RugbyRebels

If you cut through all of the emotional chaff all of the UK citizens who decided to chuck in their lot with IS remain UK citizens. Revoking that citizenship simply abrogates our national responsibility to deal with them. The same argument goes for all of the Brits held by the Americans. And the likelihood of the UK ever securing a sustainable conviction against any of them is so remote as to be virtually nil.

It is time to reach for our moral GPS and determine whether we want to recalibrate it. Do we want to leave these feckers to their fate at the hands of the Syrians? Do we want to allow them back to the UK where, in all probability, they will be back in their communities in a matter of months and posing a risk to our children? Or do we want to throw the moral compass away entirely and amend our laws to allow for their internment and, where the US has the evidence to convict, drop the routine objection to the potential to the capital penalty and extradite them?

Or perhaps we just publish their names, addresses and faces and let our benign and forgiving society clean the mess up?

And Shamima Begum?

Best advert for the niqab I've seen in a long while. Cover up ye flabby-gubbed fuck-ugly munter!!!!!

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:If you cut through all of the emotional chaff all of the UK citizens who decided to chuck in their lot with IS remain UK citizens. Revoking that citizenship simply abrogates our national responsibility to deal with them. The same argument goes for all of the Brits held by the Americans. And the likelihood of the UK ever securing a sustainable conviction against any of them is so remote as to be virtually nil.

It is time to reach for our moral GPS and determine whether we want to recalibrate it. Do we want to leave these feckers to their fate at the hands of the Syrians? Do we want to allow them back to the UK where, in all probability, they will be back in their communities in a matter of months and posing a risk to our children? Or do we want to throw the moral compass away entirely and amend our laws to allow for their internment and, where the US has the evidence to convict, drop the routine objection to the potential to the capital penalty and extradite them?

Or perhaps we just publish their names, addresses and faces and let our benign and forgiving society clean the mess up?

This is my opinion on it, we created the mess so we should deal with it, put simply.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:
Or perhaps we just publish their names, addresses and faces and let our benign and forgiving society clean the mess up?

I wouldn't quite go that far, though equally I'd have no interest in paying for creating new lives and/or protection. If they want protection I'd accept that duty only if they're incarcerated, so it's up to them what they want to confess to.

Stones of granite wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:Bangladesh have fucked her off. Looks like we're stuck with the cunt. Give her a council house in Kelty she'll soon leave again.

Too generous, I’d send her to High Valleyfield or Methil. Mind, she’d likely feel at home in Methil after a refugee camp in Syria.

Harsh.

I don’t quite get what allows us to say she is a danger to the public, we don’t want her, yet it’s fine for another country to have to take that responsibility.

Also wouldn’t it be worth trying to find out from her how she got to that stage? Perhaps preventing further cases?

I’m also curious how much harm you’d have to do alongside some of these far-right/white nationalist groups to face the same response.

I don’t quite get what allows us to say she is a danger to the public, we don’t want her, yet it’s fine for another country to have to take that responsibility.

Also wouldn’t it be worth trying to find out from her how she got to that stage? Perhaps preventing further cases?

I’m also curious how much harm you’d have to do alongside some of these far-right/white nationalist groups to face the same response.

Mikey Brown wrote:I don’t quite get what allows us to say she is a danger to the public, we don’t want her, yet it’s fine for another country to have to take that responsibility.

Also wouldn’t it be worth trying to find out from her how she got to that stage? Perhaps preventing further cases?

I’m also curious how much harm you’d have to do alongside some of these far-right/white nationalist groups to face the same response.

I don't think that there is any evidence that she is likely to be a direct danger to the public, however, there is obviously a concern that she may help to radicalise others, and it possibly couldn't be ruled out that she could act as an enabler to others either through assisting with funding or communications.

Despite this, I think we have a responsibility to let her back in and provide her with same level of care as any other British Citizen, but I think that I would draw the line at giving her any practical help in actually getting here.

I agree that an extensive debriefing should be performed, however, I'm not sure what the legal basis would be for detaining someone for that purpose.

The Daily, a podcast by the NY Times had an interesting story on this topic this morning. If you haven't discovered the Daily it's generally a decent listen, new episode each morning.

https://www.nytimes.com/column/the-daily

Stones of granite wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I don’t quite get what allows us to say she is a danger to the public, we don’t want her, yet it’s fine for another country to have to take that responsibility.

