the womens morality police, killed soldiers, and stitched jihadists into their suicide vests. The womens morality police were a particularly brutal occupation unit. You may as well try claiming "it's paranoid to assume someone in the SS did anything wrong.".

She was one of the *worse* types of people to flee overseas for this, and that's saying something.

That's before you get into the interviews with her and academics describing her as a bona fide psychopath.

Then prove that in the court of law.

[CoraSpia]

And if that's true it'll come out in the wash. However, successful prosecutions against non-state actors for war crimes are incredibly rare, and I don't think I've seen one in which an element of coercion was present. The prosecution of terrorists under international war crimes legislation isn't even universally accepted international law.

Has there ever been a successful prosecution for this type of shit for a country that wasn't occupied at the time? The assumption that the case will find the truth seems optimistic given our distance to the evidence and our ability to collect it. This kind of consideration was precisely why they were banned from returning, because it was beyond the means of the government to scrutinize their actions as individuals due to the impossibility of that given that we haven't militarily occupied Syria for access.

I suppose we could go all Austro-Hungary on them and demand they give our police jurisdiction and surrender their sovereignty for this purpose, but that might be a little rash compared to just banning her from re-entry.

Or we could allow her to enter, and give her rehabilitation and supervision if we can't find anything to charge her with, like other countries have done.

[Ostroeuropa]

Has there ever been a successful prosecution for this type of shit for a country that wasn't occupied at the time? The assumption that the case will find the truth seems optimistic given our distance to the evidence and our ability to collect it. This kind of consideration was precisely why they were banned from returning, because it was beyond the means of the government to scrutinize their actions as individuals due to the impossibility of that given that we haven't militarily occupied Syria for access.

I suppose we could go all Austro-Hungary on them and demand they give our police jurisdiction and surrender their sovereignty for this purpose, but that might be a little rash compared to just banning her from re-entry.

Or we could allow her to enter, and give her rehabilitation and supervision if we can't find anything to charge her with, like other countries have done.

Why should we?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Rehabilitation lol.

The community will never want her in it because her crimes cannot ever be appropriately punished by years in a cushy jail with access to educational opportunities and ways to build herself a fulfilling life with a new identity.

Black caps are an essential fashion accessory for the modern judge and we should introduce them back to the wardrobe.

[CoraSpia]

Or we could allow her to enter, and give her rehabilitation and supervision if we can't find anything to charge her with, like other countries have done.

Why should we?

Because she's a british citizen (or should still be), and the CPS can't make a charge stick. If they can make a charge stick then by all means charge her with it.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why should we?

Because she's a british citizen (or should still be), and the CPS can't make a charge stick. If they can make a charge stick then by all means charge her with it.

Or we could just refuse to do that, and refuse to allow her entry to the country and so on.

[Greed and Death]

Or we could allow her to enter, and give her rehabilitation and supervision if we can't find anything to charge her with, like other countries have done.

Why should we?

Because at the end of the day you are sentencing her to death by denying her citizenship/entrance. Whether she goes to Bangladesh or Syria she will be executed after a show trial.

And if you are going to sentence her to death at least man up like the Americans and do it yourself.

[CoraSpia]

Rehabilitation lol.

The community will never want her in it because her crimes cannot ever be appropriately punished by years in a cushy jail with access to educational opportunities and ways to build herself a fulfilling life with a new identity.

Black caps are an essential fashion accessory for the modern judge and we should introduce them back to the wardrobe.

Then 'the community' can deal with it. It is never acceptable to strip someone of citizenship and leave them to rot because you can't find something to charge them with, nor should we go back to the days of state-sanctioned murder.

[CoraSpia]

Because she's a british citizen (or should still be), and the CPS can't make a charge stick. If they can make a charge stick then by all means charge her with it.

Or we could just refuse to do that, and refuse to allow her entry to the country and so on.

Our government is already responsible for the death of her baby. If she is tried in Syria or Bangladesh, we cannot be assured that she will receive a fair trial and she'll likely be executed.

[Ifreann]

Rehabilitation lol.

The community will never want her in it because her crimes cannot ever be appropriately punished by years in a cushy jail with access to educational opportunities and ways to build herself a fulfilling life with a new identity.

Black caps are an essential fashion accessory for the modern judge and we should introduce them back to the wardrobe.

Maybe just don't punish her crimes. Seems like a lot of trouble.

[Ostroeuropa]

Or we could just refuse to do that, and refuse to allow her entry to the country and so on.

Our government is already responsible for the death of her baby. If she is tried in Syria or Bangladesh, we cannot be assured that she will receive a fair trial and she'll likely be executed.

She is responsible for the death of her baby. She decided to go join a war crimes unit in a warzone.

We should be sure to impress upon Bangladesh and Syria our concerns about their systemic issues with their court systems, and we can do that without any particular concern for an individual case.

[CoraSpia]

Our government is already responsible for the death of her baby. If she is tried in Syria or Bangladesh, we cannot be assured that she will receive a fair trial and she'll likely be executed.

She is responsible for the death of her baby. She decided to go join a war crimes unit in a warzone.

We should be sure to impress upon Bangladesh and Syria our concerns about their systemic issues with their court systems, and we can do that without any particular concern for an individual case.

Because that'll guarantee her a fair trial I'm sure.

Besides, this has literally nothing to do with Bangladesh. Why should Bangladesh even be involved?