Now that Daesh is done for what do with them?

[Subtle Demise]

Apparently this is US law for "aiding terrorists" (as in materially doing so by providing material support, financial services or resources):
https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2...rged-with-if-you-get-caught-joining-isis.html

People that do so get a trial, and can be convicted for up to 15 years of prison.

Question: Where did that girls/womens trial take place?

Oh, yeah - there was none...

Did she forfit the rights of a formal proceeding as well?

Here is a metapher to make it extremely simple.

UK called wolf. Citizens applauded. Some poor shmuck was ostracized. (Or ostracized themselves, by "could have seen it coming, that we'd change the law on them".)

Dont forget, that you all are cheering for no one to get the chance of a fair trial at all.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Next step. Somehow get Trump affiliated with aiding a terror organization. Strip him of his citizenship. Looses presidency. No impeachment trials needed.

Hey, this trialless "danger, danger" you have to lose your citizenship by association game seems fun, once you get the hang of it...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Next step, put Venezuela on state sponsored terror list.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...ating-venezuela-as-state-sponsor-of-terrorism

Repeat with people aiding them.

Hey - that game is fun.

And you are a terrorist, and you are a terrorist, and you are a terrorist. (Spoken in an Oprah cadence.. )

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


And if you eat fruitloops you become fresh and fruity?

Did she commit terror? No.

Did she show around her IS membership card? No.

Whats her crime? And I mean something you can even potentially prove. Not just something that has manifasted in your mind, because a blond bomb on TV said IS five times, while showing her picture.

I mean what else do you want to hear?

In the US case, every article is full of "will be legally challenged."
In Germany the foreign minister basically said - "legally, you take them back" two days ago.
The UK managed to paint their women into a corner thats reserved for imminent threats.

You still go with your feelings of - yes I'd let her die in a camp though?

Read the freaking articles. Not just the headlines.

Hows that for arguing skills.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

But, but that blonde women on TV told me, she was joining IS! And how does she know? Was she there at the time?

Or do we now take passports from women with child in refugee camps based on all the concepts of. "He said, she said?"

Maybe their social media profiles?

Get a clue.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Oh I've forgot, in the british case the british security minister said so himself, before the PR stunt.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ndon-bethnal-green-syria-terror-a8778821.html

Need more?

I appreciate what you're trying to do, and I agree with you, but it's hopeless. The UK (and Europe in general) is more of a police state than even the USA, and everyone there likes it that way. As long as their government isn't targeting them, makes them feel safe and cozy with a camera on every street corner. Doesn't matter that in 10 years there will be a black market for butter knives in England.

As for what happens to people aiding terrorism in the US, under Bush Jr's Patriot Act and Obama's NDAA, you can be held indefinitely without due process on the mere suspicion of terrorism, so she wouldn't have fared much better here.

 

[notimp]

I'm just holding high some legal principals thats all.

The flipside of the story is, that you couldnt really prosecute her, because whatever she did, if she did something, is outside of UK legislation.

But to just take peoples citizenships away based on how "high profile" their story got in the media, to score some popularity points with your voters, is a little iffy.

Not a very sound legal practice.

I dont care if people are cheering for it, I dont care if its morally right or not (other things western interests did for the region werent either), I just dont want for this to become a new normal.

Do you know what her families legal options are at the moment? To file a complaint in front of a secret court.

Do you know how that makes me feel?

 

[FAST6191]

The flipside of the story is, that you couldnt really prosecute her, because whatever she did, if she did something, is outside of UK legislation.

I don't know the specifics here but there are plenty of places with laws governing their citizens regardless of where they are in the world. Usually they are paedophilia related, or national service/military service related, but I could see something like this (US phrasing but "giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy") being up there with those.

Anyway I think this ruling is a bit of a reach. While I would have been content for them to not lift a finger in retrieving her this seems like a step too far, even without her being made stateless as a result. I am not as bothered by the lack of a trial (a tacit admission, no attempt to offer any mitigation, no apparent repentance...) but would have preferred something, even a good proxy type setup.

 

[notimp]

Thank you. That was new to me.

Here is a wiki that has most of the applications (at least for some countries) listed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction

There arent many, but terrorism is amongst them. So I was wrong in that regard.

 

[notimp]

Interview with the defense lawyer in the US "stripped of citizenship" case:

 

[PrettyFly]

Interview with the defense lawyer in the US "stripped of citizenship" case:

I agree that Britain needs to have the balls to effect the decisions it makes.