Also wouldn’t it be worth trying to find out from her how she got to that stage? Perhaps preventing further cases?

I’m also curious how much harm you’d have to do alongside some of these far-right/white nationalist groups to face the same response.

I don't think that there is any evidence that she is likely to be a direct danger to the public, however, there is obviously a concern that she may help to radicalise others, and it possibly couldn't be ruled out that she could act as an enabler to others either through assisting with funding or communications.

Despite this, I think we have a responsibility to let her back in and provide her with same level of care as any other British Citizen, but I think that I would draw the line at giving her any practical help in actually getting here.

I agree that an extensive debriefing should be performed, however, I'm not sure what the legal basis would be for detaining someone for that purpose.

I agree that we shouldn't spend a penny or risk anyones lives trying to get her back here; I do think there will be significant cost in what happens next, not least keeping her under active surveillance, as she will represent a risk both indirectly and directly imo. I'd also hope that she is prosecuted if she has committed an offence, and thoroughly questioned as to source of radicalisation. Her utter lack of remorse or regret I do find troubling.

How can we judge remorse or regret when she's surrounded by lunatics who'd kill her and her child for speaking ill of certain actions and groups?

It's a profoundly unsettling circumstance to have someone you'd not in any way want to assist, but it's a deeply troubling thing if people can be made stateless in a supposedly civilised world

Digby wrote:How can we judge remorse or regret when she's surrounded by lunatics who'd kill her and her child for speaking ill of certain actions and groups?

It's a profoundly unsettling circumstance to have someone you'd not in any way want to assist, but it's a deeply troubling thing if people can be made stateless in a supposedly civilised world

You should sit more on the fence.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:How can we judge remorse or regret when she's surrounded by lunatics who'd kill her and her child for speaking ill of certain actions and groups?

It's a profoundly unsettling circumstance to have someone you'd not in any way want to assist, but it's a deeply troubling thing if people can be made stateless in a supposedly civilised world

You should sit more on the fence.

I think she should be allowed back, partly we've allowed hundreds of others back and partly it's the law. I don't happen to like the law in this instance but that's immaterial

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:How can we judge remorse or regret when she's surrounded by lunatics who'd kill her and her child for speaking ill of certain actions and groups?

It's a profoundly unsettling circumstance to have someone you'd not in any way want to assist, but it's a deeply troubling thing if people can be made stateless in a supposedly civilised world

You should sit more on the fence.

I think she should be allowed back, partly we've allowed hundreds of others back and partly it's the law. I don't happen to like the law in this instance but that's immaterial

I agree, but I don’t want to spend money or risk lives to get her here. She’ll cost enough when or if she arrives.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: You should sit more on the fence.

I think she should be allowed back, partly we've allowed hundreds of others back and partly it's the law. I don't happen to like the law in this instance but that's immaterial

I agree, but I don’t want to spend money or risk lives to get her here. She’ll cost enough when or if she arrives.

See, I don't like this argument. She's not deep within enemy territory - she's in a refugee camp in allied territory, where they'd wrap her up in a bow if they thought we'd come take her away. There's no lives to risk, it's just the cost of transport and that's not massive compared to the fucktonne of other costs involved in our other Middle East interjections.

Plus, saying "She can find her own way back," feels a bit like hoping she dies in the refugee camp so we don't have to deal with her. Cause those are realistically the two most likely outcomes - we get her or she dies from being in a packed, underfunded, starved, and pestilent refugee camp.

There is a very slight chance of option 3, which is that she survives and continues living in the Middle East, completely unreconstructed and as a perfect poster child for terrorist recruiters about how the UK will abandon Muslim citizens to starve and die and how she shows that conflict between Islam and the West is inevitable.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
I think she should be allowed back, partly we've allowed hundreds of others back and partly it's the law. I don't happen to like the law in this instance but that's immaterial

I agree, but I don’t want to spend money or risk lives to get her here. She’ll cost enough when or if she arrives.

See, I don't like this argument. She's not deep within enemy territory - she's in a refugee camp in allied territory, where they'd wrap her up in a bow if they thought we'd come take her away. There's no lives to risk, it's just the cost of transport and that's not massive compared to the fucktonne of other costs involved in our other Middle East interjections.

Plus, saying "She can find her own way back," feels a bit like hoping she dies in the refugee camp so we don't have to deal with her. Cause those are realistically the two most likely outcomes - we get her or she dies from being in a packed, underfunded, starved, and pestilent refugee camp.