But we are hog tied by brexit and maintaining international reputation after it.

Ideally she would be accepted and disappear into psychiatric containment

 

[notimp]

She is actually the US copycat case.. Also, nothing against the british. (Not in principle. )

 

[kaputnik]

As for the Swedish citizens, I hope the government do what they always do in difficult political questions; appoint an investigation, remitting the question back and forth between all involved authorities in absurdity, producing running meters of documentation, but no final decision or conclusion. Meanwhile, the terrorists rot away in some hopeless prison far away from here :>

Edit: since we got full freedom of association here, it's not illegal to support or be a member of a terrorist organization. Once they're brought back, they'll be free and never see justice, since it'll be near impossible to prove and prosecute any specific crimes they committed back there.

In my opinion, it's best if they're left where they are, not only because they deserve whatever punishment they get there, but also the purely egotistical reason that I want as few of that kind of people as possible in my vicinity...

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

If you join some organization then you're well aware of the consequences and you're responsible if you get rejected/blocked from entering a country. Playing the victim card doesn't work too well anymore.

"Done" you say? Till they need it again.

 

[notimp]

Is it so hard to see, that the consequences were never "you are blocked from entering your country"? As in "unheard of". For a crime thats supposed to be "joining something". Whatever thats supposed to mean. (I dont think joining anything is a crime... Lets see.. what would be the most outrageous example? Joing Putins elite guard. Not a crime. Joining Saddams Elite slingshot batallion. Not a crime. Joining some warlords organization in Afghanistan. Not a crime. Joining a group of people taking airplane training lessons to do another 9/11. Not a crime. (Not if you arent actively becoming an accomplice.) Lets say you get to know what they are planning, and dont tell anyone. If thats all you are doing you would be treated as a "accessory after fact" with a max sentence of one year in prison (roughly). And thats law being enacted in your own country.

Most crimes you did in other countries, you arent even liable for in your own country. Ever. (Extradition programs are most often the closest thing.)

We have established, that "terrorism" is an exception. (Extraterritoritorial law), but thats for terrorism. As in committing the act. Or aiding to commit the act. Not for joining the organization.

And even if you did terrorism, and extraterritoral law goes into effect, you still will be sentenced in country - you dont loose citizenship.

The only way they possibly can delay you entry to your home country is "immanent danger" and they probably cant even strip your citicenship for that.

In the US case the responsible department did it by suddenly telling everyone, she was never a citizen legally - although she was.

In the UK case they did it by arguing that Shamima Begum was eligable for a citizenship in Bangladesh. So basically a case, where Britain claims "dual citizenship". And then revokes one.

None of that is "the consequences you face for joining - anything" - Its just a PR move that apparently is supposed to send a message - although it is unclear what message that would be.. (Dont become a dual citizen? Dont get effed over by the legal department acting probably illegally?)

Look at the French Foreign Legion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Foreign_Legion) which is basically an army for hire for anyone who wants to join. Even to fight against their own country. They offer citizenship to any soldier that gets injured in battle. But not before. So that would have been an extremely bad model, if as soon as people from conflict countries (as in in conflict with the french) joined, they would have lost their citizenship. They didn't.

But now because of one word (Terror) that all is supposed to change. In reality it isnt anyway. The cases we have seen are legal overreaches and specific legal feints to be able to very publically make those cases. But its never how thats normally supposed to work. Its just populistic politics. "Look at this one case where we act in accordande with public morals! (- but propably against the law). Isolated cases. Other than for effect, it means nothing.

 

[notimp]

This is how you do it legally. Curiously even shown in the example of Shamima Begums husband (the 'terrorist' she married).

The Dutch husband of Shamima Begum, the teenager who fled the UK to join Isis, has said he wants to return to the Netherlands with his wife and newborn son.

Speaking to the BBC, Yago Riedijk, 27, said he rejected Islamic State, who reportedly tortured him on suspicion of being a Dutch spy.

He admitted to fighting for Isis and may face a six-year jail sentence if he returns to the Netherlands.

src: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...husband-wants-to-take-teenager-to-netherlands

Look at this part closely: He admitted to fighting for Isis

She didn't, because she probably never did. She was a fighters wife for all we know. But she is the one loosing citizenship. Yeah, right.