There is a very slight chance of option 3, which is that she survives and continues living in the Middle East, completely unreconstructed and as a perfect poster child for terrorist recruiters about how the UK will abandon Muslim citizens to starve and die and how she shows that conflict between Islam and the West is inevitable.

Puja

Its not an argument, its an opinion. I don't hope she dies either. I'm struggling to find sympathy for someone who actively joined a movement that hates 'us' and our values, and now its gone wrong wants to take advantage of them, and I just don't feel inclined to bail her out. Harsh I know. Out of interest- have the other ex Isis 'supporters' been repatriated by the govt?

Harsh but fair, she needs to get herself to a British embassy or port, and if she returns there shouldn't be any money spent on her protection beyond the sort of policing which covers all of us

Digby wrote:Harsh but fair, she needs to get herself to a British embassy or port, and if she returns there shouldn't be any money spent on her protection beyond the sort of policing which covers all of us

Trouble is that she will also require surveillance for years imo.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Harsh but fair, she needs to get herself to a British embassy or port, and if she returns there shouldn't be any money spent on her protection beyond the sort of policing which covers all of us

Trouble is that she will also require surveillance for years imo.

No idea what we spend in that area, though it'd be interesting to get an idea of what we do, if understandably not the specifics for the hundreds of others we've already allowed to return. My guess is in the main we in practice do very little as we just don't want to spend the money (rightly or wrongly) and any future surveillance in this case is being talked up well above what our norms would be. Indeed our response in this specific case seems far above what we often do and to be driven by the media profile of the case. And having said that I'm sure there are other instances of people being denied permission to return and we could use some clarity on how legal our actions are

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Harsh but fair, she needs to get herself to a British embassy or port, and if she returns there shouldn't be any money spent on her protection beyond the sort of policing which covers all of us

Trouble is that she will also require surveillance for years imo.

No idea what we spend in that area, though it'd be interesting to get an idea of what we do, if understandably not the specifics for the hundreds of others we've already allowed to return. My guess is in the main we in practice do very little as we just don't want to spend the money (rightly or wrongly) and any future surveillance in this case is being talked up well above what our norms would be. Indeed our response in this specific case seems far above what we often do and to be driven by the media profile of the case. And having said that I'm sure there are other instances of people being denied permission to return and we could use some clarity on how legal our actions are

I'd think we already spend a huge sum in surveillance.

We are fast becoming an insular, hateful country, and it's saddening to see our decline. I'm almost ashamed to be British these days.

Zhivago wrote:We are fast becoming an insular, hateful country, and it's saddening to see our decline. I'm almost ashamed to be British these days.

Tend to agree tbh, though imo Brexit has merely exposed something barely beneath the surface.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Trouble is that she will also require surveillance for years imo.

No idea what we spend in that area, though it'd be interesting to get an idea of what we do, if understandably not the specifics for the hundreds of others we've already allowed to return. My guess is in the main we in practice do very little as we just don't want to spend the money (rightly or wrongly) and any future surveillance in this case is being talked up well above what our norms would be. Indeed our response in this specific case seems far above what we often do and to be driven by the media profile of the case. And having said that I'm sure there are other instances of people being denied permission to return and we could use some clarity on how legal our actions are

I'd think we already spend a huge sum in surveillance.

A huge sum may not be the same as enough

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
No idea what we spend in that area, though it'd be interesting to get an idea of what we do, if understandably not the specifics for the hundreds of others we've already allowed to return. My guess is in the main we in practice do very little as we just don't want to spend the money (rightly or wrongly) and any future surveillance in this case is being talked up well above what our norms would be. Indeed our response in this specific case seems far above what we often do and to be driven by the media profile of the case. And having said that I'm sure there are other instances of people being denied permission to return and we could use some clarity on how legal our actions are

I'd think we already spend a huge sum in surveillance.

A huge sum may not be the same as enough

You were positing that 'we in practice do very little'; my perception is that we spend a fortune avoiding a lot more terrorist incidents.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: I'd think we already spend a huge sum in surveillance.

A huge sum may not be the same as enough

You were positing that 'we in practice do very little'; my perception is that we spend a fortune avoiding a lot more terrorist incidents.

Enron spent a fortune on compliance, a fortune sadly often equates to doing very little