 

[PrettyFly]

This is how you do it legally. Curiously even shown in the example of Shamima Begums husband (the 'terrorist' she married).

src: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...husband-wants-to-take-teenager-to-netherlands

Look at this part closely: He admitted to fighting for Isis

She didn't, because she probably never did. She was a fighters wife for all we know. But she is the one loosing citizenship. Yeah, right.

Oh snap, another one bites the dust.

Her latest baby and last tie to Britain just died.

 

[notimp]

*audible deep breath*

 

[PrettyFly]

*audible deep breath*

If there is a god she clearly is not on his good side...

 

[notimp]

Hitchens has answered this question once and for all a few years ago.


The good part of the argument starts at 3:20 minutes in.

 

[PrettyFly]

Hitchens has answered this question once and for all a few years ago.


The good part of the argument starts at 3:20 minutes in.

He was truly a great thinker of our time. His last book was some how funny and depressing at the same time.

But you seem to be thinking concretely about an abstract turn of phrase.

Maybe I should rephrase it then.

She is reaping what she sowed.

Or even

Karma bitch.

 

[notimp]

Karma doesnt exist.

Also you seem to be a believer of original sin and reincarnation, because there also was a newborn involved.

Now I'm toying...

He was a truly great thinker. Agreed.

 

[PrettyFly]

Karma doesnt exist.

Also you seem to be a believer of original sin and reincarnation, because there also was a newborn involved.

Now I'm toying...

He was a truly great thinker. Agreed.

Nah, Karma does exist, it's just purely psychosocial.

People who are mean to others begin to feel that others are mean to them.

Those who slight others begin to feel slighted.

That is Karma, You reap what you sow and what goes around comes around all in one.

At it's core it's just projection and the inevitable result of the way our peers critically appraise us.

For example the office worker who is a bitch to everyone and believes that she has to be because offices are all about bitching and politics. Can share an office with a productive worker who goes home to his kids and has no idea what she's on about.

 

[notimp]

People who are mean to others begin to feel that others are mean to them.

Those who slight others begin to feel slighted.

Not that directly, but over multiple actor relationships.

This visualization explains it adeptly:
https://ncase.me/trust/

(Its also the best visualization for a social concept I've found on the internet so far.)

Also direct reciprocity is broken. Nowadays ("Quick question to my twitter followers..") more than ever. Which is why:

"People who are helpful(/subservant) to others , begin to feel abused without getting anything in return" is more and more a thing as well.

Altruism has its boundaries...

(Which is why I sometimes engage in badmouthing and guilttripping others out of online communities - when the "hey quick question, could you make me a video" folks (hi > question > bye > nevertobeseen) are getting a bit extensive - numbers wise...

In smaller groups, where people tend to know each other by (nick) name, its different, and I tend to agree.

Karma (in your usage) is not a "direct feedback" for someones actions, like the Karma concept implies.

Karma (in todays youtuber parlance) is "smile a lot, then people will like you, then you get more stuff for free" - meaning this can be played.

Karma makes it sound so... Balanced... Without society having to work on it. )

 

[PrettyFly]

Not that directly, but over multiple actor relationships.

This visualization explains it adeptly:
https://ncase.me/trust/

(Its also the best visualization for a social concept I've found on the internet so far.)

Also direct reciprocity is broken. Nowadays ("Quick question to my twitter followers..") more than ever. Which is why:

"People who are helpful(/subservant) to others , begin to feel abused without getting anything in return" is more and more a thing as well.

Altruism has its boundaries...

(Which is why I sometimes engage in badmouthing and guilttripping others out of online communities - when the "hey quick question, could you make me a video" folks (hi > question > bye > nevertobeseen) are getting a bit extensive - numbers wise...

In smaller groups, where people tend to know each other by (nick) name, its different, and I tend to agree.

Karma (in your usage) is not a "direct feedback" for someones actions, like the Karma concept implies.

Karma (in todays youtuber parlance) is "smile a lot, then people will like you, then you get more stuff for free" - meaning this can be played.

Karma makes it sound so... Balanced... Without society having to work on it. )

Again this is rather concrete thinking, it's an abstract concept.

In this case a woman fled her reasonably free existence to support an foreign invasion into the Levant to oppress it's people. Causing death, sickness and the displacement of innocent people she never gave a thought to.

The outcome for her has been the sickness and death of all 3 of her children. Her displacement. She truly has felt the suffering of innocents as she has allegedly watched her three newborns die.

That m'lad is karma on a grand scale.

It's also true that people who smile are happier than those who do so less.

That m'boy is karma on a small scale.